Issuu

Opening Dams and Gates

Dialogue is a common quest for liberty, and as a consequence of progress in the liberty of each, a common effort to advance in the direction of Truth. (Daniel DUBARLE OP)

Being young students active in religious organisations, we are responsible for the future of Europe and the world. We face similar problems with other students of faith, many times from the opposite shores of one river. These oppositions and enmities are often caused due to a lack of knowledge, communication and dialogue. As believers, we are responsible for being witnesses of God in an increasingly secularised society. The topic of the fourteenth Mozaik is interreligious dialogue, from hostility to hospitality. This theme was also dealt with in the WSCF conference in Naersnes, Norway in October 2004: Young People as Agents of (Muslim–Christian) Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue. In the Middle Ages, the interreligious relationships of Christianity concentrated on Islam and Judaism, and the Ottoman Empire was understood in apocalyptic terms. After the European discovery of the Americas, in the Atlantic community there was extensive triangular trade, marked by the forced mission of the conquistadores. From the XIXth century onward, the modern missionary movement applied mainly the dominant ideology of social Darwinism, among others. At last, in our times, we are engaged in interreligious dialogue, informed with the fact of religious pluralism. In our ecumenical journal, we first talk through the word, posing such questions as: Is it one God we believe in? How much have Muslims, Jews and people of other faiths influenced what is nowadays called European culture? What are the prayer techniques used in our religions? How can we join our forces in various and manifold common projects? Then, we wonder upon the roses in the garden of God: What is the role of religion in peace-building? Do Sufi tradition and Christian mysticism have something in common? What is the real meaning of jihad, sharia, ijtihad, and how can we Christians believe in a Triune God? Finally, we address some thorny issues: Are human rights something we can build on? Is there religious freedom nowadays in the world? How shall we help to overcome Islamophobia and antiSemitism? What role do gender issues play in our religions? As always, we encourage our readers to write in with responses to the essays. Please send all comments, feedback, questions and further ideas to our email address (wscfmozaik@yahoo.co.uk). We are also looking for volunteer editors, illustrators and section editors, who could participate in making Mozaik more colourful, challenging and interesting. We share our vision in texts and in pictures. Our illustrator, Evanthia TSANTINI, was born in Hungary of Greek parents, and was raised both in Hungary and in Greece. She graduated from the Technological Educational Institute of Athens, in the Faculty of Graphic and Fine Arts. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree (BA) in conservation of works of art. She is married and currently works and lives in Barcelona, Catalonia (Spain), where she is studying fine arts in the university. Her illustrations are influenced by the experiences that her Greek Orthodox background has offered her, and are also enriched by the different socio-cultural experiences coming from her variety of living environments. They are visual metaphors not only in the religious but also in the social and cultural fields, expressing the essentiality of communication, understanding, and the meaningfulness of sharing experiences and memories in dialogue. With this issue I finish my service as the editor-in-chief of Mozaik, having edited seven issues. My newly elected successor is Peter SˇAJDA from Kosˇice, Slovakia. WSCF Europe wishes him a challenging and enriching time in putting together the next issues of our ecumenical journal. Ut omnes unum sint!

MOZAIK

Talking through the Word

2004/2

Martin C O N W A Y

One Christian’s View of Interreligious Dialogue My purpose in this article is to lay out the large field of interreligious dialogue as a whole and as I have come to understand it, in hopes that one can think the matter through freshly and carefully. It needs fresh thought in the light of at least two unhelpful idealisms that I often meet. The first is expressed by those who seem to think that good interreligious dialogue is going to be the answer to all our woes. The second arises in the fear that such dialogue will involve Christians (let alone others) abandoning our faith. Both are seriously misleading. So what do we need to say positively about it?

THE ESSENTIAL CONTEXT My main area of interest has been how Christian theologians have been understanding interreligious dialogue. I have had the good fortune to work closely with two men who have opened up very significant opportunities of interreligious dialogue—Stanley Samartha in the World Council of Churches (WCC), and Kenneth Cracknell in the British Council of Churches. This article is no more than “one Christian’s” attempt to see straight. The context within which you and I now live and pray is that of the all-out challenge facing humanity in this new XXIst century: Can we learn to live so as to allow our descendants to have a life on this planet in the XXIInd? Any beginnings of an answer to that huge question must include responses to at least two slightly more specific ones: Can we overcome the threats of global warming? Can we learn to live together as a single human race in mutually health-giving relations with one another, solving our problems not by the violence on which we so often rely, but on patient negotiation and peace-seeking? Relationships, and therefore dialogue, between the major world faiths are obviously a key sector within all this, if by no means the only one.

SEVEN VITAL CLARIFICATIONS First, beware of the word “religion”. Wilfred Cantwell Smith wrote an epochmaking book to show that the nearer one comes to understanding what people mean by their “religion,” the less valuable or true it is to use that word. He suggests that we speak of “faith” when we point to the invisible heart of what any one person or group believes in, and of the “cumulative tradition” when we point to the buildings, ethical demands, social expectations, etc., any of the more visible things a “religion” may have given rise to. Second, there is a vital distinction between discussing religious things (Cantwell Smith allows the adjective) from inside, ie. as a (more or less) believer yourself, and from outside, as no more than an observer. Watch out in particular when any speaker shifts from one mode to the other! In this

article I am deliberately trying to maintain a view from inside the tradition to which I belong. Third, each of the major faiths (I am not trying to include every possible movement that might consider itself a “religion”) is distinctly and uniquely itself. None of them can at all truly and appropriately be generalised into some wider category (eg. “religion”). Fourth, religious disagreements are significant and serious. Never suppose that they do not matter. But this does not mean that they should be bypassed. Where you come across one, stop and consider it carefully, above all by listening to what your neighbour who follows a different faith than your own is actually saying when she or he sets out her or his belief and the reasons for holding to it. Fifth, there is no neutral vantage point from which to evaluate them all. The matter of discovering an appropriate starting point for any evaluation of someone else’s faith is one of the most sensitive, and of course disputed, questions in the entire field. My own judgment is that one can only find that starting point in one’s own faith—but not so as to be in any way unfair or judgmental, not so as to lose the respect of your partners in the other faiths. This inevitably involves much humility and care over the early stages of any dialogue. Sixth, the major traditions are by no means only or primarily concerned with “religious things.” Of course their members will wish to speak of God, or of what they consider the “ultimate” or “transcendental,” as supremely important, but important for the whole of our living, for the way we treat our neighbours, the way we use our money, the kind of family life we pursue, etc.—by no means only for what we do at times of worship or on holy days. Seventh and last, each faith tradition is full of its own sorts of diversity, with a rich and often awkward history, as well as lots of divergent movements in its contemporary life. Any real “dialogue” has to become to some extent aware of these and make allowances for them, without rushing to judgment.

Moreover, as mentioned above, we will not expect only and always to be discussing “religious things”; we will want to talk about whatever is mattering to each of us, as believers yet also as ordinary people, at that particular time. This means in turn that there is an important distinction between the kind of “dialogue,” which a Muslim mother and her Christian neighbour are likely to have over the garden fence and that which bigger groups of people may wish to have when, for instance, a Muslim imam and a Christian minister each ask ten of their members to share in a “dialogue evening.” Still more, this explains why it is likely to be considerably more sensitive and delicate when “official leaders” of any two or more faiths meet to talk and try to come to some conclusions about their relationships and common obligations. In thinking of such people we can all start realising the possible “costs” of dialogue (by no means only in money), and who may have to pay them. In almost any dialogue the partners will become aware of vast differences of language, background, culture, etc., yet always also of a shared humanity which gives us common worries, concerns and joys. In thinking about the latter, our differences will often seem less important than what we share as human beings. A Christian will see this as one of the fruits of our being created not as separate species, but all, whatever our differences, in the image of God.

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND MUTUAL TRUST Therefore listen, listen, listen to everything you may have expected, and much more. It is crucial in the early stages to begin realising “how they see us.” All this will be undeniably challenging, yet often also strengthening one’s appreciation of one’s own faith (if not always of one’s inherited tradition), in any case enriching and healthy. Out of careful listening, on both and all sides, trust can slowly grow. Mutual trust is the all-important next stage, which is never easy, never to be taken for granted, yet a wonderful gift when it comes. One learns, for instance, never to speak of others as “non-”something else, but rather to point to what they positively believe in; and to be constantly aware of the “golden rule”: do as you would be done to, as a basic starting point. Only after reaching a real degree of mutual understanding and mutual trust can we hope to be able to speak sensitively together of the things that really matter to either of “us.”

PEOPLE MEET EACH OTHER Already more than twenty years ago, under the leadership of Kenneth Cracknell, the British Council of Churches set out four simple but deceptively profound “principles,” now available in In Good Faith. The first one of these is to note that it is people, persons, not “religions” or “faiths,” who meet each other. And, God be praised, we are all, as persons, entirely ordinary. Each one of us is, and can only be, her- or himself, unique and important to God, belonging to a community which matters to her or him. At the same time, we may find ourselves meeting in all sorts of different contexts and with a huge range of possible motives, misunderstandings, hopes, etc., which will need to be taken into account in our dialogue.

SHARING IN SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY Each partner will have her or his own particular emphases, cares and hopes, etc., but the purpose of coming to know one another lies not just in ourselves so much as in the wider community. Dialogue is fulfilled as we together show that understanding and trust are possible and can lead to health-giving new initiatives, bringing hope for wider circles of humanity. Exactly what is worth attempting by way of service will also vary enormously, not least in function of local needs, let alone of local political circumstances, and of course on just who is available. Each example of dialogue will have to come to its own decisions about what sort of service is worth attempting. But if dialogue does not result in some genuine reaching out, it may well wither.

MOZAIK

2004/2

THE MEDIUM OF AUTHENTIC WITNESS In dialogue, there is no question of expecting one another to abandon one’s own convictions or upbringing or sticking-points, etc. The whole point is to become aware of each other and what each brings by way of such things into the exchange. This too is very much a matter of mutual listening and of mutual enrichment. We meet, not to manipulate each other, but as fellow-pilgrims into the fullness of truth and purposes each has become aware of in her or his own faith. So the moment will almost certainly come, if never at a time of our own choosing, when one finds oneself having to respond to a question that touches on one’s deepest, most central convictions, and/or finds oneself needing to ask about the partner’s. This is possibly the most important moment of all, since upon the way we respond now will depend the entire edifice of understanding and trust we have begun to build up in-between us in dialogue. Christians will want, indeed need, to say that what happens then is up to the Holy Spirit, shown in the degree of love and care each of us can show to the other. Now of course the question of any sort of conversion from one faith to another is bound to be a particularly delicate one. Moreover it has its own range of tricky, not to say baffling, complexities—for instance in the way it can and does arise in the many different situations of marriage across the divides between major faiths. Yet it is not a question that can ever simply be dismissed—either way, on. There are at least two levels to this impossibility: Socially, no believer can expect to be able to witness adequately to a stranger. It is much more appropriate to find oneself struggling to explain something really crucial to a friend, with whom one has already established a real degree of mutual trust. So while some particular conversation, probably in ways one could not have expected, may prove to be important, possibly crucial, to the other’s faith pilgrimage, even to lead to a point of difficult and demanding decision, it is never only that one conversation that “converts.” Any such decision must always be known and seen as part of a long-term whole, within a life-long pilgrimage into ever fuller truth and love. And secondly, theologically: Christians see (know and expect, etc.) the guiding force in any vital conviction to be that of God the Holy Spirit, not something “belonging” to me or to my community. What any person or group of persons discovers to be their proper obedience to the “Ultimate,” lies within their responsibility. If any other “I” tries to press in on that responsibility, it can only harm the eventual outcome. It is in no way our duty as Christians to try to make others become “like ourselves”; rather to explore with others the truth and love of God that we Christians feel we have glimpsed in Jesus Christ, so that God the Holy Spirit can speak to both parties in the dialogue freshly, perhaps convertingly. There are many examples where a person coming newly into a profound faith can unwittingly re-kindle a tired faith in someone who has officially believed in it for years, yet without the freshness she or he now experiences thanks to the newcomer.

MOZAIK

2004/2

PILGRIMAGE INTO, OF AND FOR FRIENDSHIP None of our major traditions, in its origins, saw itself as “opposed” to another. Yes, of course, there were tensions, in several cases from very early on (Jews and Christians, Hindus and Buddhists). Still more, in almost all cases, our histories have bequeathed us many difficult, even disgraceful, episodes of hatred and destruction. Yet the crucially encouraging experiences have been those of friendship being discovered and growing, even in the midst of communal tension and strife. Are there not enough such experiences in the long history (Saint Francis of Assisi and Sultan Saladin, for example), not least in the XXth century, to encourage us to believe that friendship can be won and can win out, provided that on all sides and from all starting points we are ready to meet at a depth where we allow ourselves to be positively enriched by one another? A most notable exemplar in this way of pilgriage, now living not far from me in Oxford, is Bishop Kenneth Cragg. As witnessed in his still-growing list of books, his knowledge of Islam and of the other major world faiths is second to none. Still more, the respect in which he is held by Muslims in many places is a striking witness to his ability to reflect, in his speaking and writing, the best in a tradition other than the one he was brought up in.

Talking through the Word

His early books were already deeply promising. The long line since then, each dealing with a specific range of questions and historical material, is by now an unendingly fascinating library of spiritual and theological resource. Happy are the communities where people of two or more different faith traditions can both learn as much from one another, and carry that through into shared action, as Bishop Kenneth Cragg has done. So, may all our hesitant attempts to open up some dialogue grow into experiences of friendship that can bear fruit not only for those immediately involved, but also for the wider traditions to which we belong and to the surrounding communities which can benefit from the understanding and trust that develops. Suggested Reading Bouquet C., Comparative Religion. Harmondsworth, 1941. Cragg Kenneth, The Call of the Minaret. New York, 1956. Cragg Kenneth, Sandals at the Mosque — Christian Presence amid Islam. London, 1959. Cragg Kenneth, The Christ and the Faiths — Theology in Cross-Reference. London, 1986. Smith Wilfred Cantwell, The Meaning and End of Religion. London, 1962. Martin Conway is a lay member of the Church of England. He was a member of the Cambridge University SCM between 1954 and 1958. He became the British SCM’s international secretary from 1958 to 1961, then WSCF study and European secretary from 1961 to 1967. Since then he has served his own church, the WCC and the British Council of Churches (BCC), before becoming president of the Selly Oak Colleges, an interchurch, interreligious and international training centre in Birmingham, UK, from 1986–1997. He now lives in Oxford. His email address is: martinconway@abelian.net.

Mogens A M S T R U P Interreligious Dialogue,

Multiculturality and Multireligiousness What do we understand when we use the phrase “dialogue”? Dialogue has become a very modern and oftenused phrase. It seems like everybody is talking about dialogue. Politicians talk about the importance of dialogue, but also we as the people of the Church talk about it: ecumenical dialogue and interreligious dialogue.

Through mass media an attack on, for instance, the United States of America, is immediately brought into our living rooms and our consciences, and also brings reactions from around the world. And in the name of globalisation we react, and we are asked to react.

DIALOGUE IS ESSENTIAL LOOKING BEHIND THE TERM “DIALOGUE” The phrase is originally taken from Greek: dia-logos, literally meaning “through words.” The words simply mean “talking together.” Interchurch dialogue has existed for many years. But the XXth century has shown us that ecumenical dialogue is simply not enough. The XXth century has, more than any other, brought people of different faiths close to each other. Before the XXth century, interreligious dialogue or experience of other faiths and religions were brought to us by missionaries far away from our own world. But the world has changed and migration has started. Wars and conflicts around the world have brought people from places we barely knew existed close to our homes and often also to our hearts. As a consequence of the European colonisation of other countries and regions, immigrants come to the far richer West and North of the world—a scene unimaginable just a hundred years ago. The world of today is globalised. Most of the nations of Europe live together no longer as single monocultures, but as a kind of pluralistic culture. And the world also has become much smaller.

And here dialogue gets essential, not only in solving international crises, but also when I walk out of my room, my home, and suddenly meet my neighbour who turns out to be a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist or a person of no faith. Suddenly I have to understand the plurality of my own world and I also have to face it. All religions are influenced by these forces in different measures. We also, Christians of Europe, are facing this situation. The religious meeting no longer takes place “out there,” but has become globalised and happens everywhere. We, the Christians of Europe, are facing these new times and tasks for our own belief at a time when Christianity in Europe has become quite secularised. And with the multicultural also comes the multireligious. We as Christians have to face and handle this in a serious way. In Denmark there has been for the last 25–30 years an ongoing dialogue between Christians and people of other faiths. In the beginning this was primarily between Christians and people from new religious movements, having their source in Hinduism

MOZAIK

2004/2

Talking through the Word

Mogens A M S T R U P Interreligious Dialogue,

Talking through the Word

and Buddhism. Later on, it was mainly between Christians and people from the New Age movement. And in the last decade, it has also been between Christians and Muslims. I myself have been involved in this kind of interreligious dialogue for the last 12 years. It is very important that we do not see it as something going on from Christianity to Islam, for instance, but rather as a process going on between the peoples of Christianity and Islam, between Christians and Muslims, between our neighbours and us. From the time we accept dialogue as something personal, something that involves us personally and maybe even moves us, it will succeed. Let me try to explain it using a model first presented by the Norwegian psychologist David Kvebæk. The mind is conceived as two concentric circles: an inner circle, which belongs to my self, and an outer circle containing lots of small rooms. This is a picture of a mind. Let us call it the house of my mind. In the middle (the inner circle) I can have my own place. The centre of my house is my own room. Before I start talking to other people (it does not matter who), I have to know my own room, my base. In my mind there are many rooms. My mother, my father, my brother, friends, wife and so on, they all have a room in my mind. On the walls in the different rooms there are different pictures, how I, for instance, see my brother—common experiences, our shared world and so on. If I now engage myself in interreligious dialogue, I create a new room in the house of my mind, the room of the person I am in dialogue with. And before I enter into dialogue, I have to go into her or his room in my own mind and visit that. Then I will be ready to go into serious dialogue. First at the point when we both have created a room for the other and have confidence in it, the dialogue can begin. Let us dwell a little here. Think it over. Take two minutes when you think about when you have met a person of another faith. Was she or he your neighbour, a friend, a fellow student or a stranger? Thank you. I hope you have realized that multiculturality and multireligiousness is around us, even though we sometimes are a little afraid to face it.

INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE IS ALSO INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Interreligious dialogue often is intercultural dialogue as well, and the road can be very difficult going. Be sure the road is often very long to walk. It is a long journey. Now, let me try to draw a picture. Dialogue, and especially interreligious dialogue, exists in four steps: acquaintance, study and understanding, the Emmaus Road, and criticism. The first step is acquaintance: here we get acquainted, start visiting each other. This can be our first visit to a Hindu or Buddhist temple or shrine, or a mosque; or just meeting some other believers, some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Hare Krishna monks or “New Agers.”

MOZAIK

2004/2

The second step is the one of thorough and dedicated study and of deeper understanding. Here we start to know the scriptures of the other partner, or her or his liturgy, and we continue meeting each other. I have chosen to call the third step the Emmaus Road, even though I know that this might be a misleading expression. It is the step of near friendship. We are walking along the road together with our dialogue partner, and we accept each other and our differences. But we are also eager to tell about our own beliefs and listen to the other’s beliefs. I might participate in services given in her or his community of faith and vice versa, and afterwards we discuss our experiences. The Emmaus Road is the road of friendship, where we are searching for truth in our lives. The fourth step is the step of criticism. Now we are such close friends that we actually can criticise each other as friends do and should do. It is very important to understand that criticism belongs to step four; otherwise our dialogue will hardly succeed. It can be hard to wait to criticise people until we are as well acquainted as we should be. But often criticism has its roots in misunderstanding, because of a lack of knowledge. I am not saying that we must not criticise. What I am saying is that we have to know what we criticise before we dare to engage in it.

WHY DIALOGUE? Because dialogue is important for pluralistic coexistence. It is a necessity, nothing less than that. If we do not walk the path of dialogue and understanding, we will end up in all kinds of different situations of conflict. But for me as a Christian, dialogue is also of great importance in at least two other ways: in clarifying my own beliefs and in searching for truth. Before I am walking the path of dialogue, and continuously while I am walking, I have to ask myself questions about my own beliefs. And during all this process I have to formulate my beliefs in ways that a stranger, a non-Christian, could understand. I think I know what is meant by the Holy Trinity, that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, what is meant by resurrection. But how can I explain this? This process I am thrown into during dialogue is of great importance and makes me understand more of my own beliefs and can make me stronger. And in this process fellow believers are of a great help. Being involved in interreligious dialogue always raises new questions about my own beliefs. Here, 12 years after I started the journey of interreligious dialogue, I still need to meet with other Christians and talk with them about questions raised on my road. In this dialogue no question is stupid and I have to handle every question with great care and seriousness. The latest questions I have been asked were: “What does the body of resurrection look like?” and “What is covered by and what is going on in your eternity?”

MOZAIK

2004/2

Questions like this can be very hard to answer. Let us do a little exercise: I will give you five minutes to think over how we can understand the dogma of the Holy Trinity. How can three entities differ but still be the same? I think you realized that this can be a very hard exercise; now try to imagine that you have to explain it to a person who does not have a Christian background. The other reason why dialogue is of great importance to me is in searching for the truth. We might think we already know the truth. But the Indian theologian Thomas Thangaraj says it in another way: “Truth is nothing we know. Truth is a part of eschatology and we are living in the eschatology, but we do not know all of it.” For Thomas Thangaraj, who lives as a Christian in a Hindu society, interreligious dialogue is important and necessary. He is talking about dialogue as a process “not only of talking, but also of walking.” And I think he is right. The same view of dialogue as a process, a path to walk, was presented by one of the great personalities in interreligious dialogue, a kind of pioneer, the Norwegian theologian and missionary to China Karl Ludwig Reichelt. He practiced his interreligious dialogue at the beginning of the last century. A modern theologian who is walking the same path is another Norwegian, Notto Thelle, now a professor of systematic theology at the University of Oslo. We can only talk about serious dialogue if I have my own strong beliefs and the person I am talking to has hers or his. But I also have to understand the possibility of being influenced. The other partner can move me in a direction I was not going beforehand. If I accept this possibility, there is a great chance that dialogue will further itself.

Talking through the Word

Visiting a local mosque I have walked into strange fields, foreign lands, and I know it; therefore I have to accept it. In the same way if a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist or somebody else walks into a church or wants to participate in a meeting in the church, she or he knows the conditions and will not be surprised to hear a Christian prayer or liturgy. Globalisation and migration has given us a new pluralistic world order, where the different monocultures, for instance of Great Britain, Scandinavia or Germany, are becoming more multicultural. With the multicultural comes the multireligious. The new situation forces us as Christians, as the Church, to rethink our Christianity so that we can answer the questions we are asked by our neighbours. Interreligious dialogue is a necessity, and it is a personal dialogue going on between me and the other person. The road of dialogue is not always easy to walk and it often takes quite a long time.

Suggested Reading Küng Hans, Projekt Weltethos. Kvebæk David, Sjaelens Hus. Pandit Moti Lal Thangaraj Thomas Thelle Notto, Hvem kan stoppe vinden? Mogens Amstrup (1969) was born in Germany. He studied (Lutheran) Theology at the University of Århus, Denmark. He worked for the Danish Missionary Society and Dan Church Aid; he also worked and studied in Japan. He was the chairperson of IKON–Århus (1992–2003). Currently he is a parish pastor among Sami people and Swedes in Sweden. His email address is mogensamstrup@hotmail.com. This article is a revised version of a lecture given at the WSCF European Regional Assembly (ERA) held in Nürnberg in 2001.

IS DIALOGUE MISSION? I think even with the view of dialogue as a process, a path to walk, there will be the aspect of mission from both sides. We would not take our own belief seriously if we were not eager to tell other people about it. The question arises: Can we pray and worship together, then? This question can also be asked in another way: “How far do I have to go on my journey in the name of tolerance, in the name of interreligious dialogue, and in the name of moving and being moved myself? Before I go on giving you my points of view, I would like you to think it over for some time. Worship has its specific liturgy. And for us a part of this liturgy and worship would be the Apostolic faith, or the confession of Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human. I look at this in the following way. It would be disrespectful of me to force another person into a belief that that person does not have. I would not like to be forced, for instance, to confess Allah as God and Muhammed as God’s Prophet, nor to see Jesus Christ only as a human prophet, but not as God. This is not a way to take other people seriously. But what can we do together then? At interreligious gatherings, which I am involved in, we have found a way that has proved to be very convenient for all of us: we are silent together. This silence can be filled with what everybody likes to do on her or his own. But when I participate in a meeting in the local mosque, I have to accept the Muslim prayer, and I can say my own prayer inside myself.

Békés Gellért Ecumenical Insitute (Pannonhalma, Hungary) Established in 2001 by Archabbot V ÁRSZEGI Asztrik OSB, this Benedictine Institute is a place to pray and work for the visible unity of the Church by means of publications, conferences, lectures and workshops. Our young theologians are involved in the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue internationally and in Hungary. If you wish to know more about us, contact NAGYPÁL Szabolcs, BAKOS Gergely OSB and OROVA Csaba: bgoi@chello.hu

Talking through the Word

MOZAIK

2004/2

N A G Y P Á L Szabolcs

Conversion and Salvation in Interreligious Dialogue There can be many points of contact among people of faith: from the one Creator, through the aspiration to Transcendence, spiritual resources, up until the practices of fasting, almsgiving, worship and prayer, meditation and pilgrimage. The most controversial issues, though, are questions of Truth, theological basis, mission, and conversion and salvation.

GOD’S UNIVERSAL PLAN OF SALVATION God permanently wants and aims to challenge and change our attitude (in constant conversion) towards other people and other faith communities as well. Let us first see some concrete examples from the Bible. Psalms 24 affirms: “The world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the Earth and all who live on it are God’s.” Amos (9,7) is a clear articulation of God’s universal plan of salvation: “People of Israel, I think as much of the people of Sudan as I do of you. I brought the Philistines from Crete and the Syrians from Kir, just as I brought you from Egypt.” Isaiah (19,19-21) speaks about the Egyptians as also subjects of God’s self-revelation: “The Lord will reveal Godself to the Egyptian people and they will acknowledge and worship God and bring sacrifices and offerings.” In the following verses (23-25), the empires of Egypt and Assyria are at the same level as Israel: “Israel will rank with Egypt and Assyria, and these three nations will be a blessing to all the world.” In another place in his book (45,1), the prophet Isaiah refers to King Cyrus of the global empire of Assyria as the Messiah: “The Lord has chosen Cyrus to be King! God has appointed him to conquer nations.” A peculiarity of the prophet Jonah is that throughout the whole book of his story, God deals with the people of the city of Nineveh with a profound compassion and empathy, since they are also people of God. The prophet Malachi (1,9-10) summarises: “People from one end of the world to the other honour me. Everywhere they burn incense to me and offer acceptable sacrifices. All of them honour me.” This is another, less emphasized tradition in Biblical thinking. In this God cares for all communities of faith, reveals Godself to them, accepts their offerings and sacrifices, appoints them to be blessings to the entire world, and deals with them with profound compassion. Therefore we, too, are called to radically change our attitudes towards our sisters and brothers of living faiths anywhere in the world, and to reinterpret the meaning of conversion and salvation in our theology and spirituality.

THEOLOGY OF DIALOGUE Since an inhospitable theology cannot produce hospitable people, the development of the theology of dialogue has been marked by a shift from theological hostility first to neutrality, and then to hospitality. The theology of dialogue is the rediscovery of humankind’s original and fundamental interconnectedness. It also utilizes the processes of indigenization, inculturation and contextualization. The mentality of dialogue is complementarity, mutual correction and relationality: not “superior-than” but “in-relation-to.” The theology of dialogue culminates at and embodies a shift from an exclusivist salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) and the negative and trivial evaluation of other religions towards the oikonomia (economy) of Christ. It has also rediscovered and revitalized ancient theories and theologies, such as the originally Stoic concept of the seeds of the word (logoi spermatikoi) present as well in other religious traditions; the pre-existent Logos or the Cosmic Christ, having always been in dialogue with the world. In the ecclesiology of dialogue, descriptions and Biblical images such as the provisional sign, the leaven, the salt, the light, and the servant dominate. All of these images are summarized in the symbol of the Church as the prefiguration and foretaste of the Reign of God. This symbol means that God in Jesus Christ has entered into relationship with persons of all kinds of faiths and of different ages. God offered a community of forgiveness, reconciliation and new creation, of which the one Church is an effective sign and symbol.

SALVIFIC VALUE OF RELIGIONS Apart from the exclusivist model of the theology of religions, there are other Christian responses to the interreligious challenge, most of all the inclusivist and pluralist models, both still in their formative periods. Consequently, there is a shift in theory and rhetorics from the old military vocabulary of conquest in mission towards other poetic expressions of the role of Jesus Christ and the Church in the history of salvation: for example, adaptation, fulfilment and sacramental significance. Similarly, concerning the difficult question of the salvific value of other world religions, there have been five main modern paradigms elaborated so far in Christian theological thinking: opposition, fulfilment, independence, pluralism and complementarity. Some say that the Truth in Christianity is irreconcilably and diametrically opposed to other religions’ truths. Others maintain that Christianity is the threefold fulfilment of

MOZAIK

2004/2

other religions, theologically, anthropologically and Christologically. Again others are of the opinion that other religions are independent and parallel ways of salvation. Finally, others speak about the validity of religious pluralism in the theological realm as well. The Jesuit monk, Aloysius Pieris SI even sees the (Western and Middle Eastern) Semitic culture and the (Eastern Asian) Hindu–Buddhist–Taoist culture as two impulses or instincts of spiritual and religious tradition, which are dialectically complementary and mutually corrective. According to his understanding, we are mutually called and challenged to rediscover and recompose the unity of the human family around the common soteriological root present in all religions.

INCLUSION IN THE MAINSTREAM OF SALVATION Based on the exclusivist paradigm, the method and attitude used for centuries has been that we first break down the story of other religions and present our story, and then, having given them a new analysis, we present Jesus Christ as the solution. Indeed, we should affirm that the redeeming work of God in Jesus Christ is all-inclusive. This work continues still today everywhere in the world. In the ongoing work of Jesus Christ today, bringing healing and also wholeness to broken humanity, we are all called to be humble participants. We all know that Christ is the answer—but what is really the question? We ourselves should be in constant dialogue with Jesus Christ. He has never said of anyone that she or he has already reached the Reign of God. According to the Scriptures, there was only one single person of whom He said that he is not far away; and another one, whom Jesus promised would be there soon. The Jesuit monk, Yves Raguin SI warns us that although we have Christ, and we have God’s revelation, the search is still painful because we are not sure that the Christ we figure out is the real Christ. The challenge in this respect is to be able to genuinely and profoundly express the Christian experience within other conceptual frameworks. S. Wesley Ariarajah summarises this line of thought: “Dialogue cannot take place in a true spirit of discernment if the parties involved exclude each other’s history from the mainstream of the salvation that God offers to all people.”

THE SPIRIT BLOWS WHERE SHE WILLS The Guidelines on Dialogue (1979) of the World Council of Churches (WCC) rightly affirm that God is in fact at work everywhere: “God the Holy Spirit has been at work in the life and traditions of peoples of living faiths.” The main characteristics of the Holy Spirit are Her total and absolute freedom and boundlessness and Her active capability of creating new relationships and new communities. “The Spirit blows where She wills.” (John 3,8) In building up new and prolific communities, dialogue can become a mood, a spirit, an attitude, a mentality, a habit, a new lifestyle, and ultimately a way of expressing our mutual neighbourliness. Through dialogue we can pool human values like justice, peace, justpeace, compassion, empathy, truth and righteousness. With the help of dialogue, we can assist in bearing our resources as world religions to each other’s improvement.

Talking through the Word

The new communities or communions (koinonia) of dialogue are recognizable from their fruits and consequences (according to Galatians 5,22): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The marks of the Spirit are life, order and community. The parable of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25,31-46) clarifies the question of whether only the persons who know the name of Jesus can be called righteous, or other people as well. Let us always keep in mind also the distinguished “pagans” from the Bible with recognized values: Melchizedek, Cyrus, Naaman, Ruth, Rahab, the Queen of Sheba, the woman of Samaria and the woman of Cana, the Good Samaritan, the Roman Centurion and the Greek poets. These actors in narratives and parables can be of great help for us when we try to understand how the Holy Spirit keeps working among those who have no explicit consciousness of serving the Lord. The Truth, in the end, is also a veiled and hidden mystery, into which the Holy Spirit will surely lead us. This firm notion of ours is based on John 16,13: “when the Spirit of truth comes, She will guide you into all truth.”

CREATIVE TENSION: DIALOGUE AND MISSION We should constantly call each other to conversion, a radical change of direction in our lives. A fruitful debate in the ecumenical movement concerns the loss of urgency of the missionary mandate and vocation when being engaged sincerely and committedly into dialogue. Indeed, the dialectics of dialogue and mission keep the whole interreligious encounter moving. The frequent double language of Christianity is at the same time an engine or fuel, but also a threat to our sociopolitical credibility. Our partners often seriously question our real intentions and our genuine commitment to dialogue. The vibrant electricity of this pregnant theological double language is felt in official documents as well. The Vancouver Report (1983) of the WCC keeps in creative tension these theological core points: “While affirming the uniqueness of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus to which we bear witness, we recognize God’s creative work in the seeking for religious truth among people of other faiths.” Similarly, the San Antonio Report (1989) of the WCC speaks in the following way: “We cannot point to any other way of salvation than Jesus Christ; at the same time we cannot set limits to the saving power of God.” Both of these statements start with a strong affirmation of the traditional mission theory and of the classical theology, and then they introduce the contemporary dialogue paradigm, affirming both in their specific places.

CONVERSION TO GOD-CENTEREDNESS A useful mirror for ourselves is provided when we face the question: If there are revival movements in other religions, what is our approach to them? If we neglect them or if we remain indifferent, they have to fight on three fronts. From the side of their own fundamentalism, they are charged with compromise, unbelief and opportunism. From the side of secularism their revival similarly is regarded as unscientific superstition which is unnecessary and invalid.

Talking through the Word

Finally, from the part of other religions they too are rejected as followers of false belief systems, and there is a lack of willingness to see in them the vitality and present worth of their religion. There is a strong need to re-evaluate and to rethink our whole Christian understanding of conversion (metanoia) in this respect. In the contemporary world, instead of being first of all a vertical movement towards God and a genuine renewal of life, conversion has falsely started to be understood as a horizontal movement of individuals or groups of people from one community to another. In spite of this, a genuine role of religion is to draw attention to the transcendent centre, the ultimate mystery, the Truth of the truths, which is the source of all values and also the criterion to judge all human efforts. We have to search for ways of liberation from “I”-consciousness, and for an interiorized relationship with the Transcendent Reality. Therefore, it would be important to emphasize conversion as the movement from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness—or, more precisely, to God-centeredness.

MOZAIK

2004/2

Suggested Reading Ariarajah S. Wesley, The Bible and People of Other Faiths. Genève, 1985. Ariarajah S. Wesley, Not without my Neighbour. Issues in Interfaith Relations. Genève, 1999. Arinze Francis, Letter to Presidents of Bishop’s Conferences on the Spirituality of Dialogue. Pro Dialogo 1999/2. 264-268. Bosch David J., Transforming Mission. Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. New York, 1991. Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies. Genève, 1979. Kamath Ravi Santosh SI, Inculturation or Inreligionization? The Ecumenical Review 1987/2. 177–179. Kinnamon Michael - Cope Brian E. (eds.), The Ecumenical Movement. An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices. Genève, 1997. Kuttianimattathil Jose SDB, Practice and Theology of Interreligious Dialogue. A Critical Study of the Indian Christian Attempts since Vatican II. Bangalore, 1995. Küng Hans - Moltmann Jürgen (eds.), Christianity among World Religions. Concilivm 1986/1. Samartha Stanley J. (ed.), Faith in the Midst of Faiths. Reflections on Dialogue in Community. Genève, 1977. Nagypál Szabolcs (1974) is a graduate in ecumenical theology, law and literature. He is Roman Catholic, a theologian in the Békés Gellért Ecumenical Institute (BGÖI) in Pannonhalma, Hungary. He is a former chairperson of KÖD (Magyar SCM), a former chairperson of the WSCF Central European Subregion (CESR) and a former member of the WSCF European Regional Committee (ERC) and global Executive Committee (ExCo). He co-edited the books: A Pentatonic Landscape: Central Europe, Ecology, Ecumenism (Budapest, 2002); The River Book: Identity, Culture, Responsibility (Bial/ystok, 2003); and medi(t)ations, (re)conciliations. Conflict Resolution and European Integration (Bratislava, 2004). He is the editor-in-chief of Mozaik and Student World.

Eva V A L V O

European Identity and Interreligious Dialogue At a time when European or national identities are being questioned and challenged by the growing or lasting presence of migrants, religion is more and more often mentioned as a key element in this context. In the first part of my article I will define some general concepts regarding identity and the perception of the “Other” in Europe, while in the second part I will specifically focus on the religious implications of the debate about European identity.

EUROPEAN IDENTITY? Definitions of our identity may be related to different aspects of our lives, eg. occupation or role, political or religious belief, national or local background, belonging to a minority or a majority group, gender and sexuality, language, education, or even what we are not. The list could be much longer, but even then it would never be complete. One’s identity is not only defined by one’s own perception, but also by others’ perception. Identity is many-sided and complex. Some would put it: we have several levels of identity, like onions where each layer contains another one. But I would rather put it this way: identity is made of overlapping circles, where different or even contradictory elements can cohabit. The conception of individual identity can also be applied to collective identity, such as the European one. If a single person cannot be defined by just one label, still less can be the continent of Europe, where several peoples, cultures, languages and religions live together. In fact, some scholars talk of a multiple identity of Europe, but this concept should be a starting point rather than the end of the analysis. The concept of multiple iden-

tity would imply tolerance and potential richness only in a perfect world. Since we are not living in such an ideal place, though, we have to keep in mind that cultural differences are never neutral, but are subject to power relationships and often result in prejudice and fear, discrimination and oppression. Throughout the history of the building of a united Europe — starting from the institution of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, up through the Enlargement by ten new countries in 2004 — uncertainty about a specific European identity has increased. What is Europe? What does being European mean? It is difficult to define Europe on both the historical and geographical levels, especially regarding its Eastern borders. A part of Europe has become a single political entity only in recent times, but the concept of Europe is much older. It can be tracked down to the conquest of America, when European powers started to “discover” and conquer extraEuropean peoples, thus becoming a political and cultural entity, not only a geographical one. During the XVIIIth century the Enlightenment movement linked the idea of Europe with the concepts of liberty, progress and rights. In the same period, though, our continent exploited other countries through slave trade and colonialism. It is important to keep in mind this kind of contradictions while discussing European identity. Europe defined itself as the centre of the world, as the only promoter of progress and civilisation, thus defining other cultures as primitive and inferior or fallen. Another contradiction is that the values promoted were claimed to be at the same time both universal and specifically European.

Talking through the Word

MOZAIK

2004/2

Eva V A L V O

MOZAIK

2004/2

HEGEMONY AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT The fact that we live in a post-colonial era has still a strong impact on identity issues, as far as both colonised and colonising peoples are concerned. Colonisation was based not only on military and economic power, but also on a strong cultural structure that aimed at legitimising and developing the Eurocentric system of exploitation. The concept of post-colonialism involves the end of colonialism on one side and the durability of colonialist culture on the other. The identities of the oppressors and the oppressed cannot remain uncontaminated and independent from each other. Some scholars even speak of “new ethnicities” that come along with the traditional ones and that correspond to new conflicts. The Eurocentric view has started to decline and to transform itself into a Western-centric vision, where the specifically European element has become almost insignificant. This is due to the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet regime, the economic globalisation centring on the United States of America (USA), and finally the cultural revolution of the new communication technologies. Acknowledging the perspective of non-hegemonic groups, ie. considering a perception unfamiliar to the dominant culture, is crucial in order to build a culture of dialogue, since it shows very clearly that one’s view is always limited and that any understanding of reality is observer-dependent. The Eurocentric perspective not only involves neglecting the so-called “Other” coming from outside, but also an internal “Other”: we might just as well think of disadvantaged areas within Europe such as Northern Ireland, East Germany, the former Yugoslavia or Southern Italy. Among the external Others, one can mention migrants, formerly colonised people, and black Europeans, while internal Others might be women, European migrants (especially second-generation migrants), Roma and Jews. The case for European Muslims is more complex, since they can be considered both as external and internal Others, if we take into account both Muslim-majority European regions like Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Albania; and Muslim migrants of the first and second generations in Christian-majority European countries.

EUROPEAN RELIGIONS: HISTORICAL TENSIONS … Focussing particularly on a religious perspective, one can say that — alongside a prevailing understanding of Europe as Christian and white — both Judaism and Islam have long served as Europe’s Others, and (despite their countless contributions to European culture) they are still often perceived as symbols of a different, non-European culture. In this article I will limit my analysis to Abrahamic religions, while stressing that religious diversity in Europe is also represented by many other minority religions or visions, which can be outshined by a Christian-centric representation of Europe. A positive approach to European identity should be based on inclusion and respect for diversity. A culture of healing and reconciliation should be achieved through the memory of our past, entailing not only memorial days and monuments, but also a careful reflection upon history. To give just one example, Jews represent a crucial part of our collective memory. Someone says that concentration camps are in opposition with the “European spirit”,

Talking through the Word

but it would be more constructive and responsible to accept that European history cannot be divided from its inner contradictions. At least since the times of the French Revolution, Europe has experienced a shocking intertwining of emancipation and terror. Therefore, we cannot get rid of the European totalitarianisms or the Shoah (the Hebraic word for “catastrophe”, referring to the Holocaust, an expression introduced by Elie Wiesel but less common among Jews) by simply considering them horrific deviations from a truly European tradition. German Protestant theologian Rolf Rendtorff says that Jewish-Christian dialogue is only possible if we keep a living memory of the Shoah: as Christians, our prayer of confession shall be a starting point for a radical transformation of ourselves and a deep reflection on our self-understanding and our identity. Rendtorff’s analysis of Jewish-Christian dialogue can be applied to a broader level: when thinking of European identity, it would not be appropriate to remove Europe’s “dark heart” from our memory, so that religiously justified wars or witch hunts shall always be remembered as a warning and admonition for our future. Another point where a Jewish perspective can enrich our vision on European identity relates to the principle of double loyalty: Jews may feel they belong at the same time to the country they live in and to Israel, the “people of God” (a fact often regarded with suspicion and fear by Anti-Semitic propaganda). This Jewish experience of double belonging reveals a precious clue for reflection on new quests for European identity and citizenship represented by non-hegemonic groups (like the “Others” mentioned above, especially second-generation migrants). Such non-hegemonic groups refuse the alternative between two mutually exclusive identities, and in fact represent a new and original identity, which cannot completely correspond to traditional ones.

… AND DEVELOPING TENSIONS Islam, on the other hand, has been a European religion for more than a thousand years, even if — after the Christian “Reconquista” of Spain in the XVth century and the setting of European borders with the Ottoman Empire in the XIXth century — European Muslims have mainly been confined to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania. During the last half century, though, emigration from Muslim-majority countries has made Islam the second largest religion on our continent. Contemporary history, from the Iranian revolution of 1979 to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has not helped give a positive image of Islam. “Islamophobia” is a relatively new word that has been used for the past decade and has become more and more familiar in daily language and mass media. In general, we are experiencing a transformation of racism from a pseudo-biological phenomenon into a cultural one; and an extension of xenophobia into religious hatred, which seems to most severely affect Muslims in Western societies. Since it is no longer commonly acceptable to refer to skin colour as a natural marker of difference between people, culture and faith more and more often serve this end: religion and culture tend, indeed, to be perceived merely as synonymous — or maybe one could say that faith has become a symbol of ethnicity.

Talking through the Word

This approach is particularly evident in the debate about Turkey’s accession to the EU. The very fact, though, that there are Muslims defining themselves as Europeans does call into question the identity issues, because it has an impact on both the European identity and the Muslim one. Limiting our vision of Islam to a human rights-violating and aggressive religion would mean to disregard a plural and diversified European Islam and its hopefully positive relationship with mainstream Arabic Islam.

CITIZENSHIP VS. IDENTITY Summing up, a multireligious perspective and interreligious dialogue can have a crucial impact on European identity issues, but religious discrimination can find a real solution only in equal rights. It is therefore useful to consider the concept of citizenship as juridical and political recognition of civil rights, whose main contradiction concerning European citizenship is that it is not connected with European people, while national citizenships are. What is, then, the meaning and the use of European citizenship? How can a single person be a European citizen and a national citizen without being a citizen of the other member-States? One possible solution lies in the separa-

MOZAIK

2004/2

tion and distinction between the concepts of citizenship and identity. This means that citizenship rights should not only be allocated to those who were born in a certain place and share its majority language, traditions and religion. Europe could become a place where citizenship will be flexible and based upon participation in society rather than on identity. We could imagine European identity as a dynamic and open process of identification, and we could dream of Europe as an inclusive place whose inner contradictions can turn into spaces for critical reflection and dialogue among diversities. Suggested Reading Braidotti Rosi, Nomadic Subjects. New York, 1994. Diamantopolou Anna (ed.), The Fight against Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Bringing Communities Together. Bruxelles-Wien, 2003. http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/RT3/Report-RT3-en.pdf. Passerini Luisa (ed.), Identità culturale europea: idee, sentimenti, relazioni. Scandicci, 1998. Rendtorff Rolf, Christen und Juden heute. Neue Einsichten und neue Aufgaben. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1998. Said Edward W., Orientalism. New York, 1979. Eva Valvo comes from an Italian-Danish family and lives in Italy. She is Waldensian (Reformed), and is member of the editorial board of Gioventù Evangelica, the quarterly magazine of FGEI, the Italian SCM. She holds a PhD degree in Latin Philology from the University of Pisa and is currently working in the media office of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy. Her email address is valvo@humnet.unipi.it.

R O Z S - N A G Y Szilvia

Liturgical Revolution of Interreligious Encounters The question of interreligious dialogue and relations came into the focus of Christianity mainly in the XXth century. Interreligious wars as modes of relations started to play a less and less important role. Immigration urged us to take seriously the questions of coexistence in every part of the world, as religiously mixed and pluralistic territories started to spread. For the Church, dialogue, and in it the cooperation in social service and sharing of spirituality in prayer services, posed the greatest challenges.

CHALLENGES FOR CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Realizing that the situation was getting more acute, the churches from Asia – especially from India and Sri Lanka – put a lot of effort into the re-evaluation of their previous statements, as well as their theological doctrines. They led the thinking and research in the theological domain, both in the systematic and practical fields. First, they acknowledged the failure of Western missionary behaviour that failed to spread the Good News and created a hostile atmosphere with its intolerant and ignorant attitude towards other religions in the region. Then, using the Trinitarian formula, they rearranged the Christian dogmatic emphases by taking into account their own contexts. They were faced with the fact that the meaningfulness of every interreligious encounter, and especially of prayer, depends on the recognition of the reality of the presence and experience of God among all the participants.

The Father was identified as Creator of all humanity and the whole universe. Human beings were seen as ones created in God’s own image, which means a common task, the responsibility of every person given from God; and also a common desire to seek, serve, and praise the Creator of all. This essential recognition provided the basis for every spiritual encounter between religions. Nevertheless, they could not stop at this stage, since the specialism of Christian theology claimed its own precious place, and answers had to be formulated to questions concerning the basics of Christian identity. Indian theology did not see Christ only as the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but also as the Cosmic Christ, who got special attention in the Bible by John the Apostle. The recognition of the whole world as being created through Christ and being redeemed by His death and resurrection implied hope for the salvation of nonChristians, but also challenge for the role of Christianity in the world. The Holy Spirit was seen as the One Who is present everywhere, being uncontrollable by humanity or by the Church in Her work. Her inspirational attitude for leading creation into a closer and more mature relationship with God gives hope that every person and religion have glimpses of God, although maybe not to the same degree. The purpose of this dogmatic work was to recognize Christianity on its pilgrimage towards God, together with all other religions, though clearly recognizing that Christianity has its own special gifts, vocation and responsibility given by God.

Talking through the Word

MOZAIK

2004/2

R O Z S - N A G Y Szilvia

MOZAIK

2004/2

The encounter of Christianity with other religions even in the field of sharing spirituality was encouraged, realizing that nothing can separate us from God, because God is our beginning, end, foundation and hope. The prayer of the world religions is the richest testimony one can find to the omnipresence of that human intuition which can sense God’s presence. This spiritual acknowledgement even in India, but especially in other parts of the world, was revolutionary. The Christian identity and the meaning of prayer and worship service were constantly questioned. The pressure of secularization and this theological revolution led to a common search for partnership among religions. The beginning of modern encounters in the field of spirituality goes back to the meeting of the World’s Parliament of Religions (WPR) that was held in Chicago in 1893, where the first recorded act of common worship took place. After this meeting several organizations prepared studies and created resources and guidebooks for interreligious encounters.

WHAT IS INTERRELIGIOUS PRAYER? Thinking about prayers, we can recognize a huge variety of styles and forms. In this article we reduce the basic definition of prayer to the most intimate and personal acts of the religions with God. It is in agreement with Ronnie Prabhu’s saying, that prayer is the outpouring of the human heart and transcends all religious differences. We can state with Kenneth Cragg that humankind cannot be answerable to God only in division, or answerable to itself in closed circuits of devotion. The need for interreligious prayer is a common human necessity. Prayer is not a simple “phone call to God,” but an event and a speech (even if it is a silent prayer) at the same time. Prayer is an everyday lifestyle and a particular act in time and space. Having the universal experience of common human frailty and transcendent reality, and of moral commandments for the sake of humanity’s life, most religions have achieved a certain unity in prayer with each other in the most basic sense of prayer, praying by life. Hasan Askari wrote about the Muslim and Christian faithful that they are already praying together when they are united not only in their friendship of God, but also in their common commitment against the false absolutes of our age and against the injustices these engender in the lives of people. If there is no commitment on this, even praying together in its literal sense will not be of any use. Common engagement for social issues normally leads the participating religions to joint work on various diaconal and other social projects. This experience naturally creates the desire for praying together. As Pierre F. De Bethune says, common prayer is not the result of an approach; it is the starting point of true encounter. Although prayer is universal, all the actual prayers are particular both in content and form. Praying together, however, embraces and follows three main forms on the basis of their elements and on the level of the participants’ engagement in prayer.

Talking through the Word

FORMS OF PRAYER The first form is gathering in the same place and presenting prayers by different religions one after the other. This was the case in 1986 in Assisi when the Pope invited the representatives of religious traditions not to pray together, but to come together to pray. The prayers in this case are usually focusing on one theme or on the purpose of the occasion without being coordinated beforehand. The prayers offered there allow the possibility to join into each other’s prayers without having this action as a purpose. This form is called a multi-religious act rather than an interreligious one. The second form is when the main aim of the occasion is to become a united prayer-act. In this case the prayer meeting is organized in a way to make it acceptable and agreeable for every participant. As we see, it can be worked out by using only the lowest common denominator. The challenge of this form of prayer is that it can be minimized to a large extent in content and form. That is why it has been severely criticized in various forums for creating a liturgical orphan or spiritual hybrid. The third form can be called coherent interreligious prayer. It respects and upholds the essence and self-identity of the religious traditions without wanting them to make compromises or become united. Here the prayers are thematically and critically coordinated with a sense of mutuality, sensitivity and reciprocity. In our opinion the realization of this option needs the most effort, strength in faith and love. This offers, however, the highest spiritual experience with the realization of the deepest religious freedom, respect, and gratitude towards each other. We can mention another special kind of prayer as the potential fourth option. It is when one religion uses the prayers and devotional scriptures of another religion. Here very careful preparation is necessary in the field of sacred texts and a sensitive consideration of their value and importance in their own traditions.

PRAYING PARTICIPANTS Douglas Pratt defined four modes of interreligious prayer on the basis of the encounter and the engagement of the participants. The first two belong to the responsive type of prayers, facing different issues raised from the “outside” world which are waiting for response and reaction on a spiritual level. The first prayer is provoked by occasions of communal crisis or natural catastrophes, which specially call for a religious response. The second is an opportunity for offering a religious contribution and witness that used to happen in the case of civil celebrations. The last two modes belong to the hospitality type of prayers. They are concentrating on the encounter of religions within a framework of hospitality. Here two modes are possible: the hosting one and the guest’s one. Both of them have their own firm characteristics and responsibilities that can create comfort for the participants by knowing what is expected from them. These modes include the efforts of both sides to create an atmosphere of reassurance, acceptance, situational security and interaction.

Talking through the Word

They are able to provide a moment of grace and deep spiritual experience if their own rules are respected, because neither hosts nor guests are required to deny themselves; each takes risks and allows vulnerability. There are expected and accepted limits. Taking into consideration all these possibilities, we can ask ourselves finally which form is the best, the ideal one, the one we should choose or work for. We suggest the answer which was given for a questionnaire in 1994 from the United States: “The most appropriate form of prayer is the one that leads people beyond themselves and touches on the mystery, our oneness in humanity and the mutuality of our longings.”

PRECONDITIONS FOR PRAYING TOGETHER Interreligious prayers at first shook Christianity. They created a revolutionary atmosphere among Christians; some were enthusiastic, some were shocked by the given results. This experience has taught the ecumenical movement that issues and teachings in religious encounters are not so much about being good or bad, true or false; but that all these depend on their preconditions. The first lesson of interreligious prayer services is that they can have a deep spiritual significance only if the given event comes out of a real and existing community, where the people are in close contact with each other. “Common” worship should presuppose a degree of unanimity, or at least a broadly overlapping framework or worldview; otherwise common experience might make not much sense for the participants. Services organized officially from a higher level lack this commonality and they easily provide only an experience of shock, misunderstanding, pretence or manipulation, because the shared daily life which should be the key to understanding this experience of interreligious relationship is missing. The theological work which was done mainly in India and Sri Lanka provided a big help to rethinking and re-systematizing Christian theology and to creating a common Christian basis and understanding of interreligious prayer events. This theological work was great in providing a sense of humanity, in focusing on prayer as an essential part of every human being’s life. It could create the needed precondition of a common understanding of oneself and one’s prayer on the universal level. This theological work inspired various denominations to rethink and develop their own doctrines and practices. The third important precondition is engagement in interreligious dialogue. There are two great challenges concerning this issue: entering into interreligious worship with-

MOZAIK

2004/2

out entering into dialogue, or entering into dialogue without wishing to participate in common prayer or worship. The first is based on an expression of fellowship and harmony without making a conscious decision about it. It risks losing one’s own identity and one’s unique values. The second one is based on recognizing the importance of discussions on theological and practical levels, but saving the field of spirituality as an intimate and unique place. In this case spirituality cannot be reached but by members from a particular community. It forgets that interreligious prayer is the culminating point of interreligious dialogue. This mentality risks creating a gap between ideas and acts, and entering dialogue without entering totally and trustfully. Both of these mentalities, however, very much humiliate the other partners, because they do not take them seriously enough. On the other hand, it is a big humiliation of one’s own self as well, and it can call into question one’s honest attitude. Interreligious dialogue and prayer at the same time create new ways of looking at the depth of the message of Jesus. This revolution of theology and identity can transform our images about the journey and about the ways of our witnessing. Yves Raguin, SI, wrote that he realized, after some years, that the last step of the gospel is not to follow Christ or to imitate him. These are necessary steps, but the last step of the gospel is taken when Christ says: “It is good for you that I go. You will not see me any more before you, but I will be in you.” (John 16,7; 16,16; 17,23) Contrary to the fears of Christians from the side of doctrine and missiological attitudes, well-prepared prayer occasions, where these preconditions were present, provided an enriching and unique God-experience and spiritual growth for the participants. As Jose Kuttianimattathil states, “The actual experience shows that dialogue, sharing worship and reading from the scriptures of other religions, rather than weakening people’s faith, help those with mature faith to grow and become more rooted in their own faith.” Suggested Reading All in Good Faith. Oxford, 1997. Bethune Pierre F. De, The Bond of Peace. A Few Theological Reflections about Interreligious Prayer. Pro Dialogo 1998/2. Braybrooke Marcus, A Wider Vision. A History of the World Congress of Faiths 1936–1996. Oxford, 1996. Chandran J. Russel, Theological Assessment of Interreligious Prayer. Pro Dialogo 1998/2. Kuttianimattathil Jose SDB, Practice and Theology of Interreligious Dialogue. Bangalore, 1995. Pratt Douglas, Parameters for Interreligious Prayer: Some Considerations. Current Dialogue 1997/31. Prayer in World Religions. Maryknoll, 1990. Rozs-Nagy Szilvia is Evangelical-Lutheran, an ecumenical theologian and university chaplain from Hungary and a member of KÖD (Magyar SCM). Currently she is writing her Ph.D. on ecumenical and interreligious liturgies. She was a member of the Executive Committee of the Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe (EYCE) from 2001 till 2003, and she is a member of the WSCF Central European Subregion (CESR) board. Her email address is szilvianagyhun@yahoo.com.

MOZAIK

Roses of the Garden

2004/2

Roses of the Garden

MOZAIK

2004/2

Ján M I H Á L I K

Islam and Christianity: Debate or Dialogue? Imagine a Muslim who has never read the Bible; who has studied just four or five books about Christianity, none of which was written by a Christian; who has met Christians who have not kept the basic Biblical principles in their lives; and who has heard quite a lot about fanatic fundamentalist Christian missionaries who ask the poor to convert for food aid. To what extent is she or he prepared for a dialogue with Christians? At least by reading those four or five books, however, she or he is still more advanced than the majority of us regarding Islam.

MOTIVATIONS IN DIALOGUE Nowadays dialogue with Islam seems to be unavoidable. Globalisation has moved us to neighbouring streets in the global village. We can paraphrase the famous sentence: We will live with Muslims side by side—the question is how. Thus we have to talk also about our religions. What are Muslims and Christians looking for when entering into direct dialogue? Peace in the world, truth, their own perfection, survival, an effective tool for mission, or a kind of unity? We can see a bit of everything in the dialogue between them. There are groups which seek primarily peace and nonviolence. Interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Christians is basically one small part of wider steps to making the world more peaceful. They look for ways to build ties which could keep relations in the world without violence. Some people are looking for improvement on the way to religious perfection. They want to follow better what they believe in and they want to improve the overall attitude of their religious community (or Church) towards other religions. We can find there people who think that a religion which behaves violently or supports violence has betrayed its original meaning. Sometimes at a minimum they want to improve the public image of their church, by pretending openness and wide liberal attitudes. Others are pragmatics, saying that communication labelled as dialogue is a political inevitability today. It is the behaviour appreciated by public opinion, by those who provide the funds, or by those who could cause some harm to our people or to our country. As an example, it is enough to be reminded in this respect of the wave of openness for negotiation and even for dialogue shown by the countries neighbouring Iraq after the threat of the war has emerged. Then there is a group of people who looks for the Truth. In the confrontation between Muslims and Christians, they see the opportunity to find another

morsel of truth. In the worst case, they just want to find another argument for their own position. For still others, dialogue is more or less an effective tool to bring the right teaching and doctrines to those whom they deem ignorant or unenlightened. In their understanding it is the politically correct way to do this, at least at first sight. In each group there are people who are authentically interested in the partner in dialogue. Their agenda brought to the encounter, however, influences where they put the emphasis, what they expect from the partner, and what methods they use. Looking at the aforementioned points, the encounter with Islam could remind us of ecumenical dialogue between Christian churches or dialogue between Christians and Jews in a certain scope. All of these are influenced by the fact of common religious roots and (at least partly) sharing the same sacred texts. It seems that the same should apply for Islam, due to shared roots in Abraham and the Qur’an’s reference to Jews and Christians as to the People of Book, respected more than the others. Nevertheless, there are certain features that make dialogue very different. They lay also somewhere in the core of the clashes of our three religions, which some scholars, quite precisely, call Abrahamic civil war.

TYPES OF DIALOGUE William Isaacs describes a few types of conversation, as well as two dilemmas which determine our way of communication with partners. It can help us to sort out our attempts between Islam and Christianity. When communication starts, one often begins with conversation. Parties take their turns to talk. Then some expressions and sentences seem to be more relevant and others less so for the other party. Some of them the partner likes; the others she or he dislikes. The selection and processing of information starts to take place. Its next phase is deliberation (weighing out). There the basic dilemma appears: to suspend what I think and remain open, or to defend my position with the assumption that I am right. Thus we can enter into two different types of conversation. The first one is reflective dialogue and the second one is discussion. Isaacs speaks about controlled discussion, if one chooses unproductive defensiveness, and one is stuck to one’s original position without any possibility to change. This means competing, advocating one’s own position without any doubts. It can lead to debate where a solution is reached by putting down one of the parties.

If the defensiveness is productive, using hard data to find answers to problems, reasoning explicitly, analyzing the situation, the discussion can change into skilful conversation, which after certain tensions can bring the synthesis of opposites. On the other hand, the parties in reflective dialogue have deeper ambitions. They aim to explore deeper levels of their relationship. They look for underlying causes of the existing problems; they try to understand unspoken rules of their dialogue. They give up finding solutions. Rather they are opened to name new aspects, which can show even new problems. Thus dialogue produces a collective flow. It is process of thinking together, which does not mean necessarily finding answers. Dialogue, however, helps to invent unprecedented possibilities and to bring new insights. The parties can create a new framework or a new atmosphere and understanding, which in turn can lead to unexpected solutions. Dialogue is a long run; it takes a lot of time. But its fruits are more solid and enduring. In the dialogue with Islam we need both types: skilful conversation as well as reflective dialogue. We need some quick answers and agreements, which will not be perfect, but will make space for the next steps. We need to put a certain pressure on Muslim scholars and representatives, and on the other hand we need to experience the same pressure on ourselves in order to look for solutions for our co-existence and clashes in daily life. We need this pressure to examine carefully our positions and to provoke a look beyond our horizon. There should flow, however, an underlying river of long-term dialogue. But what do we need in order to enter dialogue or skilful conversation and to avoid the trap of debates at the same time?

CHANGING AND REMAINING When applying Isaacs’ approach to the relationship in the world influenced more by Christianity and the one influenced more by Islam, we can describe the long-term nature of our relationship as debate. Dialogue, as described by Isaacs, presupposes an ability and possibility to suspend our own point of view, our own opinion, and to go a certain part of the way together with our partner. Something like this involves our identity. Values and believed truths are at stake at once. Things are in danger of valuequake. The answer to the questions “Who am I?” and “Where do I belong?” seems to be opened again in such circumstances. It is in certain contradiction to what religion aspires to provide: certainty and a lasting tool for distinguishing the good from the bad, the sacred from the profane. Thus we face one of the crucial problems in interreligious dialogue. How can we be open for dialogue, for possible change, and yet stay the same, unchanged and traditional in the key points of our own beliefs? For entering real dialogue between religions, they must be equipped with skills and mechanisms allowing them to reinterpret old beliefs and known truths in a new context. Religion has to enable its followers to find new interpretations, to deduce truths previously unknown. “In striving to adhere to traditional beliefs and moral codes, religious actors recognize that tradition is pluriform and cumulative, developed in and for concrete and changing situations. In this process the internal pluralism

of any religious tradition bestows on the religious leader the power of choice,” writes Scott R. Appleby. Reinterpretation is a complex multi-level process. At the individual level in daily life an ordinary religious person has to apply and reinterpret religious principles in her or his unique situation. “To act intentionally in a religious sense, the believer or the religious authority must discern the meaning of the present circumstances, select the past that speaks most authoritatively to the meaning, and choose an appropriate course of action in response,” says Appleby. On the other hand, it is present even at the highest social level when a religious entity formally acknowledges a new part of doctrine or announces a new understanding of traditional principles. Despite the tendency to stress traditional principles and to keep continuity in religion, there must also be a lot of attention paid to reinterpretation processes. These processes keep religion real and lively. If a religious group renounces reinterpretation of principles and doctrine and strictly sticks to certain wording, it closes the door to its life. Such a religious entity is either doomed, or it will have to make certain innovations. The tension between keeping tradition and reinterpreting it is present in Islam as well as in Christianity. It is unavoidable and necessary, and each religion has to manage this tension on its own. It is not possible to directly make any religion open to reinterpretation. It is possible, however, to create pressures and challenges, which help to trigger intrareligious dialogue about the issue. An example of such a dialogue is the question of ijtihad in Islam.

REOPENING THE GATE OF IJTIHAD Shari’a, the traditional Muslim law, is in the structure of Islam the order of God given to people. It characterizes Islam more significantly than dogmatic theology. Like most religious cultures, Islam classically drew no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence Shari’a covers not only religious rituals, but also many aspects of day-to-day life. In the early Islam, the older legal customs with small modifications in the spirit of Qur’an where used. That is why the first attempts to systematize Shari’a appeared. As the consequence of those trends, legal schools (maddhab) were established. Four of the most successful legal schools of Sunni Islam last even until today. Ijtihad is a technical term in Muslim law and means the process of making a legal decision by an independent interpretation, or rather, working with the sources of dogma. After the settling of Muslim jurisprudence in four maddhabs in the IXth and Xth centuries, the opinion appeared that their founders were the absolute mujtahids (persons who are experts of Muslim jurisprudence). Therefore, later generations of lawyers can perform just a limited ijtihad within the framework of their schools, based on the model principles and texts of the school’s founder. Later in Sunni Islam, the opinion prevailed that the gate of ijtihad was closed and the lawyer can give answers to specific questions only based on previous solutions in his school. This should help to avoid errors of over-confidence in judgement. Even though the gate was closed, the dialogue on ijtihad regularly appeared in the works of Sunni legal

MOZAIK

Roses of the Garden

2004/2

scholars. The Shiite concept of ijtihad is different, and it was continually practiced. The discourse on reopening the gate of ijtihad gained new power in the XXth century, because of the external challenges that the Western Judeo-Christian and the secularized world presented to the world of Islam. The situation in the last centuries, probably from the times of colonialism, presents many new unprecedented influences and pressures on Islam, which must answer in some way. How the question of ijtihad will be settled is not sure. It is the internal task and challenge of contemporary Muslim scholars. The quality of the relationship between Islam and Christianity, however, is dependent also on the ways Islam will find to reinterpret its tradition in the new globalised world.

What Christians can do in this process is to enhance their own instruments serving openness in dialogue and to find, together with Muslims, an appropriate and suitable (proper and apt) new language for common understanding. Suggested Reading Appleby Scott R., The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. 2000. Isaacs William, Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together. 1999. Islam. In Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopaedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam Kropácˇek Lubosˇ, Duchovní cesty islámu (Spiritual Ways of Islam). Praha, 2003. Küng Hans - van Ess Josef, Krˇest’anství a islám (Christianity and Islam). Praha, 1998. Mendel Milosˇ, Islámská vy´zva (Islamic challenge). Brno, 1994. Ján MIHÁLIK works for Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia as consultant and trainer in the fields of NGO management, youth work and youth policy, and religion and peacemaking. He has an academic background in social work and social development practice. Prior to joining Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia, he was executive director and later president of DOMKA – Association of Salesian Youth, which is one of the biggest Slovak youth organisations. He is Roman Catholic. His email address is mihalik@pdcs.sk.

B A K O S T. Gergely OSB

Mystical Theology as a Way to Dialogue? “It would seem to me a waste of the past if we were content to see in the literature of every bygone age only the reflection of our own faces.” Clive Staples Lewis

In the 16 June 2003 issue, Time magazine gave a special report on Christianity in Europe with the title: “Where Did God Go?” This attention towards religious–cultural changes from secular print media should not be surprising. In fact, 37 years earlier, on 8 April 1966, Time had already published a similar dossier with a more eloquent and sombre title: “Is God Dead?” This question was set with red letters on a black cover—in order to emphasise its seriousness and tragic importance. As Time put it “Christian history allows the possibility of development in doctrine, and even an admission of ignorance in the face of the divine mystery is part of the tradition. Thomas Aquinas declared that ‘we cannot know what God is, but rather what he is not’.”

ADMISSION OF IGNORANCE Anyone familiar with the first pages of Thomas Aquinas’ two Summas will recognise that this admission of ignorance is a genuine piece of Thomistic thought. Perhaps this approach—negative theology served in the nutshell of journalism—“would fit comfortably today’s pluralist context.” Be that as it may, even if one agrees with Aquinas’ statement, one can still approach the Divine Mystery in a way that does not render it another postmodern platitude— readily accepted with a nonchalant smile of indifference. Thomas Aquinas himself seriously considered both the possibilities and the dangers of a rational discussion with heretics, Muslims and non-believers, but he did not make mystical ignorance a positive starting point for dialogue. His premise was that if we cannot positively know who God is, then, on these grounds, it is at least not clear how to enter into discussion. The Divine Mystery ought to be respected and can be only accepted by an act of faith.

Hence, those people who do not share the same commitment, the same act of faith, cannot be brought to fully understand God. As Aquinas put it, there exist articles of faith that cannot be proven with necessary reasons. But neither can they be disproved in any way.

MOZAIK

Roses of the Garden

2004/2

B A K O S T. Gergely OSB

The two central doctrines of Christian faith, Trinity and Incarnation, belong to this group. Thus they can be called mysteries of faith. There were some thinkers of the Christian West who did not fully agree with Aquinas’ distinction. They seemed to think that once faith is given, all the rest of Christian doctrine must follow with logical necessity. There were even some who thought that people of other faiths and commitments can be brought to accept the necessity of the Christian faith. Among these intellectuals, Ramón Lull not only proved to be the most eccentric but also the most original one. Lull, as a native of the island of Mallorca, was born and raised among Christians, Muslims and Jews—in a multicultural society. Later in life he learned Arabic and made different journeys to Muslim territories. Both in his own time and in many times to come, there probably lived no other person in Europe who not only realised the disrupted state of humanity, but also had a realistic approach towards this problem. On seeing the failures of both Dominican and Franciscan missions, Lull thought discussions with non-Christians could not be based on the authorities of sacred texts. Here only the neutral and universal language of human reason can help us further. This medium would not only make communication possible, but it would also bring about the conversion of the infidels.

FAITH, RATIONALITY AND THE OTHER

Roses of the Garden

The history of the Middle Ages, insofar as it is a tale telling us about continuous religious controversies, theological debates, heresies and anathemas, is a history of Western culture defining itself against the background of its religious and theological Others. One of these significant Others was Islam. Islam appeared to mediævals as a strange phenomenon challenging both their cherished values and the ways in which they were thinking about these values and their world. Hence, many Western intellectuals took up this challenge and tried to solve the problems Islam was posing to their mediæval understanding. Given both Europe’s present ignorance of its cultural past and its apparent inability to understand contemporary Islam, the least one can say is that some of these mediæval answers to Islam may be worth revisiting. Two such possible answers - Aquinas’ and Lull’s - have already been mentioned. Since Aquinas recognised the fundamental importance of faith for a proper understanding of Christian religion, he was also able to respect the limits of his theological discourse. Lull, apparently, lacked such sensitivity and could not draw the limits of his apologetics properly. He genuinely wanted to transcend the existing cultural barriers with the help of a rational, neutral and non-religious discourse. The exclusion of important dimensions of

MOZAIK

2004/2

religiosity and Lull’s bold trust in the possibility of a rational translation of religious language had a dangerous potential that could destroy the subject thus treated. If there exists another way of communicating the Divine Mystery to others, this cannot be absolutely external to religious faith. Neither can a strictly Christian theological discourse— in the way Aquinas envisioned it— be fitting for such a purpose. Speaking of the Divine Mystery brings one back to the admission of ignorance. Many mediævals were ready to confess this ignorance, but they did not make this recognition a corner-stone of their anti-Muslim apologetics. Lull’s case is all the more puzzling since he combined a rationalistic attitude with a confession of ignorance. Nicholas of Cusa’s own version of mystical theology enabled him to develop a new approach towards Islam, which offers fruitful perspectives for interreligious dialogue even today.

LEADING BY THE HAND Perhaps the best way to approach Nicholas’ project will be considering a central notion of his mystical theology: manuductio. This can be rendered as guidance or leading by the hand: one can help a blind person across the street or one can take a child’s hand while teaching her or him how to write. Either one guides the Other to another place (a way) or one introduces the Other to a certain practice (a knowing-how). Roman Catholic liturgy offers an excellent example of such a manuductio. The term manuductor designates the priest who is standing at the side of a newly ordained minister during his first Holy Mass. His task is to help the beginner in performing his liturgical duty. This role is, of course, only temporary, since every priest is supposed to become able to lead the holy service by himself. Thus the manuductio is showing a practical way of how things can and should be done. It is a transitory activity, yet it is necessary because of human weakness. A child cannot know at once how to write, just as no one is born as a perfect liturgical minister. During this learning process one has to be determined to learn, to be ready to accept the manuductio of the manuductor. The success of such a manuductio naturally presupposes that during the learning process the Other puts her or his personal trust in the manuductor. Precisely by relying on this personal trust, one must (learn how to) walk the way by her- or himself. Since the meaning of religious symbols cannot be exhausted by a rational explanation, both the concept and the practice of manuductio play a central role in mystical theology. As Nicholas himself put it in his work On Learned Ignorance (I. 2. 8,4-7.): “it is necessary to use guiding illustrations in a transcendent way and to leave behind perceptible things, so that the reader may readily ascend unto simple intellectuality.”

MOZAIK

2004/2

In this way theological language can lead the reader up from sensible reality through the intellectual realm and further up towards the all-transcending Divine Mystery.

HOLY TRINITY Since Nicholas was a Christian thinker, for him God’s transcendent reality is necessarily Trinitarian. Nevertheless, Nicholas never though that rational concepts such as the number three can be properly applied to God. The problem is that because all finite concepts are in the first place devised for treating finite, sensible reality, if they are applied to God’s infinite being these concepts will necessarily lose a well-defined meaning. One important consequence is that taken in itself, negative theology will destroy any positive religious discourse. Nicholas, however, also recognised the fact that if we do not know something with absolute precision, this does not necessarily entail that we cannot know anything positively about it. Thus mystical theology must be a combination of negative and positive discourse. Because the Trinitarian God cannot be reduced to any finite category of human thought, this Mystery can teach one learned ignorance. This learned ignorance will inspire one to search for evernewer categories in order to spell out the same Divine Mystery. This is, in a nutshell, Nicholas’s project of Trinitarian manuductio. The same concern was operative also in his works closely related to the Muslim question (De Pace Fidei, Nicholas’s letter to his friend John of Segovia, and the Cribratio Alkorani). In his approach towards the religious Other, Nicholas made constant recourse to the Trinity, because this central Mystery of the Christian faith was theologically misunderstood by Islam and debased in the continuous bloodshed of wars. Not only his clearly Trinitarian manuductive examples, but also the whole project of giving a new (Christian) interpretation to the Koran should be understood in this light. Yet, this insistence on the Trinity should not be seen exclusively as a result of an ideological bias, but as a pointer reminding one of the relational Mystery of the Divine Being.

KNOWING-HOW AND PERSONAL TRUST Nicholas’ manuductive project illustrates well that the problem of religious knowledge must not be reduced to a set of propositions connected as it were through a quasiscientific theological theory. Also the particular form of religious ‘knowing-how’ and the dimension of personal trust have to be taken seriously. The meaning of religious symbols cannot be understood in isolation from lived religion. After all, religion is in the first place a form of human practice. So, if one is ready to take up Nicholas’s perspec-

Roses of the Garden

tive, one will be able to better understand what is at stake in religion. Without acknowledging the symbolic structure as fundamental to religion and other basic human experiences such as the ethical, the aesthetic, and the relationships of love and friendship, these issues can hardly be treated with any fairness. Hence, any serious dialogue on religious and ethical diversity is intrinsically bound up with the same problem. In the history of Cusanus-studies, there existed an exceedingly modern reading of the Cusanian corpus, one that was eager to assimilate Nicholas to whatever strain of modern philosophy its author preferred. It is always tempting to misunderstand a thinker from the distant past, and the fact that a temptation is not realised does not make the temptation less dangerous. If this is true, then one should become all the more careful in one’s reading. One should try to broaden, modify and occasionally even change one’s own perspective. Such an exercise would be trying on the lenses once worn by Nicholas and looking through them, as it were. If the modern reader is ready to learn how a symbolically structured vision works and also wants to perceive the invisible within and beyond the visible, then the mediæval Nicholas of Cusa will prove a trustworthy guide. If Nicholas of Cusa is expected to make a contribution to a proper understanding of the problem of religions today, it should not be a surprise that what he can do is something typically mediæval. Not only can he help to formulate an answer to Time’s question concerning the possible permanent address of God, but he can also guide us on our way of dialogue with people of other faiths. In our realistic and critical age, one cannot ignore the historical fact that Nicholas of Cusa’s voice was hardly even heard in his own lifetime. It never reached the Other of Islam. But in a world where the question of religious plurality is more acute than it has ever been, one can at least hope that his voice will receive the kind of attention it deserves. Suggested Reading Biechler J. E. – Bond H. L. (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa on Interreligious Harmony – Text, Concordance and Translation of De Pace Fidei. Lewinston - Queenston Lampeter, 1990. Bond H. L. (ed.), Nicholas of Cusa, Selected Spiritual Writings. New York, 1997. Decorte Jos, Sapientia: Between Superbia and Vanitas. In Brown S. F. (ed.), Meeting of the Minds. The Relations between Mediaeval and Classical Modern European Philosophy. Brepols, 1998. 477-506. Goddard H., A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Edinburgh, 2000. Hopkins J., Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance – A Translation and an Appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia. Minneapolis, 1981. Hopkins J., Nicholas of Cusa’s Dialectical Mysticism. Text, Translation and Interpretative Study of De Visione Dei. Minneapolis, 1988. Hopkins J. Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani. Translation and Analysis. Minneapolis, 1990. Bakos T. Gergely OSB (1970) received his doctorate in philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. His main interests are metaphysics, philosophy of religion, mediæval philosophy and mysticism. He teaches at the department of philosophy of the Sapientia Theological School in Budapest. His email address is gergelybakos@yahoo.com. This essay was written in the memory of Jos Decorte (1954-2001).

Roses of the Garden

MOZAIK

2004/2

Bogdan P O P E S C U

The Fall of Constantinople: Orthodox Prejudices Towards the Muslim World Orthodox Christians have never forgotten the fall of Constantinople. The city founded by Constantine the Great in 324 has been for them more than a capital of the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople became the heart of the Orthodox tradition, the place where patriarchs and emperors together ruled a Christian state. Therefore, the fall of Constantinople on 29 May 1453 turned into a tragedy that still influences the relationship between the Orthodox and Muslim worlds. Coming from Eastern Europe, a space called “Byzantium after Byzantium,” we realize that we have to overcome the prejudices created by this sad event if we want to improve our relationship with our Muslim neighbours. We have to analyze the historical events and to understand the concrete circumstances.

THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE At the beginning of the XVth century, the Byzantine Empire was already a shadow, a world weakened by wars and plots. The Turks were already settled into Asia Minor after two major victories against the imperial army: in Mantzikiert in 1071 and in Myriokephalon in 1176. The crusaders in 1204 obliterated the last efforts of reorganization, and Michael VIII Paleologos re-established in 1261 an ephemeral state. Osman I became Sultan of the Turks in 1290, and step by step his successors conquered vast territories in Serbia in 1389 and in Bulgaria between 1393 and 1396. Adrianopolis became the capital of the sultans in 1365, and from 1371 on the Byzantines had to pay tribute to the conquerors. The total collapse in the year 1453 was just a logical consequence, and Mahomet II Fatih was carried out an unavoidable verdict. It was just the end of an empire, like many others, but something was different: the religious perspective. Emperors like Constantine the Great (306–337), Theodosius I (379–395) and Justinian (527–565) succeeded in turning Christianity into a Byzantine citizenship, a common denominator of the Eastern world. The problem was not the fall of the city, but the fall of the Byzantine symphony: the close cooperation between Church and state. The religious partner remained alone and had to coexist with a state which got “married” to another religion.

THE REIGN OF MAHOMET II At the beginning of the XXIst century, we have to look at these past events from another perspective: we must separate the political events from the religious ones. The fall of Constantinople was an event during a medieval war that happened to be between people of different religions. If we take a closer look at the historical proofs, the Turks behaved much better than the crusaders did in 1204. The Eastern world forgot the sack of the city done by the Western knights, but remembered and condemned the one done by the Muslims. Why? Because they mixed politics and religion in a mistaken and dangerous way. At the end of the fourth crusade, the Latins became the rulers of the former Byzantine territories; the Venetians got this way a huge

amount of the Byzantine land; the Orthodox Patriarch had to take refuge in Nicea, and Toma Morosini became the new Latin Patriarch. Mahomet II was much more tolerant and accepted Gennadios II as an Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. The Sultan was in fact an admirer of the old Greek and Roman civilisation and he was able to speak the languages of Aristotle and Cæsar. He wanted to be a successor of the great Eastern emperors and kept many Byzantine customs. He developed a good relationship with Gennadios, who was appointed according to the old Orthodox tradition. The patriarch received the title of “Milet Besi” (the equivalent of minister) and became the spiritual and political ruler of the Christians who lived in the new Ottoman Empire. He had the right to interfere in the administration of justice and was exonerated from public taxes, a privilege obtained by the whole Christian clergy. The Orthodox Church had the right to organize herself through councils and to celebrate religious feasts. In 1461, Mahomet II gave these rights to the Armenian Catholicos and to the Jewish Rabbi as well. If we make a sincere evaluation, the attitude of the sultan seems to be very liberal and open-minded for a period of the Middle Ages in a post-war situation. The sultan manifested this tolerant attitude towards the Christian churches, too. It is true that many of them became mosques, but the edifices remained in this way respected places of worship. The historians recorded the moment when Mahomet reproved a soldier who started to destroy the beautiful mosaics of Hagia Sophia: “I allowed you to sack the city and to enslave the inhabitants. Is that not enough for you? The buildings, the monuments, the public edifices are mine. You are not allowed to damage them.” These words prove, of course, the diplomacy of Mahomet II as well, who wanted to save the monuments. He was an educated person who admired the masterpieces of Greek architecture beyond the religious differences. The Christians were able to keep their churches in the district of Fanar, where the headquarters of the Patriarchate moved in 1602. Mahomet II also showed an interest in Christianity, because he wanted to understand better the customs and the mentality of his Christian subjects. Gennadios was asked to write for the sultan an account of faith, and the patriarch wrote the treatise The Way of Redemption for Humankind.

DESTRUCTIVE INNER CONFLICTS We also have to acknowledge that the Byzantine Empire was not always a holy place. The state of Constantine the Great collapsed first of all because of its corruption and because of the inner conflicts. The imperial army and the political structures were used to transform religious debates into civil wars. This was the case during the iconoclast crisis (717–843), and the empire lost important oriental territories during such conflicts. Several times, candidates for the imperial throne used external support in order to fulfil their purposes. In 1201

MOZAIK

2004/2

Alexios IV used this strategy to fight against his uncle, Isaac III Angelos (1195–1205), who seized power after he had blinded his brother, Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). Thus the conflicts led to the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders. History repeated herself and in 1390, John II asked the sultan Beyazid I (1389–1403) to support him against the future emperor Manuel II Paleologos (1391–1425). From this perspective, the fall of the “Great City” sixtythree years later becomes a logical consequence. The Byzantine corruption created problems after 1453, too. The Church suffered because candidates for the Patriarchate started to offer money to the sultan in order to achieve this important position. Even though the Orthodox hierarchy had been exonerated from all taxes since the time of Mahomet II, Simeon of Trapezunt (1466–1467 and 1472–1474) paid one thousand ducats for his position. The Turks exploited this “Byzantine” idea and the amount of money doubled in the middle of the XVIth century, while the patriarchs started to succeed each other quite often. The Church in this way faced great economic problems.

OPENING THE CITY GATE TO THE FUTURE We should not try to excuse the abuses of the Turkish administration, but we have to acknowledge the mistakes of Christians, too. We should analyze all these events from an objective perspective, avoiding extremism and exaggerations. Our attempt is not to excuse the crimes committed in 1453 or later, in Constantinople or elsewhere. Crimes

Roses of the Garden

must be always condemned, whether they are committed by Christians, Muslims or people of any other faith. We would like to stress the idea, however, that we have to overcome the prejudices and pains that come from the past. Historical events must teach us how to prevent future mistakes and should not create greater conflicts. If we want to avoid suffering, we must understand the context that led to that suffering in the past. As Christians and as citizens of a new united Europe, we have to change our attitudes in many fields. If we still perceive the Muslim world in a “crusader style,” we will never be able to build up new relationships. The fall of Constantinople must remain a historical event that is understood in its context, and should not be any longer a reason for tensions between us. The city that unites Europe and Asia should rather play the role of a bridge. It should remain a sacred and holy place for both Muslims and Christians, and to be an Eastern capital of a new Europe. Suggested Reading Karlin-Hayter Patricia, Studies in Byzantine Political History. Sources and Controversies. London, 1981. Ducellier Alain, Le drame de Byzance. Idéal et échec d’une société chrétienne. Paris, 1976. Oblensky Dimitri The Byzantine Commonwealth, Eastern Europe 500–1453. London – New York – Washington, 1971. Runciman Steven, The Great Church in Captivity. Cambridge, 1968. Witek Paul, La formation de l’empire ottoman. London, 1982. Bogdan Popescu (1976) graduated from the Orthodox Theological Seminary of Bucharest (1996) and the Faculty of Theology, University of Bucharest (2000). He has a master’s degree in ecumenical studies (Bossey, 2002). Currently he is a Ph.D. student of patristics in Sibiu. He is also an assistant lecturer of history in the Orthodox Theological Seminary of Bucharest. His email address is bogdanpopescu76@hotmail.com.

Editorial Board of Confronti

Examples of Day-to-Day Interreligious Work : The Confronti Experience “Confronti” (an Italian word meaning “face to face dialogue” or “comparison,” not “confrontation”) is an interfaith ministry and magazine based in Rome. It started in the 1970s when two grassroots magazines, one Roman Catholic and the other Protestant, joined together to form as one of the first ecumenical magazines in Italy. In 1989 Confronti was founded, following and preserving this heritage while adding an interfaith dimension.

FACE TO FACE DIALOGUE Following its mission statement “to promote dialogue among the communities of faith in order to produce common actions for peace, justice and the integrity of creation,” Confronti represents a day-to-day dialogue and cooperation between different religions, as it is composed of Christians of different denominations, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and also secular people who are interested in focusing on the role of religion in society. In a society becoming more and more pluralistic in its cultures and faiths, dialogue can become the catalyst to knock down the walls of fear, mistrust and fundamentalism and to build bridges of true mutual understanding and respect. But what is dialogue? It can take on various forms.

Over the years, Confronti has has sponsored a series of initiatives events alongside the publication of its magazine, such as interfaith conventions and forums, international peace education projects and travel study seminars, for both adults and students. Confronti promotes and supports dialogue and peace projects for the Middle East, such as an exchange programme between Jewish Israeli and Arab Israeli educators who are invited to Italy (“Seeds of Peace”). Also, a series of summer camps held in Italy for Israeli and Palestinian children (“Flowers of Peace”); or peace pilgrimages which allow Christians to visit the Holy Land and to meet with the different religious and cultural entities in a spirit of dialogue and service to peace.

THIS YEAR IN JERUSALEM, PEACE At the beginning of 2004, Confronti promoted a peace delegation to Israel and the Palestinian territories to visit different places like hospitals, settlements, refugee camps, peace centres, schools and kibbutzim; and to meet with politicians, intellectuals, moderates, extremists,

MOZAIK

2004/2

Roses of the Garden

Editorial Board of Confronti

Roses of the Garden

pacifists and religious leaders, representing Israeli and Palestinian civil society. The delegation signed a document of commitment that was also an appeal to public institutions, religious communities, associations, foundations and cultural centres to support dialogue and peace education programmes. In spite of a complex, harsh situation, where the tangle of suffering and fear of the two parties is difficult to unravel, the participants of the delegation stressed a positive element in that meaningful experiences continue between Palestinians and Israelis involved with cultural and educational associations oriented towards peace, dialogue and reconciliation. Even if these people represent a minority (many fewer than those who are convinced to the contrary that violence is inescapable), the surveys confirm that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis are aware that the only possible solution is that of the “two states.” This is an important fact which demonstrates that the majority of the two parties already know the price of a just and long-lasting peace. The Israeli and Palestinian peace groups (each deeply linked to their own national, cultural and religious traditions) are building a living and important reality: no peace will ever be able to bloom without them planting every day small, fragile seeds in the furrows of that earth. The delegation left Jerusalem profoundly affected by a difficult and painful situation, but also enriched by the generosity of the land and by the depth of the religious and cultural values of the people who inhabit it. They left with a wish: “This Year in Jerusalem, Peace.”

PREVENTIVE DIALOGUE Confronti was is among the promoters of the National Day of Muslim-Christian Dialogue, whose third edition celebrated on 12th November 2004, i.e. on the last Friday of Ramadan. On this occasion several initiatives were are held all over the country: public meetings, visits to mosques and occasions for common prayer. Over the past few years in Italy, interreligious (especially Muslim-Christian) dialogue has gained an important role in the cultural and political debate, since Italian society is transforming itself into (and is becoming conscious of being) a multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious one. It is worth noting that in Italy (as opposed to other Western European countries like Germany, France or Britain) immigration is a rather new phenomenon, which began on a massive scale in the 1970s. The ecumenical movement, in spite of the many difficulties it meets on its way, has contributed towards making many Christians conscious, aware and sensitive to interreligious dialogue. In fact, the idea of establishing a day of Muslim-Christian dialogue was conceived by Roman Catholic and Protestant representatives, and subsequently met very positive reactions on a broader scale.

MOZAIK

2004/2

A significant and inspiring round table was hosted this year by the Waldensian Faculty of Theology in Rome under the headline “The New Face of Interreligious Dialogue”, where four young women of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Muslim backgrounds discussed several aspects of dialogue from a theological, cultural, political and ecumenical point of view. Listening to the other was acknowledged as a key rule of dialogue and as a first necessary step towards a true mutual understanding. Sadly, the recent increasing experience of war, violence and terrorism is reducing the possibility of encounter and dialogue, while spreading fear and mistrust among different cultures and religions. This fact, though, makes dialogue more necessary and crucial than ever. The education of young people was mentioned as a basic tool to support dialogue: the promotion of knowledge and respect of diversities shall be achieved by meeting in common spaces rather than living on separate “islands” among culturally and religiously homogeneous groups.

VEIL: YES AND NO In Italy the debate about the lay state is a burning one, and religion is often abused by political factions as ground for conflict. When in France a recent and highly discussed law prohibited the wearing of veils in public schools, Confronti contributed to the reflection by showing different views within the feminine Muslim world, between the veil’s supporters and those who oppose its use. The issue assumes a symbolic value: within the Muslim diaspora in Europe are women who consider the veil as a negative symbol that hinders their emancipation and the affirmation of public secularism; while others think it is important as a symbol of identity and belonging to a specific group in a pluralistic society. A comparison between two married Muslim women, one veiled and the other not, examines the risk of hiding the real problems that hinder the emancipation of Muslim women: Souad Sbaii, president of the Association of Moroccan Women in Italy, and Sumaya al Barq, vice president of the Association of Muslim Youth in Italy, are both established residents of Italy. SBAII says: “France was right to prohibit veils in school. Muslim fundamentalists today want the veil; tomorrow they will ask for separate schools, as they have already done in France. And then, what shall we do? Separate everything, so that there is no more communication and dialogue between women and men? The veil is only the tip of the iceberg. This law is salvation for those women and girls who have the veil imposed upon them by their community and family environment. It is protection for those of us who do not wear it. My fear is that with Muslim fundamentalism spreading,

MOZAIK

Roses of the Garden

2004/2

we are no longer free not to wear it. It is not an obligation or a rule, but a traditional practice and the women who do not wear it are not automatically bad Muslims.” AL BARQ, on the other hand, is of the opposite opinion: “We are really disappointed with this law. Before this law was approved, we staged a sit-in in front of the French Consulate in Milan, claiming the right of religious freedom. Every one of us must be free to serenely live-out her own faith within the limits of decency and correctness with respect to her neighbours. The veil has often been erroneously defined as a religious symbol, but it is becoming more political than cultural because of the controversies that it has provoked. In reality, it is only an act of faith rather than a divine rule. To wear one or not depends on how a woman of faith interprets her religion. However, we are not forced to wear it, but have a free choice. It must be clear that it cannot be either an obligation to remove it or an imposition to put it on.

This is what Islam says: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ We as young Muslims must denounce actions like female circumcision, the constriction of women to wear the veil, or any other behaviour that affronts the rights of women.” Beyond the issue of the veil, freedom of opinion is available today to Muslim women of the West, which allows them to emphasize issues linked to their role inside the family and established community in a non-Muslim context. Polygamy, the right of succession (which gives men double the inheritance of women), mixed marriages (which, in Muslim tradition, prevent women from marring non-Muslims, while men are able to): these are all issues that regard the rights of women, veiled or not. Without a decisive contribution from women, veiled or not, these issues will remain unheard. Confronti is a national interreligious magazine based in Rome. The editor-in-chief is Paolo Naso (Waldensian Reformed), and the assistant editor is Mostafa El Ayoubi (Muslim). For further information, please visit the website: www.confronti.net.

Martin S M E D J E B A C K

Review of Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and Practice by Mohammed ABU-NIMER Today we live in a multicultural world with many religions existing side by side. But still there are many of us Christians who have never met any Muslims. The only time we hear about Islam is on the news, and most of the time these references are connected with violence. It is not strange that even peace-loving persons have the idea of Islam as a violent religion. Here is a book that might change our view on that. The book is highly recommended for those who want to get a clearer view on Islam and on peace.

A number of passages in the Qur’an seem to provide explicit justification for the use of war or fighting unbelievers, and deciding whether the Qur’an actually condones offensive war for faith or offensive war is really just left to the judgment of the exegete and interpreter, according to Abu-Nimer. What Mohammed Abu-Nimer mainly objects to is that too little research has been focused on the other side of Islam—namely the traditions and teachings of nonviolence and peace building in Islam.

JIHAD AND JUST WAR

RAHMAH AND PEACE-MAKING HAND IN HAND

Mohammed Abu-Nimer is an associate professor in the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program at the American University in Washington, DC. He has been conducting workshops in conflict resolution since 1982 in numerous countries. This book of his, Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam (published in Florida in 2003) provides a theoretical framework as well as a practical one. In the theoretical part Abu-Nimer starts with an overview of the many studies done on just war and Islam. It is clear that there is a school of thought in Islam that justifies acts of war and the use of force under certain, although strict, conditions. Those who support war often point out and quote the Qur’an verse: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah does not love transgressors.” (2,190). Jihad was subsequently applied to religious war, but was never used in the Qur’an in such a sense. The Qur’an says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Jihad should above all be understood as a struggle for the individual Muslim to become a better Muslim.

It turns out that both the Qur’an and the traditions of Muslim societies harbour many treasures of nonviolence and techniques for resolving conflicts. The word “Islam” is itself defined as the “making of peace.” The Prophet says: “Break your bows, sever your strings, beat stones on your swords” (to break the blades). “Peace” (salaam) in Islam means not merely an absence of war, but also the elimination of the grounds for conflict and the waste and corruption it creates. Peace thus understood is indeed God’s true purpose for humanity. The Qur’an also affirms the sacredness of all human life: “And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if one saved the life of the whole people.” There are countless stories about how the Prophet Muhammed acted as an arbitrator when two parties were in conflict, which shows that third-party intervention (mediation) is an acceptable option to end fighting in Islam. During the Meccan period of the Prophet’s life (610–622), the Prophet showed no inclination towards the use of force in any form, even for self-defence. He practiced a non-violent resistance that was reflected in all his teachings during that period, when Muslims were a minority and under threat.

MOZAIK

Roses of the Garden

2004/2

Martin S M E D J E B A C K

JIHAD AND JUST WAR

RAHMAH AND PEACE-MAKING HAND IN HAND

Roses of the Garden

Although tortured, accused of blasphemy, humiliated, ostracized, he permitted himself neither violence nor even swearing. The Prophet always prayed when he was persecuted during the Mecca Period, saying, “Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.” This is something that we Christians have absolutely no problem recognizing. Some of the Prophet’s followers asked him to invoke the wrath of God upon the Meccans, because of their persecution of Muslims. His reply to them was: “I have not been sent to curse anyone but to be a source of rahmah (compassion and mercy).”

PEACE OR JUSTICE? Justice is the ultimate goal of Islamic religious teachings. It can be argued that pursuing justice and peace through non-violent strategies is a more viable and effective method for achieving it. Except for the existence of one God, no other religious moral principles are more emphasized in the Qur’an and Islamic traditions than the principles of justice, uprightness, equity and temperance. The notion that peace cannot be achieved without justice is echoed in the works of numerous peace-building researchers and activists. It is also supported by the Qur’an: “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East or the West; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the last day, and the Angels and the Book and the Messengers; to spend your substance, out of love for him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves.” (2,177)

MUSLIM NONVIOLENCE There are a few new Islamic scholars who have begun to study the connection between Islam and nonviolence. One that Abu-Nimer mentions is Satha-Anand. He argues that even if Islam once accepted violence as a way of defence, it is today forbidden because of the modern technology of war that has been invented in the meantime. Since Muslims are forbidden to kill civilians, and since modern weapons cannot generally distinguish between soldiers and civilians, Muslims should not use violence. But Muslims are not allowed to be passive when they face injustice either, so therefore they should use nonviolence as a way to resist injustice. So there seems to be a good and solid foundation for a non-violent struggle in Islam. Has this been practiced by Muslims? It leads us to the practical part of the book, where Abu-Nimer shows us examples of different nonviolent campaigns in Muslim communities. Such movements are the mass protests against the British in Egypt in 1919; the revolt of Muslims of Peshawar Pathans in Pakistan in 1930; the Palestinian general strike of 1936; the 1948 Iraqi uprising; the Iran Revolution of 1978–1979; the Golan Druze resistance movement in 1981–1982; the activities in defence of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem since the 1970s; the Sudanese insurrection of 1985; and the first Palestinian Intifada, which began in 1987. The most famous Muslim non-violent resister in modern time would be Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his “Army of God,” consisting of people from the Pashtun nation, who used to be known as feared warriors. It was a nonviolence movement of about 100.000 people, who struggled non-violently for twenty years against the British occupation in what is today Pakistan.

MOZAIK

2004/2

Khan said: “There is nothing surprising in a Muslim or a Pashtun subscribing to the creed of nonviolence. It is not a new creed. It was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he was in Mecca, and it has since been followed by all those who wanted to throw off an oppressor’s yoke. But we had forgotten it.” When recruited, the “Servants of God” had to sign a 10-point pledge in which they swore to serve God and to live only by non-violent principles.

OBSTACLES TO PEACE-MAKING Although Abu-Nimer wants to show the world the good examples of nonviolence in Muslim communities, he is also critical that there are not more efforts of peace building and nonviolence from the Arab world. The obstacles are, according to him, a lack of creativity from the leadership, patriarchal social structures, extensive authoritarian control systems and an extensive lack of critical self-examination. There are also different myths in the Islamic world that Abu-Nimer sees as obstacles to peace building. One widespread myth in the Middle East is that violence is able to eliminate conflicts. “What was taken by force can only be returned by force” is an old Arabic saying. Another myth is that nonviolence is not an effective method. Abu-Nimer mentions that one antidote to this myths can be to remind Muslims of the considerable experience the Prophet in waging non-violent campaigns against his oppressors. Even if Islam contains plenty of nonviolence principles, these thoughts and words can still be seen as something “Western” for many Muslims in the Arab world. There are also obstacles to overcome due to differences in culture, if people from the West come to these countries to train in nonviolence. He also points out that Western conflict resolution methods would often not be effective in settling disputes in Muslim communities, since there is frequently a fear that some of their indigenous values and norms might not only be violated, but also entirely undermined. Knowing about all these differences and obstacles should increase significantly the chances of succeeding in training of nonviolence and conflict resolution where participants come from both Arabic and Western countries.

THE FIRST INTIFADA: A CASE STUDY In the last part of the book, Abu-Nimer makes a case study of nonviolence during the first Intifada (uprising) in Palestine. Abu-Nimer shows convincingly that although the Palestinian Intifada is known for its violence, it was really dominated by a massive and impressive non-violent campaign. He is not saying that the Intifada was an Islamic movement, because it was foremost a Palestinian struggle, Muslims and Christians side by side. But like the civil rights movement in the United States, religious institutions played a huge part. The Palestinian people gathered for their political meetings mostly in mosques and churches. The loudspeakers in the mosques were used to direct demonstrators or to encourage them in their efforts. Abu-Nimer argues that if it was not for their religion, they would not have been able to preserve their humanity and their patience. He shows it with the example of an Israeli soldier in Hebron being protected by an Arab family.

MOZAIK

2004/2

The martyr plays an important role in the Intifada. One can see it easily when at a demonstration in Palestine. Many mothers and fathers have pictures with them of their loved ones who had been killed in the struggle. Even though some think that blowing themselves up will bring them to heaven, Abu-Nimer shows that the thinking about martyrdom varies a lot between different Palestinians themselves. Everybody sees them as witnesses to the Palestinian struggle, but whether the shahid (martyr) went to heaven was “a matter for God to decide.” This attitude has the very practical effect of religious tolerance and political flexibility. It does not judge the outcome for a Christian Palestinian who died in the struggle. It allows religious Muslims to honour them equally. Before the Intifada, a primary symbol of the occupation was the armed guerrilla. Now, in place of this symbol of heroic armed aggression, stands a symbol of innocent suffering. It should be said, however, that posters of martyrs in Palestine almost always contain weapons. I can testify myself that even if unarmed children have been made into martyrs, they are often pictured with weapons in the posters. Martin Smedjeback is former president of the SCM Sweden. He is currently working as the secretary of nonviolence for SweFOR, the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, at their office in Stockholm. In 2002 he co-wrote Nonviolence in Israel and Palestine (in Swedish). His email address is martin.smedjeback@krf.se.

Roses of the Garden

RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY IN PEACE-MAKING In conclusion, Mohammed Abu-Nimer says that Islam can reinforce both violence and nonviolence, and it has been doing both during the course of history. Pretty much like Christianity, we can say. Islam has not developed an explicit ideology of nonviolence, and Muslims have done little preaching or teaching about nonviolence as a way of life, but the roots and the traditions are all in place creating a fertile ground for nonviolence. Abu-Nimer’s wish is clear with one of his last statements in the book: “Every religion can foster either violence or nonviolence. It is the responsibility of those who follow a particular faith to cull these resources for nonviolence from their religious scriptures.” Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam has helped me tremendously in understanding the tradition of nonviolence and conflict resolution in Islam, and Abu-Nimer is to be thanked for this. I can recommend this book to anyone interested in religion and peace issues. Religion is a mighty power. Our future could depend on us treating it right. This book gives us tools and knowledge to make Islam a powerful force for peace in co-operation with other peace-loving religions in the world.

Henrik Lindberg H A N S E N

The Garden of God No person can stand in front of another without having something to give and to receive. This is life as it is given us. If I as a Christian stand in front of a Muslim, she or he has something to give me and to receive from me. This is true not only in terms of philosophy or theology as expressions of faith; but also in terms of the life given this particular creature of God. The dynamics of interpersonal and intercommunitarian relations in life throw us in the arms of the one standing in front of us—not only because the person in front of us is created by God, but also because God’s presence in this person’s life is given expression through philosophy or theology in this particular person’s faith.

DYNAMICS OF DIVERSE CREATION God did not create us alone as individuals or as groups; we are all a part of God’s creation as God has created it. This diversity is an ultimate expression of the dynamics of God and the dynamics in which God created, and for this we owe God praise. We could choose to ignore this diversity; we could even try to combat it. But we must know that if we succeed, we will lose the dynamics of diverse creation which God obviously intended for God’s creation.

If we look around us we see an abundance of diversity; and when we appreciate the beauty of this abundance, let us look at each other and start to enjoy the beauty which God has given to each one of us. Let us first look at the person in front of us: not as a reflection of ourselves, but as an image of God. Let us take part in the beauty God has given this person and appreciate God through this person, and let us invite the person in front of us to do the same with us. Let us speak of how God has revealed Godself to us. I am Christian, and therefore I will try to restrict myself to delivering what I have heard from Muslims as honestly as possible. The truth of God should be whispered in friendly intimacy, conveyed from one creature to another before it is exclaimed from the rooftops. It is theology based on the faith of persons with an intimate relationship with God and must therefore be received with the utmost sincerity, even though it can at times seem very far from the place which we are given in this diverse creation of God. I pray that I would be able to convey this in the text even though my vocabulary is Christian; and I pray I will make it accessible by comparing it with the revelation given to me as a Christian.

MOZAIK

2004/2

Roses of the Garden

Henrik Lindberg H A N S E N

Roses of the Garden

The goal is not to assimilate Islam or Christianity. The diversity of creation is much too precious for that. The goal is to make this expression of faith understood in the context of another expression of faith. I will in this text focus on some basic elements of the Muslim and Christian faith connected to revelation: most of all the Qur’an, Muhammad and the Sunna; Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Bible. The aim is not to give a complete account of the issue, but to deliver a basic foundation of understanding. There are a lot of different ways of understanding these issues, but here we find space only for a brief acquaintance.

THE GLORIOUS QUR’AN The Holy Qur’an is a whole. It is given to Human through the Prophet Muhammad. Some issues of the Qur’an are elaborated in the Sunna, where elaboration is needed, but the Sunna can never contradict the Qur’an. According to the Sunni tradition, to which ninety per cent of Muslims belong, the Qur’an is the Living Word of God, and it was with God even before creation and is as such not a created thing. It should rather be seen as a living thing, which talks to humans in their lives at the time of the Prophet, in history and in the lives of Muslims now. The Qur’an is not a mere book, but The Word of God; a part of God, which humans can refer to in their lives to know the will of God. Humans can of course not change the Word of God; they can only try to understand it. The revelation of the Qur’an is closely connected to the Arabic language, and therefore there are no translations, but only explanations of the Qur’an. The Prophet Muhammad was human, he possessed an extraordinary constitution as a human, but the Qur’an itself states that even he could be wrong. Only God cannot be wrong, and therefore the Living Word of God is not an invention of Muhammad. He did not have anything to do with its content, but was only a catalyst of the Word of God. There are commands and sayings in the Qur’an which need elaboration to be carried out: the Qur’an states that Muslims must pray every day, but it does not specify exactly how. To have this specified, Muslims look at the life of Muhammad, what he did and said, as he possessed this very special constitution as a human. The account of the life of Muhammad can be found in the Sunna, of which the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) is a part. The Sunna is to a large extent open for interpretation. This was done mainly at the beginning of Islam, and there were formed then four major schools of interpretation in the science of kalam (theology). The doors of the kalam were closed about one thousand years ago, and now there are lively discussions about whether to open them again to embrace new methods of interpretation.

JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He came to humans as the Living Word of God. Christians experience Him (or: meet God) now through the Holy Spirit. And it is in the Holy Spirit that Christians interpret the Bible, which is a collection of scriptures on the life of Jesus and the time before Jesus, where Jesus was anticipated as the Christ, according to Christians. Jesus is God incarnate. He is the Living Word of God on Earth. His speech and acts are God expressing Godself to

MOZAIK

2004/2

humans. Jesus is nothing apart from God, but is God on Earth, pressing to be close to God’s creation. Since Jesus became incarnate in history, it occurred within a specific time in history, and now Christians experience God in the Holy Spirit, which is God, just as Jesus is God. To learn from God entering history, Christians read the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit renews the reading of the Bible and connects the person in her or his time of history with the time when Jesus walked the Earth. The Bible is a book, and is not in itself divine, but it is a special book, as it tells Christians now what Jesus did and said; but since the Bible is not in itself a revelation, it is open to interpretation. Of course the views on interpretations are very much discussed, and Christians are divided into denominations according to interpretations and worldviews, but by far most of the denominations accept each other as genuine Christians and believe they share in the same body of Christ.

JESUS AND THE QUR’AN Revelation: Glorious Qur’an

Jesus Christ Holy Spirit

Essential to revelation, but not revelation itself: Prophet Muhammad Sunna

Bible

This article is not aimed at unravelling the mysteries of revelation. It is just stating the simple point that the basics of revelation differ between Islam and Christianity. While Christians are oriented towards a divine person, Muslims are oriented towards a divine word in revelation. It is vital to be aware of this in dialogue, as similarities are not always where you expect to find them with only a brief experience of the other religion. This does not make one religion better than the other; it just makes them different. If Christians are not open to the Qur’an as the Living Word of God for Muslims, we would obviously reach the conclusion of Ng Kam Weng, when he states regarding the divine revelation in the world: “The logical outcome is the incarnation of the Word of God as a personal agent acting in relation to creation. In this light, we see immediately the inadequacy of any talk of revelation that comes only in the form of a holy book.” If Christians want to understand Islam in the meeting with Islam, we have to take the Qur’an seriously as the Living Word of God for Muslims. When we understand this, we will have the basis for understanding why Muslims are Muslims. If we do not understand this, all we will understand from the meeting with Muslims is why Christians are not Muslims. If Muslims are not open to Jesus as the Son of God in the revelation for Christians, understanding that the sonship is not as a human sonship, Muslims will not understand why Christians are Christians—only why Muslims are not Christians. It is essential for Muslims who want to understand Christianity that they see that God in Christianity is the One, and not the least among three. Christ does hold a very special position in Islam though: a virgin gave birth to Him, He is the word and He is the Messiah (Hebrew for Christ). He is one of the four most important prophets for Muslims, and no Muslim would talk negatively of Jesus

MOZAIK

2004/2

without going against Islam. Also, Christians should recognize this and not use the words of Samuel M. Zwemer, when he states: “There is hardly an important fact concerning the life, person and work of our Saviour, which is not ignored, perverted or denied by Islam.” Rather we should listen to people such as the Egyptian Muslim author Abdel Mo’ti Bayoumi, when he writes: “When the Qur’an says: ‘They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary… they surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is third of three…’ [Sura 5,72-73], it does not mean the Christian belief. It just speaks about a group of people and about some human beliefs that can be altered. The accusation of kufr [in these verses] is not directed to divinely revealed beliefs but to human beliefs.”

THE MYSTERIES OF REVELATION Christians have to accept the revelation given to Muslims as revelation for Muslims, and Muslims have to accept the revelation given to Christians as revelation for Christians. These revelations are the gates to the Garden of God; it is not up to us to close them, as God with God’s own hand placed them there for humans to enter. Instead of focusing on the door we entered from, we should focus on the beauty which God has given all of us in the Garden of God. The history of Christianity and Islam is filled to the point of bursting with extraordinary poetry, philosophy, literature and theology praising the greatness of God. We have so much to learn from each other, that fighting each other can only be an atrocity to any sane believer who has had only a small taste of how God can be praised by the other. The problem is, though, that history is also filled with fear, hostility and distrust. Before us is a great chasm which can only be crossed with the help of God. Both Muslims and Christians have to see how their fellow believers have committed acts of brutality screaming to the heavens in history. Both Muslims and Christians have to carry this burden of history into dialogue. Only then can it be removed by the other. History has left scars in the mind of us all, which we have to overcome. These scars are kept fresh by apologetic writing of history and theology spawned by centuries of alienation, and it is essential that these are rewritten in the light of an ongoing dialogue, where we are exposed to the other as true images of God.

VENTURING BEYOND APOLOGIES Ng Kam Weng seems truly a good Christian, but his theology is based on a chasm between any other expression of faith and Christianity. He is open to dialogue, but our main task in dialogue, according to him, appears to be criticising the other in dialogue based on the fact that she or he is not Christian.

Roses of the Garden

It seems that the revelation from God in his theology loses expression if he accepts God’s constant self-revelation in God’s creation to any but Christians. A theology such as this falls in the category called apologetic theology, where meeting with the Absolute cannot be expressed as the Absolute if it is open to the possibility of any other revelation—that we as Christians cannot actually learn something from Islam and still be Christians. In the Garden of God, I am sure also apologetic theologians like Ng Kam Weng are beautiful flowers. They are sincere in their devotion to God and strong in their theological work. They often dig directly into the core issue of being Christian, and show us clearly the beauty of Christianity. But if we are too self-assured in the beauty which God has given us, we might miss the beauty of the rest of God’s creation. If we feel our beauty is superior to anything else in creation, we run the risk of wanting to be separated from the rest of the creation. If we were to ask God to place us on a pedestal apart from creation, we would be rooted up from the life-giving soil of the Garden of God. We might be in the centre of attention for a brief moment, but we would quickly dry out and leave an empty withered shell of dogmas and rites. The soil of the Garden of God is rich and more than sufficient for us to flourish fertilised by Christ, but we need to be in this soil sharing the diversity of God’s creation, where God has made space for all of God’s creation. We need to be where God planted us. It is hard for age-old religions like Christianity and Islam, with both their apologetic theologies, to accept a truth of the other religion, especially because both religions have a strong commandment for mission. We are both obliged to present our revelation to the world. The mixture of apologies and mission does not leave much space for open dialogue. But exactly the commitment to mission can also be seen as the starting point of living and growing together, if we root out the apologies from our theologies. We have in dialogue the possibility to present our faith in an open way, to share with each other. The Anglican bishop of Egypt and North Africa, Mouneer Anis, a true pioneer in applying interreligious dialogue in Egypt, speaks along these lines when he states: “Dialogue helps us to listen and share with Muslims in a friendly atmosphere, and this is very different from aggressive evangelisation.” In the end God is God and human is human. We can choose to wage war on each other in the sight of God, or we can choose to bow down before God side by side. Suggested Reading Ali Abdullah Yusuf, The Meaning of The Holy Qur’an. Maryland, 2002. Bayoumi Abdel Mo’ti, Islam and Other Religions. al-Musawwar, March 21, 2003. Cragg Kenneth, Muhammad and the Christian, a Question of Response. London, 1984. Løgstrup Knud Ejler, The Ethical Demand. Notre Dame, 1997. Watt W. Montgomery, Introduction to the Qur’an. Edinburgh, 1970. Weng Ng Kam, Perfect Revelation and the Finality of Christ. Selangor, 1995. Zwemer Samuel M., The Muslim Christ. Edinburgh - London, 1912. Henrik Lindberg Hansen was born in Denmark in 1974 and ordained a pastor in the Danish Evangelical-Lutheran Church to function as a liaison officer in Cairo from 2004–2010. Here he develops knowledge on Islam and will enter into dialogue at the Muslim al-Azhar University, while doing doctoral work in the field of dialogue. See more details at www.faithtofaith.dk. His email address is henrik@faithtofaith.dk.

Thorny Issues

MOZAIK

2004/2

O R O V A Csaba

Commitment: to Truth or Identity? In the perspective of Christian faith, in the seed of our personality the Holy Spirit is hidden. Turning to Her, our soul and body become Her holy temple. All who commit themselves to Jesus, recognising in Him the Christ via the Spirit hidden in their personality and hoping to be invited to the last feast at the Father’s table, necessarily form a communion. It is both to signify this anticipated universal salvation and to make it a reality through mission to others. In this commitment there is a decision; we can not make this decision, however, independently of conditions existing in the outer layers of our personality. These conditions are determined concretely and historically, and as a result for centuries Christians have been living in one of the denominations. How it can be possible that these Christians do not recognise the same decision, conversion and hope in their sisters and brothers living in another denomination? After all, they made a decision for Jesus in the One Church. Or did they?

COMMITMENT: AN ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS ISSUE The Christian faith has a dimension of love for truth, and the Church hands over truths among special historical circumstances in a special way. There is a creative tension between faith and reason when we think about truth. Tolerance is important both at the level of theory and in the actuality of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, even though commitment plays an essential role as well. To what do we commit as a person of faith: to a Christian truth which we consciously accept as a gift from outside? Or to a Christian identity which primarily cloaks us in cultural patterns? Ecumenical and interreligious dialogues have similar methodology and ethical bases. The method and responsibility of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue is a new challenge to convert to Jesus Christ. I will write now in a provocative way, in its etymological sense: calling out thoughts.

TRUTH: OUTSIDE COMMITMENT OR SELFCONTAINMENT? Standing in a bookshop, years ago I read this story in a handbook of the history of philosophy. A Far Eastern monastery was known for its inhabitants’ intensive quest for truth. A crowd from far away went on a pilgrimage to listen to their discussions, fighting through all the difficulties which jungle, marsh and beasts had meant. One day, though, the monks decided to lock themselves in because the questions of the visitors disturbed them in seeking the truth peacefully. They covered the paths of the forest with leaves and blocked the portals to prevent themselves from being discovered. Then they were wrapped up in truth. With the coming of the rainy season, the marshes swelled up and the rivers overflowed everywhere in that land, but the monks were not aware of these.

They listened to each other and reflected on truth; they disputed with each other and sought the truth. Thereafter the damp seeped through their monastery’s walls, but they did not take notice of it. When the rainy weather ceased, the monastery had disappeared — the water swallowed it together with its inhabitants. No trace was ever found of them; the persevering pilgrims sought them in vain. Putting the handbook back on the shelf, I thought that henceforth it is useless to follow the discussions about truth throughout the history. It is sufficient to live our life in a practical manner. But later on, I discovered that seeking truth is a logical, personal and religious commitment.

COMMITMENT ON THE BASIS OF LOGIC: PARTIAL RELATIVITY There is an essential correlation between truth and commitment. There is neither truth for itself, nor Truth without consequence. This is why we can say that ‘A’ serves as a base for ‘B’. In all argumentations, truths result in and are followed by truths. In this logical sense, truth means that a statement corresponds to the facts to which it refers. Though the consequences of the truths might be various and of differing weights, these oblige those familiar with them. But how can we know if a statement corresponds to the facts to which it refers? One can engage in a debate on the theory of knowledge, moving the limits of cognoscibility. One can even raise the question if there is only a single truth. Nevertheless, wherever we arrive, we insist on particular results, while there are no better results. We feel that our results which we consider as true, are binding us. Thus it is worthy to express them, to dispute on them and to make an effort for them. Because they are not the same; and not all the statements are true which are held true. Thus, a belief in absolute relativity would not lead us anywhere either. Partial or qualified relativity, however, is an intelligible and defensible attitude. In everyday life we are aware of our truths’ limited validity; in science we speak of hypothetical validity; and the mysterious character of the Holy is also known to all traditions.

COMMITMENT IN IDENTITY: A LAYERED VALIDITY Imagine the architecture of a personality as a unity of concentric layers with a seed in the centre. On the surface, we can find the layer of perception, information and logic in the sense of trained or manipulated rationality and intentions. We show this personal history to the others, and our everyday (inter)actions take place at this level, as well as professional work. We also learn what others usually do and how they do it. We create the new mainly through combinations. Here the truths of cultural and religious patterns become evident very soon; and our commitment is flexible to these patterns, because we perceive their temporary character.

MOZAIK

2004/2

In the inside layer, we can find desires and memories, as well as waves of emotions, from which our logical thoughts originate and which affect the direction of our intentions and the elaboration of our past; which attract to a special area of activity. We can make words of this cognitive layer or bring it up only through rationalities, while we largely hide them. Our identity’s dynamics (disposition) originates from this layer; as well as our basic responses to ethical questions (personal character). Here, the activity in connection with others is primarily communication. We have far less possibility to perceive and control this layer, because its patterns are inherited. Truths are conditioned culturally, though our relation to them is new and personal. Our commitment is stronger and tighter because these truths change more slowly; their validity is a thousand years old. Under these layers is the seed of our personality or our heart pulsate. It presents itself at limits or extreme situations and in delighted states of mind. This seed or keel (a term by Ottlik Géza, one of the greatest Magyar and European writers) is profoundly hidden from ourselves. So it can happen that we do not take note of it for a lifetime. It is here, however, that our life is assured; here takes place the fundamental option about our existence (and not about direction): are we created or alone, without transcendence? The truth of this seed goes through the upper layers and commits them to their due decisions. The truth of this seed is timeless, though “at the same time” we make an option about it. The narrative puzzles of identity arise from its layered reality; we can find validities of different degrees and duration in identity. Our identity is like a steamer. On board there is a great amount of comings-and-goings; the crew do their jobs while and as they are needed. In the body of the steamer, the motor is working or just quiet; the rudder is turning slowly. The keel steadily assures the balance of the ship. Yet the captain (our unity) oversees, understands and navigates the whole activity of the ship simultaneously; she or he senses the right direction with confidence: the keel will not allow its ship to sink.

RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT ACCORDING TO THE HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS For a religious person, the truth(s) of a religion comprise one of her or his identities. We can describe this logic of the religious attitude in accordance with the superficial norms of religion as truths. We can describe the truths of this religious attitude through one’s religious notions (doctrine) and religious emotions (liturgy). It is important that doctrine and liturgy do not work on the surface, but rather in an inside layer. Only the expression of doctrine’s truth is on the surface, and liturgy is only seemingly a formality. Indeed, its words and gestures not only surround but also affect the religious person as images. We can describe the ethical options of this religious attitude which result from ideas and images together. Nevertheless, the truth of a religion is not only a fixed part of the total identity, but embraces the whole personality of a religious person and goes through all of her or his identities. We can not describe and determine this

Thorny Issues

religious dimension originating in the seed of personality; we can only meditate on its existence and quality. Commitment to religious truths and the validity of these truths are layered in accordance with the above. On the surface, the usual expressions of religious attitude in everyday life, disciplinary logic and its application manifest themselves. By this we primarily mean speaking of our religious identity. We know the rules and order of attendance in a church or service; we perceive ourselves as separate from a person committed to another religion. We acquire patterns from those similar to us, and we also shape these patterns in our religion as a cultural system. Our commitment to these patterns is temporary and depends on our religious subculture. We know about the historical mutability of these patterns. Inside, the identity is obligated to a larger degree to systematized notions and sacred actions (both usually confirmed by authorities) of one’s religion, as well as to ethical positions. A critical disposition in a person, or a special critical obligation existing in concrete religion is needed to change this layer of religious identity. For instance when commitments to the truths of religion clash and the temporal or qualitative validity of these commitments are not clear, the tension might drive out a religious individual or subculture from the community to create a new (version of) religion.

THE CRITICAL LAYER OF DIALOGUE This is the point where ecumenical and interreligious dialogues, as well as movements reflected by ecumenical theology and religious studies, intervene. Is there an essential correlation between decisions made in this layer of religious identity, both in the sense of individual and collective, and the characteristics of a concrete historical church or religion? If there is not, then it is useless to ask who is right or which the right way is. In this case, difference among religions is an issue merely of tolerance, and the communion of Christians is a utilitarian task of cooperation. If there is, though, such an essential correlation between our decision and the specific tradition of the community to which we belong, then we live in the tension between truth and loyalty to history (or cultural determination) and only one instrument remains for us: dialogue. In dialogue there is a risk of transformation. Tradition, however, does not exclude changes, since it exists in time. Dialogue belongs to tradition. Through this dialogue we must explore the patterns of our religion or church (theological) traditions which motivate and encourage dialogue. Seeking communion among Christians and creative peace among religions are not exclusively aims of our times. Opposite efforts and trends could cover up these patterns in olden times and nowadays as well. Our epoch is kairos, a mature time to enter into dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, we must perceive the plural identities of ourselves and others, as well as differentiating between the layers of these identities. Yet the elements of truth in these various layers have different validity in regard to commitment to a community. Degrees of a given commitment might be also different between communities. Through the external viewpoint of religious studies, we can explore those historical, cultural, social and psychological patterns which are hidden in the various approaches to God.

Thorny Issues

Ecumenical theology can explore such patterns in the diverse models of the Church. This exploration must not mean that we throw away these patterns as historical silt. No doubt we will find some manipulated and corrupt patterns worthy of discarding freely, but primarily the question is to review and interpret the tradition with which we identify ourselves. Then we will have an insight into our commitment’s diverse claims. Out of interpretation will arise a new language. In dialogue, with an analysis of commitments of different strengths and cultural determinations it might become clear that our own tradition is also manycoloured. We might explore patterns in another church which are nearer to us than patterns of our own. By understanding the hierarchy of truths, we can avoid fundamentalism and syncretism as obstacles to dialogue. In fundamentalism the layering of identity is melded together with diverse commitments. In this case, truth is a monolithic block—one can catch and determine it. Conversely, in syncretism truth is inaccessible or absolute relative, so it is a non-committal trend. The community to which we belong hands over its religious heritage (traditio). This tradition does not require an uncritical loyalty, but rather a commitment which is layered in accordance with the hierarchy of truths in time.

MOZAIK

2004/2

ABOUT THE SEED The Truth we meet in the internal seed of our identity is beyond the layers which are determinable religiously and culturally. This Truth is chosen like a person beloved, yet still given from outside as an authority. This Truth is describable and expressed by religious and cultural means in time. Its validity, however, points beyond these means and beyond time itself, as well. Theology as intellectual talk about God is converted into a lover’s conversation with God. Religious commitment calms down. For Deus semper maior.

Suggested Reading Beinert Wolfgang - Fiorenza Francis S., Hierarchy of Truths. In Handbook of Catholic Theology. New York, 1995. Kreiner Armin, Das Verhältnis von Dialog und Wahrheit in der Kirche. In Fürst Gebhard (ed.), Dialog als Selbstvollzug der Kirche? Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1997. 133–149. Rahner Karl - Vorgrimler Herbert, Truth. In Dictionary of Theology. New York, 1981. Unitatis Redintegratio Decree on Ecumenism. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html. Orova Csaba (1976) is a student of theology at the Sapientia School of Theology (Budapest). He is Roman Catholic and a researcher at Békés Gellért Ecumenical Institute (BGÖI) in Pannonhalma, Hungary. He is a board member of KÖD (Magyar SCM). His email address is csabor@enternet.hu.

Josue Soares F L O R E S

Afro–Brazilian Religions: Dialogue, Coexistence and Peace Dialogue is imperative to maintain sense among humans. It is through dialogue with “significant others” that individuals make the world their own, as the constructed world is in such a way maintained. According to the perspective of the biology of knowledge, it is by dialogue that the human being is constituted as such in the history of evolution. It is in communication and interaction with others, in accepting the uniqueness of our neighbours, in sharing emotions with them, that love emerges and becomes the foundation of every social phenomenon.

COMMUNICATION IN DIALOGUE AND MISSION Humberto MATURANA maintains: “The anthropological genesis of Homo sapiens did not happen through competition but through cooperation, and cooperation can only happen as a spontaneous activity in mutual acceptance, that is, through love.” Leonardo Boff also comments: “It was not because of the survival of the fittest that individuals and life were guaranteed, but because of cooperation and coexistence between them. Hominids, millions of years ago, became humans as long as they were able to share their harvest and their affection. Language emerged from this dynamics of love and sharing.” One of the major obstacles for interreligious dialogue is the sense of predominance of one over

others, or blind competition that overshadows one’s uniqueness. MATURANA’s reflection helps us to understand that all competition works against the possibility for love, generating blindness and reducing the dynamics of creativity and the circumstances for human coexistence. Love implies gratitude. It means, in his words, a “biological desire that makes us accept the presence of the other beside us beyond any reason, brings us back to socialization and transforms our ways of reasoning. The acceptance of the other is the enemy of tyranny and abuse, because it opens a space for cooperation.” There cannot be interreligious dialogue without the graceful acceptance of the other and her or his involvement in the open space of love. Peace among religions is an essential requirement for peace among nations. True interreligious dialogue must be globally responsible and cannot permit the continuation of violence and unjust suffering among human beings. This dialogue, according to Claude GEFFRÉ, becomes the bearer of “new chances not only for religions, but also for the future of the human family, which frequently questions in anguish its own future.” K-J. Kuschel defines conscience as “a broad knowledge of ones about others, a respect for others, a responsibility of ones for others, and mutual cooperation.” Dialogue is affirmed as such in a relationship with another individual.

Thorny Issues

MOZAIK

2004/2

Josue Soares F L O R E S

MOZAIK

2004/2

Dialogue talks about a fundamental reciprocity installed between the poles of the relationship: I and others. It supposes similarity and difference, identification and otherness. Dialogue begins when an attitude of listening to the other happens, when the other is recognized as a being of freedom and dignity. Interreligious dialogue has its own peculiarity: those involved in it belong to different religious traditions. Interreligious dialogue should not be confused with mere coexistence, symbiosis or confrontation of different identities. It encompasses “all interreligious relations, positive and constructive. The richness of interreligious dialogue relies on the sharing of spiritual patrimonies, unique and irrevocable.” Ana Maria ZINSLY CALMON points out three principles of interreligious dialogue—equality, difference, and communion—in relation to three dimensions of interreligious dialectics—ethical, theological and mystical. The option for dialogical communication constitutes a challenge for Christianity. The experience of otherness touches the deepest and most specific point in the original vocation of Christianity; it is an experience that has its raison d’être in the experience of Jesus’ God, which is communion and not solitude, a God that integrates difference and invokes to the right to difference. The dynamic of otherness is equally rooted in the historical experience of Jesus of Nazareth, who welcomed with tenderness and love the excluded and the different. The capacity of welcoming was essential in His historical testimony. Christian mission cannot be understood outside this welcoming hospitality brought by Jesus. This mission cannot be conceived as an extension of empire, or Christian civilization, or implantation of the Church. Following Jesus, it must be lived as a project to expand the culture of life, able to transmit a new and vital breath against all affirmations of suffering and death; a project to be shared in fraternal communion with all other religions on Earth. It is true that in this process of knowledge and practice against otherness present in all current conflicts, religions have had and still have a particular place. Religions, as a matter of fact, are marked by ambiguity. History has shown that religions have promoted violence on several occasions, while on others they favoured generosity and the ability among human beings to live together. It would be wrong to identify violence as a substantial part of religious experience. Intolerance does not belong to the nature of religion, rather it is more related to its disfiguration or practical and theoretical abuse. We should take a stand against the pessimistic thesis that defines the human being as essentially egocentric. Dehumanization that happens in the name of a religion is more related to assumptions that are strange to religion; that, in the end, betray the profound dynamism of the relationship with the Absolute. A true relationship with the absolute, as Edward SCHILLEBEECKX OP says, is incompatible with any dehumanization or violence. On the contrary, it “awakens the courage to produce more humanity in all sectors of life.”

Thorny Issues

AFRO–BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVES IN TRANSFORMATION

CANDOMBLE, UMBANDA AND ORIXA

Among the theologians who worked on the indigenous issue and inculturation, we might mention the contributions made by theologians who developed the theology of Afro-Brazilian religion. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, the first systematic studies were made. These studies recognize values in the Afrotraditions but only as a prelude which has its major expression in Christianity. François DE L’ESPINAY occupies an outstanding place in this broadening of perspectives, beginning with a unique experience of integral solidarity with followers of Candomble in Salvador, Bahia. His reflection is a radical critique of Roman Catholic exclusivism, pointing to a diversified experience of a God Who speaks in many ways and makes Godself present in mediations different from those we know. All these studies emphasize that true dialogue implies welcoming the otherness manifested in Afro-religions. There are African priests who come to Brazil to learn about their own religion. This is an amazing phenomenon of cultural survival despite massacre by slave traffic: Iorubas, Daomeans, Fanti-Ashanti, Bantu, are all cultures that contributed in many ways to Afro-Brazilian religiosity. Among the many slave groups that came to Brazil, three categories should be highlighted: Negros Fons or Nação Jeje, Negros Yorubás or Nação Ketu, and thirdly Negros Bantos or Nação Angola. Each of these three nations has a dialect and a ritual, but there was a coalition among the gods worshipped: in the Nação Jeje the gods are called Voduns; in the Nação Ketu, Orixás; and in the Nação de Angola, Inkices. The Jeje-Nago has been the main structuring tradition in Brazil since the XIXth century. A similar phenomenon can be noted in the Caribbean, with the Voodoo in Haiti and the Santeria in Cuba. Religions from these three main regions—the coast of Brazil, the Caribbean and eastern Africa—constitute a circuit of common shared sacred practices. The vitality of Afro-religions in Brazil is evidenced by a particular way of expansion: it was not restricted to an affirmation of ethnic identity. Black peoples’ symbols and the African memory are strongly brought back, and they offer a perennial source of elements which animate these movements. “Negro” is not, for the faithful, a colour that identifies the essence of their religion. Oxum is golden, Oxossi the green of the forests, Yemanja sea blue, Xango red and white, and so on: the colours of the rainbow. In the rituals, the emphasis is put in the history of detribalization, of traffic, of crossing of the Ocean and the disintegrating violence of slave work. Rites and myths in Candomble speak little about history. Of a higher value is the presence of Orixás in the sacred spaces, as well as its influence in the minds and behaviour of people. Candomble dramatizes relations in a cosmic dimension that happen in a mythical time that involves life as we know it.

This mythical openness, combined with the syncretic dynamic of Roman Catholicism in Brazil, led to the fact that the claims of Candomble were perceived and appreciated by a large number of Brazilians, whether black, mulatto or white. Candomble has always been condemned by the Church, persecuted by the state and treated with violence during the Getulio VARGAS time, but the policemen that invaded the terreiros were themselves frequently practised in Candomble itself. Persecution has diminished since the ’50s, opening up more freedom for cult sites and worship attendance. Cultural movements changed the image of Candomble in literature, music, cinema and television, making it an attractive event for the elite. Under the influence of Umbanda, a new and expanding movement, Orixás became cult objects in broader circles, including the middle classes. A survey in the ’80s showed the existence of 16.000 Umbanda Centers in Rio Grande do Sul (the southernmost state of the country)—most of them led by descendants of Germans, Italians, Polish and other European immigrants. There are also devoted Orixás among Japanese descendants and Jews in Brazil. Candomble houses and Umbanda centres proliferate in Argentina under the Brazilian influence. The aesthetic sophistication of Candomble rites contributes to its attraction to people involved in art. Open ceremonies in worship houses have the characteristics of a feast. Divinities who are manifested in them do not come to preach or to give advice but to express vital energy through dancing. They do this following a strict ritual logic, under the command of drums and chants. They dress in a colourful, obvious way and produce a codified gesture that identifies each Orixá. Feasts end, without exception, with a banquet open to the public, in which sacred food related to the night event is shared. Candomble houses develop an intense, constant activity to maintain the relations between the Sacred and the profane. The space is carefully divided: a space for the public feast, a chamber for the initiated, a room with restricted access where the sacred objects are left, the houses of each Orixás, sacred plants, reception rooms for the faithful—composing an architecture as complex as the cult hierarchy. There are also obligations for each Orixá: initiations, individualized relations with the public, reading of buzios, a variety of rites, the hard harmonization of the different powers that constitute the house of Candomble, the relationship with society—all this has to be attended to in detail, according to a meticulous aesthetic ritual. The authority of an Ialorixa (saint mother) or a Babalorixa (saint father) is linked to her or his dominion over these matters. Their know-how, the justification for each gesture in the different traditions, embodies a huge symbolic world in the figure of a saint mother or father.

MOZAIK

2004/2

DIALOGUE AS A FUSION OF HORIZONS The search for peace is, actually, discovering the different, respecting its otherness and its identity, and building links of commitment and respect for cultural, social, ecological and economic realities that mediate the social relations among human beings. Dialogue as a fusion of horizons is one of the actual possibilities for humanity, a space for self-affirmation and solidarity. While a society free of violence seems utopian, there are many concrete efforts made to actively reduce violence in several social spaces. Interreligious dialogue demonstrates the possibility of a new perspective for religions to act in favour of the construction of an ethic to overcome violence in order to save both the integrity of humanity and the Earth. A true relationship with the Absolute is incompatible with any dehumanization or violence. This relation is “non-violence in any aspect; on the contrary, it awakens the courage to produce more humanity in all aspects of life.” Suggested Reading Boff Leonardo, Saber cuidar, ética do humano. Petrópolis, 1999. da Costa Valdeli Carvalho, Umbanda. São Paulo, 1983. de l’Espinay François, A religião dos orixás. REB 1987/47. (187.) Frisotti Heitor, Passos no diálogo. São Paulo, 1986. Geffré Claude, Profession théologien. Paris, 1999. Kuschel K-J., Discordia en la casa de Abraham. Navarra, 1996. Maturana Humberto, A ontologia da realidade. Belo Horizonte, 1997. Rehbein Franziska C., Candomblé e salvação. São Paulo, 1985. Schillebeeckx Edward OP, Religião e violência. Concilium, 1997/4. (272.) Zinsly Calmon Ana Maria, O diálogo interreligioso. Dissertação, UFJF, 1998. Josue Soares Flores is a social scientist and graduate of the State University of Londrina in Brazil. He is the coordinator of pastoral social action for the Curitiba Anglican Diocese of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. He is a former secretary and current senior friend of the Ecumenical Student Christian Movement (SCM) in Brazil. He is also a theologian, an alumnus of the Antonio de Godoy Sobrinho Theological Seminary and the South American Theological Faculty. Currently he is a postgraduate student in political sociology at the Federal University in Parana in Brazil. His e-mail address is josuka_arquivos@yahoo.com.br. This article was translated by Horacio Mesones.

MOZAIK

Thorny Issues

2004/2

Thorny Issues

MOZAIK

2004/2

Heike E R N S T I N G

Strangers in the Sanctuary: Eucharistic Hospitality in Interreligious Dialogue A few years ago I was involved with a group of Kurdish refugees who had sought, and been given, sanctuary in an Evangelical church in Wuppertal, Germany. They became part of the community during the time they were staying there. These refugees attended the Sunday service. They joined the parishioners both in their worship and in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I find such a situation remarkable—non-Christians meeting Christians at the Table of the Lord to share bread and wine together.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE In this case, the “other” meets us at the very heart of our life as a Christian community—the communion of the Supper. Usually, Church life is quite unmolested from interference with non-Christians. The “other” is of course recognized, but often from a safe distance that does not challenge us to reconsider our own ecclesiastical practice and its underlying theological implications. The particular case of church asylum presents, very effectively, the challenge of Christian encounter with other religious and cultural traditions, which is becoming more common in a multicultural society like Germany. The presence of this interreligious and multicultural reality forces Christian churches to enter into dialogue, as well as to define and understand their identity, mission and being vis-à-vis the “other.” The issue of sharing the Eucharist with non-Christians is a great challenge for Christian theology. In this article I am going to touch on the theological questions raised by this challenge and suggest some ways to respond to them.

EUCHARISTIC HOSPITALITY IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE The issue of Eucharistic hospitality has an important place in interchurch dialogue and is of special significance in the ecumenical movement. Since it strives for the visible unity of the whole Church, the Eucharist, where Christians of all denominations gather around the Lord’s table, has become the foremost symbol of this unity. This sort of communion, however, still remains a vision, because differing understandings of the Eucharist prevent a full sharing in it. This difference is mirrored in the various titles: Protestant churches use the term “Supper” or “Lord’s Supper”; the Roman Catholic Church prefers the term “Eucharist” or “Mass”; Orthodox Christians speak of “the Divine Liturgy.” Interchurch discussion of Eucharistic hospitality presupposes a common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord. This shared commitment is not presupposed when the issue of Eucharistic hospitality is treated in an interreligious dimension, and this factor makes a fundamental difference. Christians’ self-understanding and their attitude towards the “other” is at stake here. The Christian command for mission and claims of truth seem to represent obstacles to interreligious dialogue.

The Roman Catholic theologian Paul Knitter places mission in the broader context of dialogue. Mission is not to be understood as a one-way proclamation of the gospel. God’s revelation and salvation in the world are not oneway activities; rather they are dialogical. God’s self-communication is relational, both within the Trinitarian nature of Godself as well as to us. Revelation calls for a human response. The Deus revelatus communicates with the world as the Deus relatus, as God-in-relation. From this line of argument Knitter concludes sharply that “[t]he missio Dei therefore is the dialogus Dei.” This understanding of mission implies far-reaching consequences for Christian dialogue with other religions. Dialogue means accepting that the conversation is one of equals. Each party is asked to proclaim and witness authentically to her or his faith, and also to allow the “other” to do the same. This attitude includes allowing the outcome of the dialogue to be left open. In such an open and honest conversation of equals, one’s own truth claims are vulnerably exposed to the other. They might be misunderstood, rejected, challenged or even proven implausible. Interreligious dialogue includes an element of risk, for the people involved accept that they may be influenced by the thinking of the other, even to the point of changing their minds about their own faith, and possibly being converted. Mission as dialogue is about the attempt to witness truthfully to one’s faith, seeking for mutual understanding, enrichment and relationship. The Christian command to mission finds its appropriate expression in dialogue when seen as an honest witness to Jesus Christ, not only in word but also in deed. The great challenge of “strangers in the sanctuary” is that the Lord’s Supper becomes a place for interreligious encounter and dialogue. Such a situation creates a challenge to rethink the Christian (Protestant) understanding of the Lord’s Supper in an interreligious perspective.

A THEOLOGY OF THE EUCHARIST IN INTERRELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE 1. The Church as a Body with Fluid Edges Baptism, as the sacrament of incorporation into the Church as the “Body of Christ,” is commonly named a prerequisite for being allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This is despite the fact that the Biblical stories on the Lord’s Supper do not explicitly draw a connection to baptism. The case of church asylum confronts us with a situation that does not fit with the usual pattern of baptism, confirmation, and permission to participate in the Lord’s Supper. The refugees became part of the Christian congregation and community, without ever having been baptized. This fact challenges us to reflect on the concept of Church. The Christ hymn in Colossians 1,15-20 presents Jesus as the head of the body, the Ecclesia. This statement is made in the context of creation and salvation, the reconciliation of the world, of heaven and Earth, to God. The perspective of the universal dimension of Christ’s death and resurrection is the matrix for defining Ecclesia.

The Church is located within the world as the place where God’s reconciliation with the world is testified and witnessed to. Just as Jesus’ mission was directed to the whole world, similarly the Church’s mission is to serve in and for the world. Therefore, it contradicts the proclamation of Jesus’ redemptive death and resurrection to make any general statements of not-belonging to the “Body of Christ” that separates Church from world. Thus, belonging to the “Body of Christ” can be stated positively as a confession of Christ as Lord, but not negatively as a way to exclude “outsiders.” The “Body of Christ” is a body with fluid edges.

2. The Body and Blood of Christ ‘for You’ and ‘for Many’ The soteriological dimension of the Eucharist is rooted in the salvific meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus. Christ’s cross and resurrection are the fundamental statement of God’s merciful actions in the world. Through the elements of bread and wine, Jesus Christ gives himself to us in His body and blood. He grants us the promise of forgiveness of sins and of reconciliation. Who are the recipients of this gift of Christ, given in the Lord’s Supper? The texts of the New Testament present different accounts of the introductory words. I draw special attention to the Pauline phrase “for you” (1Cor 11,24) and the Markan phrase “for the many” (Mk 14,24). The ascription “for you” is addressing the concrete assembly that celebrates the Lord’s Supper, whereas the ascription “for many” expands this group. “The many” are appropriately understood as humankind. Many churches use a combination of these two texts as words of institution for the Eucharist when they say “given for you” over the bread and “shed for many” over the wine. In breaking and sharing the bread, the concrete, assembled community experiences forgiveness and renewal of life. In drinking the wine and in sharing the cup the community recalls the universal, salvific dimension of the cross. All people of all times are potentially invited to celebrate the renewal of life and creation.

3. Service Instead of Dominion The ethical dimensions of church asylum are significant. The congregation consciously decided to grant asylum in their churches, as they understood this as an ethical consequence consistent with their Christian faith. God’s prime concern for the poor and for the needy has to find expression in the activity of a Christian congregation. Granting the refugees sanctuary, caring for their needs and being hospitable fulfilled this ethical demand. But how can this general hospitality, as an expression of Christian ethical conviction, be related to Eucharistic hospitality and its ethical implications? The Last Supper is fundamentally related to other meal communities with Jesus. Luke tells how in the sequence of the Last Supper an argument broke out among the disciples about who is to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22,24-27). Jesus intervenes by arguing that greatness finds its expression in serving. The parallel story in Mark concludes pointedly that “whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10,43). The story of washing the feet (John 9,1-13) contains a similar emphasis.

It is inappropriate to respond to being invited to the table with an attitude of superiority. Real greatness is shown in a non-hierarchical manner that is concerned for the wellbeing of the other. The appropriate response is to imitate Jesus’ example: to serve as he serves.

4. The Lord’s Supper Anticipates the Reign of God We celebrate the Supper as we await the Parousia of Christ and as we anticipate the presence of the Reign of God. The provisional character is preserved in the sentence “we proclaim His death until He comes” (1Cor 11,26). It reminds us that human powers fight against God’s salvific acts in the world when they crucify Jesus. The vision and idea of the Reign of God, which we think of as a reign of universal redemption, reconciliation, peace, justice, healing and sufficiency, can be foretasted as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Matthew 8,11 promises that many will come from East and West and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the reign of heaven. The verse has to be interpreted against the background of the Old Testament, from where it combines a number of motifs. It applies to the gathering of the peoples on Mount Zion where the reign of peace begins (Mic 4; Isa 2). It also incorporates the vision of the eschatological joyful feast, when God “will swallow up death forever” and “wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isa 25,8). And it refers to the gathering of God’s people that is accompanied by the redemption from suffering and the satisfaction of thirst and hunger (Ps 107, Isa 43; 49). The Lord’s Supper is celebrated at the dawning of the Reign of God and in the hope of the final renewal of creation. The universal vision of the promised time is alive in the midst of the earthly reality of sorrow, guilt and division.

5. The Sacrament of the Supper as Visible Word Communication theory distinguishes between communication of content and communication between people as a fundamental human fact of interaction. The celebration of the Supper contains these two dimensions of communication as it implies both the communication of the message of forgiveness and reconciliation and also the communication between the partakers of the Supper. The first aspect of communication, referring to the content, indicates the meaning of the Lord’s Supper as the visible word. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper serves the proclamation of the word in opening another sensual dimension of experiencing God’s love and providence. The notion of communication between the partakers comprises the interactive complexity of the Eucharist. As a response, those who receive an invitation to come to the table get up from their seats, move towards the altar and gather there. When they stand in a line they interact with their fellowcommunicants, waiting for the others to receive bread and wine, and sharing them with one another, so that everyone receives an equal amount of the gifts. The communication of the Eucharistic community is one of strict equality, which is preserved by the ritual character of the interaction. Everyone is treated equally—status, education, eloquence, race, sex, or social background is of no importance.

MOZAIK

Thorny Issues

2004/2

This equality creates and keeps an atmosphere of respect and belonging together as one celebrating community, despite all the differences. This indiscriminative intercommunication of those who share the one bread can be pictured as “one body.” After the communicants have been strengthened through the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, they are sent out to carry the blessing of the Eucharist to the world. Thus, the Supper is extended and continued on into everyday life.

AN ATTITUDE OF HOSPITALITY There is a close relation between communication of and communication between in the Supper, insofar as the proclamation of the message finds an expression in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The way the Eucharist is celebrated is therefore the test for the proclamation of the gospel in both word and deed. It judges the consistency and thus the credibility of the Christian witness of faith. In the Lord’s Supper we recall that God has reconciled the whole world to Godself, and has established a new covenant of forgiveness and reconciliation through Christ. The love of God is the message to all humankind, and this

message has to find expression in the communication between those present in the Eucharist. The interactions that happen in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper clearly have the potential for expressing and experiencing the forgiving and reconciling love of God and for discovering the meaning of these realities of faith. A responsible attitude of hospitality, which includes Eucharistic hospitality, is an appropriate and much needed expression of Christian mission as it responds to the demands of interreligious dialogue and the challenges of a pluralistic, secular society. Suggested Reading Knitter Paul, Jesus and the Other Names. Christian Mission and Global Responsibility. New York, 1996. Welker Michael, What Happens in Holy Communion? Michigan - Cambridge, 2000. Primavesi Anne - Henderson Jennifer, Our God has no Favourites. A Liberation Theology of the Eucharist. San Jose, 1989. Centre d’Études Oecuméniques (Strasbourg) - Institut für Ökumenische Forschung (Tübingen) - Konfessionskundliches Institut (Bensheim), Abendmahlsgemeinschaft ist möglich. Thesen zur Eucharistischen Gastfreundschaft. Frankfurt am Main, 2003. Heike Ernsting (1977) is an Evangelical-Lutheran from Germany. She graduated at the Irish School of Ecumenics (ISE) in Dublin, and presently is finishing her studies of Protestant theology. She participates in the Leadership Training of the United Evangelical Mission. She aims for ordained ministry and is interested in social justice, ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. Her email address is Heikeernsting@gmx.de.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

World Student Christian Federation – Europe Region – The World Student Christian Federation (WSCF, established in 1895) is a global community of Student Christian Movements (SCMs) committed to dialogue, ecumenism, social justice and peace. Our mission is to empower students in critical thinking and constructive transformation of our world by being a space for: prayer and celebration; theological reflection; study and analysis of social and cultural processes; and solidarity and action across boundaries of culture, gender and ethnicity. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, the WSCF is called to be a prophetic witness in Church and society. This vision is nurtured by a radical hope for God’s Reign in history. We organise conferences, training events and solidarity activities, we publish books, reviews and journals. Our global ecumenical review is Student World (started in 1908); the Asia-Pacific Region publishes Praxis, and the Europe Region publishes Mozaik. Europe is one of the Federation’s six regions, with around twenty national Student Christian Movements. There are two subregions within Europe at the moment: the Nordic Subregion and the Central European Subregion. We have four interest groups: for theology, for culture and higher education, for solidarity and for gender. WSCF Europe runs the Lingua Franca Language and Leadership Training Project. The essence of the project is that teachers, course organisers and students mutually benregionaloffice@wscf-europe.org coordinator@wscf-cesr.org wscf_linguafranca@hotmail.com www.wscf-europe.org www.wscf-cesr.org

efit from the course. Teachers arriving from different countries are teaching language for students in Central and Eastern Europe and beside this, they share the history and habits of their country – all this on a voluntary basis and in an ecumenical context. The teachers are fully hosted and get a unique insight into the everyday life, cultural and religious traditions of the hosting country. European Regional Committee (ERC): Silke Lechner (Chair, Germany), Markus Ojakoski (Treasurer, Finland), Damián Juraj Macˇura (Vice-Chair, Theology Interest Group Coordinator, Slovakia), Ingjerd Jossang (Executive Committee Member, Norway), Morten Skrubbeltrang (Executive Committee Member, Denmark), Suzanna Vergouwe (Culture and Higher Education Interest Group Coordinator, Netherlands), Alessia Passarelli (Solidarity Interest Group Coordinator, Italy), Gyrid Gunnes (Gender Interest Group Coordinator, Norway), Nadzeya Cherkas (Communications Coordinator, Belarus). Staff: Hanna Tervanotko (European Regional Secretary, Finland), Rebecca Blocksome (Central European Subregion Coordinator, Publications Intern, United States), Livia-Georgiana Mihalache (Lingua Franca Coordinator, Romania), Lévai Ildikó (Administrative Assistant, Hungary).

Address: WSCF Europe Kálvin tér 8. HU-1091 Budapest, Hungary Tel: + 361 219 5166

Thorny Issues

MOZAIK

2004/2

Peter C I A C C I O

Are Religion and Satire Mutual Taboos? A Comment on the Life of Brian The week before Christmas, the Birmingham Repertory Theatre withdrew a play, Gurpreet Kaur BHATTI’s Behzti (Dishonour), as some protesters from the Sikh community, offended by one of its scenes representing a rape in a Gundwara (a Sikh temple), violently attacked the theatre. A few months prior in the Netherlands, film-maker Theo VAN GOGH was killed by a young man Muslim for the director’s offended by his continuous media attacks on Islam. Since 9/11, it seems that religions have become a dangerous taboo, as the mass media show an escalation of violence due to religious intolerance and hatred.

RELIGIOUS SATIRE AND RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE Nevertheless, even if media show VAN GOGH’s murder and the Behzti case as something new, or as a sign of the times, religiously justified violence is part of European history, both distant and recent. For example, there are many similarities between the circumstances of the withdrawal of Behzti and the 1988 bomb attack in a Paris cinema showing Martin SCORSESE’s Last Temptation of Christ. In both cases, in fact, the authors and the attackers share belonged to the same religious affiliation (Sikh for Behzti and Roman Catholic for Last Temptation of Christ), and the attackers did not have a real knowledge of the play or film but rather believed the rumours about it. Anyway, since the public opinion senses an escalation in religious violence, politicians are searching for ways to overcome this delicate matter. The British government, for example, proposed a bill to limit freedom of expression if it might cause religious hatred. There are two categories of people who oppose this bill, who are usually reciprocal enemies: religious fundamentalists, as they who see it as a limit to their “evangelistic” style of preaching; and comedians. Comedians, who instead, say it is a liberal principle to be able to say anything and that there is no such thing as the right to feel offended. Let us then analyse the implications of religious satire in Monty Python’s Life of Brian (Terry JONES, 1979), as many people consider it the most offensive movie for religious people ever made. Life of Brian is a spoof of the Jesus movie sub-genre: it is the story of a Jewish man, Brian COHEN, born the same day as Jesus in a neighbouring stable. Most of the scenes and dialogues of this movie satirise Christian tradition and “Jesus film” patterns. Curiously, most cinema and theology scholars debating Jesus movies consider Life of Brian one of them, even if we see Christ only once, when He delivers the Sermon on the Mount.

IS SATIRE ABOUT LAUGHING? Before going further, let us focus on what satire is. Most people mistakenly consider satire as an entertaining performance that makes fun of something else, often in a silly way. So, some subjects should not be fodder for satire: for example, religion, and in some countries, politicians. On the contrary, to write or perform a satire is one of the most difficult and serious actions an intellectual may do. A true satire consists of the re-presentation of reality in a way people may understand it better. The reaction of laughter provoked by this representation is the psychological defence of the viewer’s mind against the hardness of reality. One example may help: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley KUBRICK, 1964) satirically presented the possibility of an atomic war. Those were hard years: the Cuban Missile Crisis has had been just resolved by establishing a direct telephone line (the red phone) between the White House and the Kremlin. In this famous movie, a mad U.S. Army officer organises the launch of atomic missiles at the USSR. The US president calls the Kremlin through the red phone in order to explain the accident. The phone call is hilarious: “Hello Dimitri, it is me … something happened? No, nothing worrying …” and so on. The viewer laughs right from the beginning, but is left with a bitter smile at the end as World War III destroys the Earth. Dr. Strangelove does not tell a funny story, but rather makes a satire of the relief after the missile crisis. It is like saying, “There are thousands of atomic war heads around — is that a stupid red phone a serious solution?” A good satire does not present people and stories in a paradoxical and funny way, but instead unveils an already-existing paradox.

THREE EXAMPLES OF RELIGIOUS SATIRE FROM LIFE OF BRIAN A. The Three Wise Men Go in the Wrong Stable The first scene of the movie shows the tthree wise wise men men mistakenly bringing gifts to Brian. Brian’s mother: Who are you? The wise men: We are three wise men. Brian’s mother: Is this some kind of joke? The wise men: We are astrologers … we were led by a star! Brian’s mother: Or led by a bottle, more likely. Brian’s mother is very sceptical about the three men, especially of their wisdom. It is quite understandable that this scene may seem blasphemous to some people, as it seems to mock the Gospels. But, if we wear the glasses of satire, we see that it unveils a dualistic attitude of many western Christians, who do not reflect deeply on the meaning of the visit of the Magi to Jesus. The Gospels tell us that they were led by a star — does that mean Christians believe in astrology? Was the birth of Jesus something magical? Or is the message of this story another one? Brian’s mother’s attitude is very common nowadays in Western Europe towards people of other beliefs, traditions or behaviour.

MOZAIK

2004/2

Do we really reflect on the implications of Mary and Joseph not sending the wise men away because they did not comply with Jewish traditions? The clever satire of this initial scene makes us reflect better on the story of the Magi and its implications on interreligious dialogue today.

B. Women Dress as Men to Stone a Blasphemous Man Brian and his mother leave the crowd that listens to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as they prefer going to a stoning (a satire on the rejection of a non-violent message). The man who is to die is guilty of saying that his supper “was good enough for Jehovah.” Apparently, most of the people ready to stone the man are actually women who are disguised by fake beards. In the end, they stone the priest when he accidentally says “Jehovah”; all the women then clap their hands. This scene may seem anti-Semitic, as it mocks Jewish regulations that condemn a man to be stoned to death, disproportionately to the offence. But, if we wear the glasses of satire, we clearly see that it is not anti-Semitic. Instead, it is one of the best examples of Jewish-style humour. In fact, as Jews have been persecuted and risked extermination for two thousand years, they developed the only weapon they could use against more powerful enemies: humour. For example, the story told in La vita è bella (Life is beautiful, Roberto BENIGNI, 1997) recalls true stories of survival in concentration camps. As laughter and intellect distinguish human beings from animals, it is clearly and unmistakably states stated who is human between the victim and the slaughterer. Mass media often tell us stories of women in Muslim contexts who are condemned to be stoned for reasons we cannot understand (but did not Christians burn “witches” for centuries?) This scene from Life of Brian presents a paradoxical situation where public stoning is a show for women. The ridiculousness of this scene tells us one clear thing: violent actions like a public stoning, especially if religiously justified, are silly and banal. This does not diminish the atrocity of such actions, as Jewish philosopher Hanna ARENDT taught us by describing the Shoah as a result of the “banality of evil.”

C. Brian Is Mistakenly Considered the Messiah by a Group of People This is perhaps the most controversial scene for Christian viewers. Brian disguises himself as a preacher to escape from Roman soldiers, but soon a crowd that believes he is the messiah Messiah chases him. Many religious patterns can be apprehended in this

Thorny Issues

scene: the hunger for a miracle, the collection of relics and the suppression of a heretic. This may also may seem a mocking scene as where the people follow Brian as they might may well follow Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or others. So, the claim for truth and exclusiveness seems to be challenged by this scene, but let us wear the glasses of satire once more and we will see that if faith is lived only like Brian’s followers do, other people may think that religions are pretty much the same, that there is not much sense in choosing one religion instead of and not another one. This satire sounds prophetic to me more rather than offensive: it reminds me of the ancient prophets of Israel who were telling the people that God preferred their pure hearts to sacrifices and rites. Naturally, it does not mean that rites are not important; it means that faith cannot be limited to them.

DOES GOD NEED TO BE DEFENDED? In his youth, Monty Python member Terry GILLIAM was very involved in his local Presbyterian church in the United States. Then something happened: his fellow Christians did not like his vocation for humour and satire. As a result he left the church, as thinking, “What kind of church is this that my feeble little jokes are going to threaten its belief?” This brings us to a final consideration: does God need to be defended from religious satire? Many people who have claimed to defend God and God’s truth have been doing it in violent ways. The violent attitude not only brings destruction but is theologically disputable: as followers of a religious faith (in my case, of the God of Abraham), we should instead seek and serve the truth. In seeking, we encounter others; in serving, we respect them as God created them, just like us. The encounter with others is not always pleasant and comfortable: the person may even be a comedian who finds our religion ridiculous. It is not through suppressing the other’s freedom of expression that we demonstrate our seriousness. And could it be that God is laughs laughing at us, at our human divisions, at the separation between Christian denominations, at the hatred between religions, at human worries of about God under threatened by a few jokes? Could it be that God is laughing at us, in order not to cry as because His we humans God’s creatures do not love one another? Peter CIACCIO was born in Belfast in 1975. He is training to become a Methodist minister and is a Master of Divinity at the Waldensian Faculty of Theology in Rome. Currently, he is spending a sabbatical at Sarum College, Salisbury in England. He is a member of FGEI, the Italian SCM. Between 1999 and 2003, he served as vice-chairperson in the European Regional Committee (ERC) of the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF). His email address is peterciaccio@yahoo.com.