Some observations on interreligious dialogue

[Ahimsa]

From Raimon Panikkar:

Once upon a time there was an anguished lover who, over the course of many years, sent passionate love letters to his beloved in a far distant land. At long last she wrote back to say she had married the mailman!

Like her, the West has fallen in love with the messenger. It has become infatuated with a rational approach to reality. But reason, the reign of rationality, is only an intermediary. Religion in the West has sacrificed too much for it. It is time to realize that our task is to forget the letter and hold fast to the Lord.

The West has also insisted on the importance of history. We see missionaries trying to convince Hindus that Christianity is true because Jesus is an historical person, while Krishna is only a myth. But for a devout Hindu this way of thinking makes no sense at all. Napoleon was also an historical figure—but what of it? “Krishna is alive in my heart!” Different cultures have different understandings of time. In Sanskrit the same word can mean yesterday or tomorrow!

 

[exoflare]

I’m having trouble extracting the main idea you want to get across.

 

[BrianH]

He is addressing our most basic presuppositions about how we ascertain religious truth. In the words of a liberal Episcopal bishop, the west is consumed with… did it happen, the east wonders …what does it mean?
BH

 

[deb1]

Shouldn’t missionaries adapt their approaches according to the surronding culture? If so, then it is perfectly acceptable to use a different methods of witnessing when speaking to Hindus then when talking with Westerners.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Ahimsa,

Every religion holds their own teaching as THE TRUTH. The problem is when one doesn’t realize it and proclaiming: Your religion is not the truth, because MY RELIGION says so.

Neverland

 

[deb1]

Neverland:

Dear Ahimsa,

Every religion holds their own teaching as THE TRUTH. The problem is when one doesn’t realize it and proclaiming: Your religion is not the truth, because MY RELIGION says so.

Neverland

I don’t think that is his point. I think that he is saying that we shouldn’t let our cultural bias dictate to us how we witness or how we present the gospel.

 

[Ahimsa]

exoflare:

I’m having trouble extracting the main idea you want to get across.

The appropriateness of not being limited to one particular form of evangelization.

 

[Guar_Fan]

I think the article is interesting, but I wonder how many of us will find it compelling? It is written with the idea of monastics in mind, specificially as they engage in the task of interreligious dialogue.

Monastics have an historic mission. Today their task, like that of all contemplatives, is to free the Christian faith from the bonds of Western culture. This task is not a new form of iconoclasm, but rather the continuation of what was begun at the Council of Jerusalem. We will only be able to go beyond Western culture if reason, which has so dominated it, is put in its place.

I am thinking that many of us who are not monastic might find the challenge of separating and experiencing our faith beyond the bounds of Western culture a bit overwhelming - if not confusing.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Empty Bell: Interview with Raimon Panikkar

How is it possible to combine a heritage that is both Christian and Hindu?

     Panikkar: I was brought up          in the Catholic religion by my Spanish mother, but I never stopped trying          to be united with the tolerant and generous religion of my father and          of my Hindu ancestors. This does not make me a cultural or religious "half-caste,"          however. Christ was not half man and half God, but fully man and fully          God. In the same way, I consider myself 100 percent Hindu and Indian,          and 100 percent Catholic and Spanish. How is that possible? By living          religion as an experience rather than as an ideology.

     *How do you explain          the Western attraction to Asian religions and philosophies and the fear          that this produces in Western churches?*

     One might well turn          the question around and ask instead why the West exercises such an attraction          on the East. The answer to your question, however, is that contemporary          Christianity has given insufficient attention to many key elements of          human life, such as contemplation, silence and the [well-being of the body](http://www.emptybell.org/panikkar.html).

 

[Jerusha]

In the same way, I consider myself 100 percent Hindu and Indian, and 100 percent Catholic and Spanish. How is that possible? By living religion as an experience rather than as an ideology.

By applying the best of both systems of ethics to one’s daily life, rather than obsessing on fine points of abstract theology.

I think that he is saying that we shouldn’t let our cultural bias dictate to us how we witness or how we present the gospel.

Any people who work with people of another culture or religion must have a thorough knowlege of that culture. As Panikkar says, preferably having been raised in both cultures.

One must be able to see the positives of both, rather than imposing the entirety of Western beliefs on another individual before calling him a “true Christian”. There are clearly things that are wrong with Western culture. Primarily, from my cultural heritage, a lack of respect for Creation.

 

[Vintagecoils]

If you look at the Apostles and early church fathers you will see that they were able to take from those they were teaching the important elements that supported the teachings of Christ. Paul mentions this to the Galatons i think. St. Patrick was able to see the elements of the celts faith that were of God in order to bring them to the fullness of true faith in Christ. It was the same for the norse people and the Picts.

 But as a Christian you must know that which is in support of the faith from God and that which does not support God , but man and teach accordingly.  There are aspects of Buddism for example that would not support the christian belief system so those elements can not be retained for the sake of the wishes of the locals.

A perfect example is this, The book the Razors Edge was made into a movie in the late 1930’s or early 40’s. If you read it you see that our center character in search of the meaning of life ended up in the east/India. I think in a Hindu monestary. Well Hollywood attempts not to either offend or confuse its audiance did this amazing job of taking the Hindu teachings and covertly making them Christian. Catholic to be exact. This movie made me leave my church and go seeking this religion that rang so true to the teachings of Christ I felt were not being conveyed in my church. When I finally found the book years later I was shocked that it was Hinduism he had found and nothing like what was in the movie.
What this showed me later when I did find Catholism was that, like what Patrick found in the Celts that there are possibly elemnets of the fullness of the truth out there that can be used to teach others about Christ. They cannot all however be true to the same end.