LISTENING GOD

“fs Our God Listeningl”

“r s o u R c o D L I s r n N r N c ?” ’67

we are to speak of God at all as people of fairh in a world of many faiths’ But if

we suspect that .,our God” is listening, then how are we to speak of ourselves as

people of faith among other peoples of faith I

Is our God listening? It is a disarmingly simple question’ a Sunday school

question, not the sort most proper academic theologians would care lo Pursue’

ButthissimplequestionleadsusintothemostprofoundtheologicaÌ,sociai,and

political issues of our time . We all know that this is not soiely a question about

ôod’r.”rs, th. capacity of God to iisten, or the destiny of our prayers’ Itis a ques-

tion about the destiny of our human community and our capacity to listen with

openness and empathy to people of faith very different from ourseives’ It is

a question about how we, whoever we âre, understand the religious faith of

others.

The question of religious difference elicits a variety of responses’ A collec-

tion of Gandhi’s wrirings on religion is published under the title All Religions

are True,and that assertion is certainly one way of re sponding to differe nce ‘ At

theotherendofthesPectrum,therearethosethatassertthatallreligionsare falseandarefundamentallymisguided-iookatthewarsandviolence,the atrocities perpetrated in the name of God’ A third option is ro insist

that one reli-

gion is true and the rest are false’ Or one might claim that one religion is true and

theothersarepartiallytrue.Mostofushaveoperativeideasaboutthediversity

of religious traditions that fall somewhere along this spectrum’ We carry these

ideas along with us âs we encounter people whose religious faith is different

from ours. Even those who consider themselves quìte secular employ some such

ser of evaluative ideas about religions in order to interpret the meaning of reli-

gionandofreligiousdifference..Wealsocarrywirhusnotionsofwhatitmeans

fo, ,o-.thi.rg to be true-lite raìly true, metaphorically true’ true for us’ univer-

sally true.

While the interPretation of religious difference and plurality has long been

a question, the close proximity of people of many races’ cuitures’ and relig-

ions in urban environments has decisively shaped our resPonse to this question

today. In 1965, Harvey Cox began The Secular City with the observation that

,.theriseofurbancivilizationandthecoliapseoftraditionalreligionarethe

two main hallmarks of our era and are closely related.”2 In the urban environ-

ment from which the gods have fled, he argued’ secularism was the dominant

worldview, relativizing and bypassing religion, rendering it irrelevant and a pri-

vateaffair’Inrg85,HarveyCoxnoted..thereturnofreligion,,withReligionin the Secular City. The demise of religion had been Prematurely

announced’ Sud-

CHAPTERT

Exclusivism, Inclusivism. and pluralism

1r N Crrarv Potok’s | ,u.r. on leave f¡om | ,h. fi.rr rime in fap

what is perhaps a shinto shrine wirh a clear mirror in the san:tum or perhaps a Buddhist shrine with an image of the Bodhisattva of compassion. we are not told which, and it really doe s nor marter. The arrar is iit by the sofr light of a tall lamp. sunlighr srreams in the door. The rwo young men observe with fascina- tion a man standing before the akar, his hands pressed rogether before him, hìs eyes closed. He is rocking slightly. He is clearly engaged in whar we would call prayer. The rabbi turns to his companion and says,

“Do you rhink our God is listening ro him, John I ‘, “I don’t know, chappy. I never thought of it.’, “Neirher did I until now. If He’s nor ristening, why norr If He is lis-

rening, then-well, what are we all about, ]ohn?,,r

Is “our God” lisrening ro the prayers of people of other faiths? If not, why notr what kind of God wouid thar be ? wourd the one we chrisrians and Jews speak of as maker of heaven and earth not give eâr to the prayer of a man so earnestly, so deeply in prayer? On the other hand, if God is listening. what are eue all about? who âre we âs a people who cherish our own speciar relationship with God I If we conclude that “our God” is not listening, then we had be rter ask how

ú8 ÊNCOUNTERINC GOD

denly there were |erry Falwell and the Moral Majority; one in five adults in the united states weighed in with rhe Gallup Poll as an evangelical or penrecosrâl Christian.

In the “secular city” of the rggos, we wouid have to report the rise of ¡¿ rigions, in the plural. we just might be tempted ro turn cox’s senrence wh,rily around and postulate that roday rhe coliapse of urban civilization and the rise of tra- ditional religions are the two main hallmarks of our e¡a. It is not that secula¡- ism is now no longer an issue, for the privati zation and relativization of reli- gion is still a reality ro contend with. The challenge roday, however, is nor so much secularism, but pluralism. If one of the great issues of the secular city was anonymity, the great issue of the multicultural city is identity-ethnic, racial, and religious identity, African-American, Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, Bud- dhist,Muslim.

In both the urban and global contexts we rub up agaìnst the new textures of religious diversity wirh increasing frequency. The quesrion Is our God lis- teningl pose s in a blunt way the challe nge of our encounter with real difference . Response s to this question take theological, social, and political fo¡ms. There are many types of responses, burwe will explore jusr rhree possibilities, indicative of the range of interpre tation within almost every religious tradition.

First, there is rhe exclusivisr response: our own community, our tradition, our understanding of realit¡ our encounter with God, is the one and only truth, excluding all others. second, there is the inclusivist response: There are, indeed, many communities, traditions, and truths, bur our own way of seeing things is the culmination of the othe rs, superior to the others, or at least wide enough to include the others under our universal canopy and in our own terms. A third ¡e- sponse is that of the pluralist: Tiuth is not rhe exclusive o¡ inclusive possession of any one tradition or community. Therefore the diversity of communities, tradi- tions, unde rstandings of the truth, and visions of God is not an obsta,:le for us to overcome) but an opportunity for our energetic engagement and dialogue with one another. It does not mean giving up our commitments; rather, it means opening up those commitments to the give-and-take of mutual discove ry, un- derstanding, and, indeed, transformation.

Put in terms of our question, in the view of the exclusivist “our God,, is not listening to those of other faiths. For the inciusivist, “our God” is indeed ris- tening, but it is our God as ¿¿e unde rsrand God who does the listening. The plu- ralist might say “our God” is listening, bur he or she wouid also say that God is

-r s o u R c o D L r s r r x I rv c l” r6g

not ours, God is our way of speaking of a Reality that cannot be encompassed by any one religious tradition, including our own.

The most significant difference berween rhe inclusivist and the pluraiist is the self-consciousness of one’s undersranding of the wo¡ld and God. If we a¡e in- ciusivists, we include others into a worldview we already know and on the terms we have al¡eady set. If we are pluralists, we recognize rhe limits of the world we already know and we seek to understand others in their own terms, not just in ours. In the final chapte¡, I will suggest that pluralists go beyond this, however, for the te¡ms of “the othe¡” are no more sacrosenct than our own and the point of our encounte¡ is ro bring the terms in which we unde¡stand the world into dialogue with one ¿¡e¡þç¡-sygn into the dialogue of mutual rruth-seekinq crlt1que.

Mere plurality-diversity-is not pluralism, though often the two words are used as if they were interchangeable. We can interpret diversity as exclu- sivists, as inclusivists, or as pluralists. One might argue that the greatest religious tensions in the world in the late twentieth century are nor found between the Western and the Easte¡n traditions, between the prophetic and the mystical rra- ditions, or indeed between any one religion and another; they are the tensions that stretch between those at opposite ends of the spectrum in each and every re- ligicus tradition. Exclusivists and pluraiists, fundamentalists and liberals, wall- builde¡s and bridge-builders-are there in a variety of forms in every religious tradition. Intra-relìgious tension is today as powerful as inter-religious tension. Very often the religious conflicts that flare up have less to do wirh u,,hat one be- lieves than with ho¿t’ onel¡elieves what one beiieves.

The last few years have seen a burst of Christian theological discussion of exclusivism, inciusivism, and pluralism. This is important work because it amply demonstrates the tremendous diversity within Chrisrian thinking. There is no one Christian view of other faiths. Even in rhe sraremenrs of today’s churches there is a wide range of Christian inrerprerarion. For exampie, the r97o

Frankfurt Declaration of rhe Evangeiical Church of Germany explìcitly re- jected “the false teaching that nonchristian religions and worldviews are also ways of salvation similar to belief in Christ.”3 This decla¡ation is clearly an ex- clusivist statement. At the other end of the spectrum, members of the United Church of Canada meeting in Naramata, British Columbia, in r985 c¡afted a clearly pluralist statement, insisting, “If there is no salvation outside the church, we reject such a salvation for ou¡selves. We come to this notion of the salvation

I7o ENcouNTERtNc coD

of othe rs through being loved by christ. we would be diminished without the others as others.”a

Since there are many theologians who have laid out typologies of the various christian theological positions of excrusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, I will not do that here in anyrhing but a skeretal and suggestive form. My point is a wider one : that these three ways of thinking abour the problem of dir.ersity and difference are not simply chrisrian theorogical positions, but are recognizabre in the thinkingof people of other religious traditions and in rhe thinking of nonre- ligious people. All of us-Christians, Muslims, Hindus, ¿¡i e¡þs¡5_5truggle to interpre t the experienced facts of diversity to ourselves and to ou¡ communi- ties, and our interpretations have social and poriticar reverberations. Theology is not isolated f¡om irs context. If “ou¡ God” has no regard for our Muslim neigh- bors, why should we I or, put the other way around, if we hau. no .eg”.d for o,rr Muslim neighbors, why should God I

while we may be interesred in exclusivism, incrusivism, and pluralism as theological viewpoints, it is all too crear that they are arso social and poriticar re- sponses to diversity. we can recognize them in our churches, in ou¡ communi- ties, and in our wo¡ld. And while we speak of exciusivists, incrusivists, and pru- ralists as if they were entirely different groups of peopre, ler us remember ;hâr these ways of thinking about diversity may wel be part of the ongoing diarogue within ou¡selves. Since they represent artitudes, ways of thinking, rhe move from one position to another is often more of a sliding step than a giant reap. one of the continual chailenges and diremmas 1n my own writing and thinking is recognizing the ways in which I move back and forth arong rhis ardtudinar con- tinuum, coming from a context of Hindu-christian dialogue, understanding myself basically as a piuralist, and yet using whar some wili see as inclusivist lan- guage as I widen and sr¡etch my understanding of God, Christ, and the Hoiy spirit to speak of my chrisrian faith in a new way. I cannor solve this dilemma, but I can warmly issue an inviration to join me in thinking about it.

*In No Otlter lVame . . .” Every time I speak to a church group about religious diversity, some one inevita- bly raises a hand to confront me with a passage mined from the New Testament to iliustrate the exclusivity of chrisrianity. If she were rhere, Grandma Eck would ce ¡tainly have her hand up, too. “It says in the Bible, ‘There is salvation in no one else’ for the¡e is no othe¡ name under heaven given among mcrtals by

rs ouR GoD LIsrrNtNcl 17I

which we must be saved.’So how can you speak of the Buddhal ” The statement

quoted is that of Peter in Acts 4: rz. It is true that it says “no other name.” In those

remarkable days following Pentecost, when the energy of the Holy Spirit made Peter bold in his faith, he healed a man lame from birth, saying, “I have no sil- ver or gold, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

stand up and walk.” Peter was asked by the elders and scribes of the temple, “By

what power or by what name did you do this l ” He was unambiguous. It was not

in his own name he had heaie d the man, nor was it in the name of a foreign god,

as the council of elders perhaps suspected. It was in no other name than that of

fesus Christ.

Krisce r Stendahl has often remarked that phrases such as this one “grow legs

and walk around out of context.” The wo¡ds “no other name,” despite the spirit of afi¡mation in which Peter must have uttered them, became words of con- demnation: only those who call upon the name of Christ are saved and all oth-

ers perish and suffer eternal punishment. Actually, Christians have disagreed

through the ages on the meaning of “no other name.” From the time of Origen in the thi¡d century, to John Wesley in the e ightee nth century, to C. S. Lewis and

Paul Tillich in the twentieth, there have beenthose who have insisted upon the unive rsality of God’s grace and the omnipotence of God to restore all c¡eâtures

to Godself. And there have likewise been those such as Augustine in the fourth

century, fohn Calvin in the sixteenth century, and the fundamentalists of the twentieth century who have insisted upon the eternal damnation and punish-

ment of unbelievers. In the past few years two books have been published that

attempt to summarize the range of meanings implicit in these words. In l/o Other Name? Paul Knitter sets forth the array of Ch¡istian interpretations of other religions across the Protestant, evangelical, and Catholic spectrums, ques-

tions the adequacy of exclusivism as a response to the religious plurality of today,

and develops his own pluralistic position.’ f ohn Sanders’s No Other Name re-

tains the phrase as a declarative, not a question; it is what the autho¡ calÌs “an

investigation into the destiny of the unevangelìzed,” and it also presents a full

range of Christian views on the subje ct.6

In the decades and centuries foilowing Jesus’ death, many Christians gradu-

ally transferred their Spirit-fllled afrrmations about Christ to afirmations of

allegiance to “Christianity” and “the church.” Over tine, their positive affirma- tions about Christ some how became sharpiy negative judgements about any re-

ligious community other than the church. By the time of Cyprian, in the third century, we have the famous d ictlum” Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”

-” O:utside the

T ll t

I

.]

172 ENCouNTERTNG coD

church the¡e is no salvation.” Thìs church-cenrered exclusivism dominated Ch¡istian thinking for many cenruries. In the sixth cenrury, for example, we hear, “There is no doubt rhat not onry alr hearhens, bur arso aÌl /ews and all here- tics and schismatics who die outside the church wilr go to rhat everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angers.”7 In the earry fourteenrh century we hear Pope Boniface vIII insist even more strongly on church-centered salvation: ” we are required by faith to believe and hold thar the re is one holy, catholic and apostolic church; we firmiy berieve ir and unreservedry profess ir; outside it there is neìther salvadon nor remission of sins.,,s

AsaMethodisr,itis always somewhatdisquietingto recail tharwith theprot- estant were also numbered among those rvho would die ou unged into the fi¡es of hell. Gradually rhe ofi_ cial pa f protestants began to change, but as late as the

tion’ Father Feeney, unwilling to change his views, was excommunicated in r953.e

Protestants have aiso had thei¡ sha¡e of exclusivism. Luther returned the condemnation of the Roman catholic church with his own brand of exclusiv- ism. He insisted rhat all worship apart from christ is idolatry and that ,,those who remain outside christianity, be they heathens, Turks, Jews or false chris- tians although they believe in only one true God, yet remain in ete rnar’wrath and perdition.”r0 The “false Chrisrians,, were Roman Carholics.

The great twenrieth-cenrury prorestanr rheologian Karl Barrh rakes a differ- ent sta¡ting point, insisting that “religion is unberief. It is a concern, indeed, we must say that it is the one great concern, of godless man.”r Rerigion is here op- posed to reveladon, and ¡eveiation is God’s initiative; it is chrisr arone. Ail the world’s religions are human âttempts to grasp at God, to understand God and are setin radical distincrion from God’s serf-offeringand seif-manifestation. Ac- cording to Barth, the trurh of the christian message has nothing to do wirh irs st¡uctures of “religion,” it is rhe gift of revelarion. Barth did not kno,¡. much of ocher religious traditions, or of Buddhist, Hindu, and Isramic craims to the gift and the grace of divine revelarion. when asked by the Asian theorogian D. T.

‘I s o u R c o D L r s r ¡ N r ¡¡ c l” r73

Niles how he knew for certain that Hinduism is “unbelief,” given the fact that he had never met a Hindu, Barth is said to have responded, “Apriori”-iris agiven; it derives from revelation, not experience.r2 The Dutch theologian Hendrik Kraemer followed Barth, writing forcefully of the “¡adical discontinuity” be- tween the Gospel and ali other religions. In the influential book The Clzristian Message in a Non-Cltristian World,whichKrâemer prepared for the meeting of the International Missionary Council in Tämbaram,India, in r938, he speaks of other religions as but “human âttempts to âpprehend the totality of existence.”r3

He poses two alternative ways of thinking about reiigious diversity. “The first

maintains the continuity between the essential rendencies and aspirations to be

found in the ethnic religions and the essential gift of the Christian religion. . . .

The se cond position stre sses the discontinuity, and take s this as the starting point of its thinking.”ra Kraeme¡ ûnds the second position “inescapable” and Chris-

tian revelation the “sole standard ofreference.”r5

Of course, Christianity is not the only religion wirh an exclusivist streak of interpretation. Not surprisingly, however, the exclusivist position has been most

extensively developed by the monotheistic fewish, Christian, and Muslim t¡adi-

tions, each with its “so1e standard of reference.” These prophetic Weste¡n tradi-

tions have uncompromisingly emphasized the oneness of God, the oneness of truth, and the exclusivity of the way to truth and the community of truth.

The idea that the human apprehension of t¡uth is multi-sided, a view devel-

oped so extensively in the traditions originating in India, is quite alien to the monotheistic consciousness of the West. “I am the Lo¡d, and there is no other !”

rings like a refrain through the biblical books of Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The

Psalmist, too, addresses God in exclusive terms: “You alone are God” (Ps. 86: ro),

“You alone are the Most High over all the ea¡th” (Ps. 83: r 8). The exclusivity is re –

ciprocal. God says to Israel, “You alone have I chosen ofall the nations on earth l” (Amos 3:z). Even though Jews also afirm the universality of God’s covenant with Noah and through him with all humanity, Israel’s chosenness and cove-

nant with God through Abraham is finally an exclusive covenant.

Christians pick up on this chosenness, this covenant, transforming the lan-

guage of the old covenant into a “new covenant” made with humanity through

the life, de ath, and resurrection of Christ. The new covenant is also held to be ex-

clusive: Christ is rhe way,the truth, and the life. Similarly, Muslims afirm the

Ênality of the One God’s revelation to the Prophet Muhammad. The shahadah,

or “testimony” of faith, is a clarion afirmation with an exclusivist ring about it:

“There is no God but God and Muhammad is God’s messenge r.” There is noth-

174 ENCOUNTERINC GOD

It is important to realize , howeve¡, that these rerigious foundations of west-

clusivist response to diversity, whethe r rheorogical, social, or political, is to mark eve¡ more clearly rhe boundaries and borders separating “us” from “them.,, It is little wonde¡ that exclusion has been one of the tools of racism and ethnocen-

‘t s o u R G o D L I s r r N I N c l” r75

The very fact of choice can precipitate e sense of threat to identity. My own grandmothers and great-grandmothers made many pioneering choices.

Anna Eck pulled up stakes in Sweden. Hilda Fritz left her windswept farm in

Iowa fo¡ a homestead in the Pacific Northwest. Ida Hokanson Fritz set out for

college, the flrst in her family to do so, and landed a teaching job in the lumber

camps of Washington State. But for all the choices they made out of necessity

and creativity, they did not have to choose whether to be Christian or Buddhist.

They did not even have the opportunity to think about it. At most they chose to

be more or less actively Christian. For many people, this is still the case today; for

our society as a whole it is not. We /o have to choose our religious afiliation more

actively than those who lived â generation ago. Most of us have some opPortu-

nity to know other ways of faith and to see them for what they ¿¡s-powerful life-changing and world-ordering responses to the T¡anscendent. I see this op-

portunity as a positive thing. Ir is clear, however, that many people experience

the fact of difference as a failure of the church’s mission to the “lost” and “un-

reached,” and experience choice âs threatening. The crisis of belief generated

by the plurality of religions and the problems of secular culture has made the

certainties of Ch¡istian exclusivism, indeed of any kind of exclusivism, more

âttracttve.

Today’s exclusivism, with its variety of fundamentalist and chauvinistmove-

ments both ethnic and political, may be seen as e widespread revolt against the

relativism and secula¡ism of modernity. This does not mean that all “funda-

mentalists” are conservâtive or traditional in rejecting the modern world. But

they have not made peace with modernity or made themselves at home within

it.r6 The Enlightenmentheritage of modernity-the inquiry into the sources of

scripture; the critical academic study of society, culture , and religion; the histori-

cal comparison of t¡uth claims; the evolutionary claims of science-is by enrl

large rejected by fundamentalists. Religious truth is “a given” and is plain, sim-

ple, and c1ear.

In America, the bu¡st of Christian fundamentalism in the r97os and r98os

grew amidst the threat of burgeoning plurality and choice in virtually every

arena of life, including sexuality and religion. Nothing could be taken for grante d as a given. One could choose a hometown’ an occuPation, a “lifestyle,” a

worldview, and even a religious tradition-choices people in rraditional socie-

tie s do not confront as individuals. In The Heretical Imperatiue,sociologist of re –

ligion Peter Berge r has pointed out that the word heresy hasits root in the Gre ek

word for choosingon one’s own, apart from the community. Today such individ-

r76 “r s o u R c o D L I s r r N r N c I

ual choice in matters of religion, formerly “heretical,” has become the modern imperative. Individual choosing is expected and necessâry-even in matrers of ‘religion.

A new wave of exclusivism is cresting around the worrd today. Exrressed in social and political life, exclusivism becomes ethnic or religious chauvinism, de- scribed in South Asia as communalism. Religious or ethnic identity is rhe basis on which a group campaigns for its own interests against those others wirh whom it shares the wider community of a city, state, or nâtion. As we have ob- served, identiry-based politics is on the rise because it is found to be a successful way of arousing political energy, as was clear with the rise, however brief, of the Moral Majority in the United States, the rise of the Soka Gakkai in ]apan, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (B.l.P.) in India.

The new Muslim resurgence has somewhat different roots. The afirmation of Islamic culture againsr the tide of western capiralist, materialist cultu¡e finds its voice in the new sometimes strident assertiveness of Islamic identity. It is lirde wonder that the old colonial west and its new heir, the united Srates, are cast in a negative lighr. over forty countries with substantial Muslim pop- ulations have gained independence since world war II and in various ways have found Islam to be the foundarion of nation building. And yet the post- colonial era has left social and political problems, and somerimes chaos, rhar are quite dissonant with the Islamic vision of society. This too stimulates rhe call to a ¡easserrion of Islamic fundamentals. Fo¡ most interpreters, these fun- damentals do not permit the bifurcation of the world into the “securar” and the “religious,” for the slzari’a,the Muslim “wa¡” is a whole comprehensive world- view which creates a rransnational community and challenges that commun- ity to a life of obedience, a life aligned with the trurh God has ¡evealed in rhe Qur’an.

Exclusivism often arises among minorities, or those who have a minority consciousness even if they are not nume rical minoritie s. while some minorities a¡e content to be minorities and to experience themselves as the saltor thd leaven that improves the whole, it is nonetheless often the case that the sense of fear and threat that are especially powerful among minoriries gives rise to funda- mentalist or exclusivist movements. The sense of being pitted against a domi- nant and engulfing “other” that threatens one’s identity leads to rhe asse¡tion of self over or against the “other” as a form of self-protection. The exclusivism of the early church, the beloved community of which the author of the Gos- pel of fohn writes, is a good example of the way in which minority conscious-

ENCOUNTERING GOD r77

ness engenders a very clea¡ sense of boundaries and some strongly exclusivist

language.

The¡e are many places where such an exclusivist, fundamentalist, or com-

munalist position is enacted by minoricies in public affairs. The sense on the part

of Sikhs of being gradually engulfed in a dominant and increasingly secular In-

dian culture has sure ly contributed to the anti-Hindu rhetoric of militant Sikhs

and the demand for a separate Sikh state of “Khalistan.” The miiitant Jewish leadership of the late Rabbi Kahane and of the Gush Emunim often takes the

form of anti-Arab Zionist chauvinism, gaining strength from the sense among

Israelis of being unde r se ige in an engulÊng Arab world. In both cases, minority

consciousness gives rise to an unbending exclusivism. This is even mo¡e the case

with smaller and less powerful minorities than f ews or Sikhs. In South India and

Thailand, for example, the minority Christian chu¡ches a¡e often extremely

fundamentalist theoiogically and exclusivist socially, in pa¡t because Christians

feel they are too few to permiten âttitude of openness and inte¡relatedness with-

out being submerged by the majoriry culture.

Minority consciousness is not entirely a ¡ational matter of numbers, how-

ever. In Sri Lanka, for example, the Buddhist Sinhalese maiority has a minority

consciousness. Even though the Tämils are a small minority in Sri Lanka itself,

the southern Indian state of Tämilnadu, a shorr distance across the straits, pre-

sents a large Tämil population and a wide context of Tämil culture and in- fluence. In India, the recent rise of FIindu chauvìnism is fueled by the sense that

Hindus, though they are the majority numerically, have no power in thei¡ own

land because of the proliferation of special privileges and reservations given

to minorities. A new exciusive sense of Hindu identity is in the process of formation.

It is important to note, however, that some nume rical minorities do not have

an exclusivistconsciousness atail. The na¡ive peoples of the Americas, for exam-

ple, while being protective of their rites and lifeways, also see the t¡uth in other

ways and paths. Over forty years ago, Chief White Calf of the Blackfeet of

Montana offere d a critique of Christian exclusivìsm that wâs ve ry expressive of

Native American attitudes. As an old man, in the summer of r958 he told the

story of cre ation to one Richard Lancaste¡ whom he caiied his son.

I am Chief White Caif of the Blackfeet, and I am one hundred and one

years old, and I give you this story that I got from myfather, LastGun, who

got it from the old men of the tribe. . . . You are my son and I give it to you.

r78 ENCOUNTERING COD r79

clusive, they would argue. No indeed-the invitation is open and the tent of

Christ is wide enough for all. As the words of an early-twentieth-century Prot-

estant hymn put it, paraphrasing Galatians 3:28, “In Christ there ìs no east or

west, in him no south or north, but one great fellowship of love, throughout the

whole wide earth.” The hymn was written for an e xhibit of the London Mission

Society in r9o8. At least one strong stream of the inission movement was fed not

by an exclusivist theology that de emed al1 non-Christians to be lost heathen, but

by an inclusivist “fulfillment theology” that held non-Ch¡istians to be genuine

seekers of a truth found fully in Christ. Thar is, other religious traditions are not

so much evil or wrong-headed as incomplete, needing the fulfillment of Christ.

In some ways other religious traditions have prepared the way for the Good

News of Christ. While not wholly false, they are but partially true. All people of

faith are seekers, and Christ, frnally, is what they seek’ All can be included in the

great fellowship of love.

In such a view, the plurality of religions is not experienced as a threat, and

“others” âre not seen as opponents. Rather, the diversity of peoples and t¡adi-

tions is included in a single worldview rhat embraces, explains, and supersedes

them all. For Christians, inclusivism at its best may mean articulating a sense of

the mysterious workings of God and of christ among people of other faiths.

Such a view, however, ofre n hides within it a hierarchical acceprance of pluraiity,

with one’s own view of things on top. It is also a hiera¡chical view that goes, often

unreflectively, with power. Everyone is invited in, and we are [he ones who put

up the tent- Others are gathered in, but on our rerms’ within our framework, un-

der our canopy, as part of our system.

Is “ou¡ God” listeningl C.S. Lewis, a Christian inclusivist, would say, “I

think that eve ry prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god . . . is acceptecl

by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him'”18

The inclusivist attitude is, of course, much more open than the exclusivist, but

the presupposition is that in rhe end ours is the t¡uth wide enough to include all.

Ours are the terms in which truth is stated.

Recall for a momenr how, ar the close of rhe world’s Parliament of Religions

in r8g3, )ohn Henry Barrows expressed greât sarisfaction that each day of the

Parliament included the “universal” prayer of fesus, the Lord’s Prayer’ J’ N’

Farquhar, a missionary in India, studied the Hindu tradition with respect, but

concluded in his book T he c ro øn of H induism, pttblished in r g r3, that christ is

the fulfillmenr of the highest aspirations and aims of Hinduism. Not surpris-

ingl¡ such inclusivism is a way of thinking rhar is common to people of faith in

virtually every tradition. Many a Hindu would surely think of vedanta as the

‘I s o u R G o D L I s r P t’¡ I N c ?”

Only once before I tried to give this story. There was a missionary and I calle d him son and gave him a name and tried to give him this story but he would not take it because he said that rhis is not the way things were in the beginning. But I was not proud to have him for my son because he says there is only one pâth through the fo¡est and he knows the righr path, but I say there are mâny paths and how can you know the best path unless you have walked them ail. He walked too iong on one path and he does not know there âre other paths. And I am one hundred and one, and I know that sometimes many paths go to the same place.tT

Deep conviction aboutone’s own path need not be exclusivist. Itmight Le simply the evangelical or neo-orthodox enthusiasm for one’s own roo[s, one’s own peo- ple, orone’s own tradition. Tiaditions and people of fairh areconrinuall’/ reviral- ized by the return to roots and energy of new ¡evival movements. But exciusiv- ism is not just ardent enthusiasm for one’s own tradition. It is coupled with a highly negative attitude toward orher traditions- Like the missionary who would not even listen ¡o White Calf’s story, the e xclusivist doe s nor parricipate in dialogue, does not Iisten openly to the te stimony cif others. Exclusivism has to do not only with how we hold our own convictions, but also with how we regard the convictions of our neighbor. In a wo¡ld of close neighbors, the exclusitisr has a real problem-one will likely meet those neighbors. One mighr discover they are not anâthema after all. Or one might discover rhar they are equally ardent exclusivists.

Is “our God” listeningl The exclusivist, whether Christian, Jewish, or Mus- Iim, feels no qualms in speaking about “our God” or speaking about “the truth.” The use of the possessive with reference to God does not seem peculiar. Nor is there reticence in saying that “our God” does not listen, at least appreciatively, to

theprayers of others;as Bailey Smith, the presidentof the Southern BaptisrCon,

vention, put it bluntly in ry78, “God Almighty does not heâr the prayers of rhe

few.” The Christian exclusivistinbists that the truth of Christexcludes all others:

Efira ecclesiam Ttulla salus-outside the church, no salvation. This voice has sounded long and loud in the churches-so much so that many imagine it is rhe only way Christians think about the matte r.

“One Great Fellouship of Loue”

While the exclusivist response may be the mosr loudly expressed, most Chris- tians are probably inclusivists. The evangelical message of Christianiry is not ex-

r8o

culmination and crown, not only of christianity, but of a11 religious paths. And it is common to hear Muslims say, as did a Muslim taxi driver who took me from downtown Washington, D.C., to the mosque on Massachusetts Avenue ,

,,To be

a good Muslim, you first have to be a good few and a good christian. Isram in- cludes eve rything thar is there in Iudaism and Christianity.,,

There is a dilemma here, for ro some extent all religious peopre are inclusi- vists insofar as we use our own particular reiigious language-God, fesus Christ, the Holy Spirir, the Buddha, Vishnu-and struggle with the limits and meaning of tharlanguage. As longas we hold the religious insights of our partic- ular traditions, cast in our partìcular languages, to be in some sense universal, we cannot avoid spe aking at times in an inclusivist way. It is important to re cognize this. For instance, my Buddhist friends at the camb¡idge Insight Meditation center do not pe¡ceive thei¡ understanding of the nature of human suffering and the potential of human freedom as a peculiarly Buddhist rruth, but as a truth about the human condition which is universai and accessible to all who would look clearly at their own experience. “Ehi passifta,” “Come and see,,, was the invitation of the Buddha. wake up and see for yourself. For Muslims, the ¡evelation of the Qur’an in the “night of power” is nor a parochial revelation meant for the ears of Muslims alone , but a revelation ro all people, before which the proper response rs islam,literally “obedience.” For Muslims, aligning one,s life with the truth God has revealed, which is whar Islam meâns, makes all be- lievers muslims with a small “m.” Similarly, when Hindus quore the words of the Rig Veda, “Eftam sat uipraha bahudha u6i6n¿i”-“1¡urh is one, but the wise call it by many name5”-they are not claiming this to be the case only for Hin- dus, but to be universally true. Similarly, Christians who speak of rhe Chrisr event do not speak of a private disclosure of God to christians alone but of the sanctification of humanity by God, a gift to be claimed by all who will but open their eyes to see it. In the words of cha¡les \Mesley, “The arms of iove that circre me would all mankind embrace !”

In the West, inclusivism has taken the particular form of theological super- sessionism, as we see clearly in the progression of the prophetic monotheistic tra- ditions from ludaism to christianity ro Islam. we not only come from rhe same stock, we are perpetually interprecing one another. The christian tradition contains within its scriptures and traditions an interpretation of fudaism. For a long period, Christian theological orrhodoxy held that the Christian commu- nity supe rsede s the Jewish communiry in a “new covenant” with God. The Mus- lim tradition, acknowledging rhe validity and prophecy of rhe Jewish and

“r s o u R G o D L I s r ¡ N r u c l” t\t

Christian traditions, claims to have superseded both of them as the frnal revela-

tion of God, clarifying the distorted vision of both with the corrective lens of the

Qur’an. My Muslim cab driver in Washington was right, in a sense, about Islam

including an undersranding of the Iewish and christian traditions. He would

no doubt object, however, to the further revelation claimed by Baha’Ullah in

Iran in the mid-nineteenth century, just as Ch¡istians would rejectthe postbibli-

cal revelation claimed by the Reverend sun Myung Moon. No one wants to be

superseded.

In my own Methodist tradition, the theological foundation of inclusivism is

fohn Wesley’s conviction that universal love is the heartline of the Christian

message. No one could say, according to Wesley, that the “heathen and Maho-

metan” would suffer damnation. Far better to leave this matter to God, “who is

the God of the Heathens as well as the christians, and who hateth nothing that

he hath made.”le And who is this God? Charles Wesiey’s famous hymn “O

Come Thou Tiaveller Unknown,” written on the theme of Jacob wrestling with

the unknown God, exclaims, “Pure Universal Love thou art!” The ¡efrain re-

peats throughout the hymn-“Thy Nature, and thy name, is Love .”

on the catholic side, exclusivism has gradually yie lded ro an inclusivist view,

seeking ways to include in God’s salvation those “outside the church.” It perhaps

began with the discovery of what was called the New World, but which was

clearly new only to the newcomers. The indigenous peoples had been there for

mâny centuries and had never hea¡d so much as a whisper of the name of |esus.

How was the church ro think of the destiny of their immortal soulsl could a

merciful God, whose providence extends throughout all creation, have con-

demned to hell all these who died outside the church but had never even heard

of christ? Finally, in r 854, the Vatican launched the doctrine that would later

be the nemesis of Father Feeney, the doctrine of salvation to those individuals

of godly faith handicapped by what was rermed “invincible ignorance.” “Al-

though juridically speaking they are ‘ourside’ (extra) the catholic church and

formally nor its members, yet in a vital sense rhey are ‘inside’ (inn’a) .. . invisible

members of the Catholic church.”20

with close¡ acquaintance, however, it becams çls¿¡-sf¡s¡ through the mis-

sionaries who knew rhem besr-rhat rhe wisdom of native peoples, Hindu phi-

losophers, and Buddhist monks could not simply be cìassifled as the “invincible

ignorance,, of those who did nor have the opportunity to know christ. Even

when they did have the opportunity to be acquainted with fesus through the

Gospel and the somerimes unappealing witness of the church, they were often

ENCOUNTERING GOD

r82 ENCOUNTERING GOD r8j

end the source of ell grece.” The document says, “We cannot truly pray to God theFather of all if we treatany people inother than brothe rly fashion, for ali men

a¡e created in God’s image.” The Catholic theologians of Vatican II do not pro- pose that there is salvation outside the church, but do afirm God’s “saving de- signs” and the universality of “general revelation” through which grace is made

available to all. Yet in and through all such revelation, it is the c¡oss ofCh¡ist that

is both “the sign of God’s unive rsal love and the source of all grace.”

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner went a step beyond Vatican II in his in- clusivism. Like f ohn We sle¡ he takes as his starting point the central message of the Gospel: God’s universal love, the gift of God’s grace, and God’s desire to save

allhumankind. Rahneruses asplendid word, heikoptimismazs, “holy optimism,” inviting us to “think optimistically” about the possibilities of salvation outside the church. Among the channels of God’s grace, according to Rahner, are the

great religions. They are “positively included in God’s plan of salvation.”22 Rahner’s most fâmous phrase is “anonymous Christians,” by which he means

faithful people of non-Christian religions who do not “name the name” of Christ, but who âre nonetheless saved by his power and grace, even though they

do not know it. Christ is the “constitutive cause” of salvalion, and whereve¡

God’s saving g¡ace abounds in the world, Christ is present, whether in name or

not.

Inclusivism is an appealing way of looking at things and the¡e is much to appreciate in inclusivist viewpoints. Whether it is Christian, Hindu, or Mus- lim inclusivism, this bent of mind is mostly benign toward other traditions or faiths. The inclusivist does not exclude or condemn others, is not usually

chauvinistic, defensive, or self-aggrandizing. Granted, an inclusivist uses his

or her own language and conception-God’s universal love, for the Chris- tian, or perhaps Krishna’s omnipresence and omnipotence, for the Hindu- as a wey of understanding the orher, but would insist that, realistically, we can only understând the world in and through the language and the symbols

we have inherited from our own traditions. So in Rahner’s inclusivist scheme

rny Hindu friends are baptized “anonymous Christians” and Muslims are saved

by the mediation and grace of Christ, even though this certainly violares their

self-understanding. And yet, to be fair, Rahner states explicitly that the term

“anonymous Christians” is not intended for dialogue with others, but only for

what we might call internal use as Christiâns set their own understandino

aright.23

The¡e is still something unsettling here. While it preserves the integrity of

“r s o u R c o D L r s r r N r x c l”

not persuaded to cast off thei¡ own traditions of wisdom or spirituality. Indeed, the missiona¡ies rhemselves somerimes glimpsed the wisdom of the Hindus o¡ Buddhists among whom they worked and began to raise questions. Thenew at- titude took a long while to ripen. It was really with the fresh air of pope John XXIII and the second vatican coun cll ftg6z-t965) that a new strain of inclu- sive thinking was born. The council drew up a srarement, “The Relation of the church to Non-christian Religions,” known by its first two words as Nostra Aetate.2t It begins, “In this age of ours, when men are drawing more closery together and the bonds of friendship berween different peopres ar: being strengthened, the church examines with gre ater care rhe relation which she has to non-ch¡istian reiigions.” This remarkable document starts with the aftr- mation that all people “form but one cc¡mmunity,” citing the reference of Acts r7 that God made from one srock all the peoples of the earrh, in order that rhey should seek after God and find God. The sraremenr allows that God’s “provi- dence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men.’,

Nosrra Aetate is an appreciative statemenr of the deprh of various t¡aditions. Hindus, it afirms, “explore rhe divine mysrery and express ir both in the lim- itless riches of myth and the accurarely defined insighrs of philosophy.” Bud- dhism “testifres ro rhe essential inadequacy of this changing world” and pro- poses a way of iife which leads ro liberation. Muslims “highly esteem an upright life and wo¡ship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.,’Jews and Christians especially “have â common spiritual he rirage,,,and Jews

..re main very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.”

The most quoted paragraph of the documenr sums up rhe inclusivisr posi- tlon:

The Catholic church reje crs nothing of what is t¡ue and holy in these reli- gions. She has a high regard for rhe manner of life and conducr, the pre- cepts and doctrines which, although difi-ering in many ways from her,rwn teaching, neve¡theless often reflect a ray of that t¡uth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound ro proclaim without fail, Ch¡ist who is rhe way, rhe truth, and the life (f ohn 14:6). In him, in whorn God ¡econciled all things to himself (z Cor. 5:r8-r9), men find the fulness of their religious Iife.

Nostra Aetate goes on to affirm that the suffering of christ was nor justfor chris- tians, but for all people, and the cross of christ is “the sign of God’s unive¡;ar rove

,84 ENCOUNTERINGGOD r85

of how it feels to be “included” in someone else’s scheme. Inclusivists often sim- ply assume , e ither in innocence or in confrdence, that the ir worldview ultimately

explains the whole. From each inclusivist point of view, it does. Mission, in its posiLive sense, whether Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, is an outgrowth of such

inclusivism-the “other” is not so much dangerous as immature and in need of further enlightenment. It was this way of thinking that lay behind Kipling’s sense of “the white man’s burden” to be the bearer of civilization. It was aiso this thinking that lay behind Swami Vivekananda’s mission to bring spiritual growth to the immature and materialistic West.

Those of us who are English-speaking women readily recognize inclusivist strategies through our own experience of language. We are said to be included in terms and locutions that do not mention our nâme, like the “brotherhood of man.” Women learned the rule of thumb men provided to cope with this prob- lem: “men,” of course, means “men and women,” except in those instances in which it does not mean “men and women.” The problem with inclusivism is clear.Inclusivism is a “majority consciousness,” notnecessarily in terms of num- bers, but in terms of power. And the consciousness of the majority is typically “unconscious” because it is not tested and challenged by dialogue with dis- sentingvoices. The danger ofinclusivism is thatit does nothear such voices atall.

The inclusivist, wittingly or unwittingly, thinks of himself or herself as the norm and uses words that reduce the other to that which is different: non-

Christians, non-whites, non-Western. The economic inclusivist speaks of “de-

veloping” countries, as if all will be well when they âre “developed” like us. The hierarchies built into inclusivism enable the inclusivist to âssume uncritically that racial minorities, or “third-world” peoples, or women will come someday to share in “the system,” and that the system will not change when they do. In- ciusivists want to be inclusive-but only in the house that we ou¡selves hâve built. Such inclusivism can easily become the “communalism of the majority.”

Its presuppositions are unchallenged by alternâtives. When the inclusivist really

begins to iisten to the voices of others, speaking in their own terms, the whole

context of theological thought begins to change along the continuum toward

pluralism.

Is “our God” listeningl Of course, “our God” listens to the praye¡s of all peo-

pleof faith, butitis “ou¡” God who does thelisteninginthe inclusivistview. We,

after all, know perfectly weli who God is, and if God is going to listen to the prayers of the Hindu uttered before the granite image of Vishnu, it is the God

ueknow.

rs ouR GoD LIsr¡NrNcl

my own self-undersranding, inclusivism ofren dodges the question of real dif- ference by reducing everything finally ro my own rerms. The problem with in- clusivism is precisely thar it uses one langrage-the religious language of one’s own tradition-to make definitive claims about the whole of reality. What about the self-undersranding of the Musliml What about her restimony of faith? What abour rhe Jews who do not speak of be ing “save d” at all and would obiect strenuously to the notion of being saved by christ behind their backs, making them anonymous Christians whether they like it or not? Whar about the Hindus who would ûnd ir an exrraordinary theological sleight of hand ro at- tribute all grace to Chrisr? Mr. Gangadaran, my Hindu friend from South In- dia, is a Shaiva Siddhantin. His life is infused wirh a sense of God’s love and grece, âs conveyed in the hymns of the Tämil saints, which he sings with as much gusto as any Methodist sings those of Charles Wesley. But rhe voices of peopie like Gangadaran do not really counr in the christian inclusivist frame of refer- ence. The inclusivist viewpoint wouid be chailenged by the independenr voices of other people of faith, people who do not wish to be obliterated by being in- ciuded in someone else’s scheme and on someone else’s terms without beino heard in their own right.

The inclusivist viewpoint would also be challenged by the encounter with other inclusivisms. The Muslim, for example, who would argue rhat all who bow their heads and bend their wills to rhe one God are muslims,wirh a small “m,” is an inclusivist. So is the Buddhist abbott of Mounr Hiei in Japan, who, when he met Pope fohn Paul II, included him in the Buddhisr family by pro- nouncing him a re incarnarion of the Buddhist monk Saicho. So was my Hindu friend in Banaras who was ce rtain that I had been a Hindu in my past life, which explained my afinity for the holy city. So is the Vaishnava Hindu who sees all truth and all paths as leading up to Krishna. In the Song of God, the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna vows to receive all prayers offered, to whatever god, in whatever name , for he is the recipient and lord of all worship.

I am the way, sustainer,lord,

witness, shelte¡ refuge, friend, source, dissolution, stability,

treasure, and unchanging seed.

For those on the receivingend ofthe inclusivist’s zeal, itofren feels like a form of theological imperialism to have their beliefs or prayers swepr into the inter- pretive schema of another tradition. The inclusivist, however, is often not aware

Å6 ENCOUNTERING COD r8z

neutral terminology, but it does mean that we cease speaking only to ourselves and in the terms of our own internal Christian conversation. We wiil speak in the context of interreligious dialogue. For example, as a Chrisrian, I will con- tinue to speak of God, of Christ, and of the Hoìy Spirit. I may speak of the “wideness of God’s mercy,” even though the Buddhist will see this as a pârticu- larly Christian or the istic way of unde¡standing the grounds for pluralism. The

Buddhist will continue to speak of the Buddha and the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha. And some Buddhists may insist that the “positionless position” of a nondogmatic Buddhism is whar clears the ground for pluralism. But my primary concern will not be to “include” the Buddhist in my terms, but to under- stand the Buddhist in his or her own terms, to test and broaden my own self- understanding in light of that encounter. Neither of us will speak as if the other did not exist or were not listening or could be absorbed into our own religious worldviews. And each of us will begin to understand our own traditions afresh in light of what we have iearned from the ocher.

In the Christian pluralist perspective, the pluraiity of religions is not inter- preted as a “problem” to be overcome. It is a fact of our world. And it is one we must encounter creâtively if we are to make sense of the world. People have al- ways and everywhere responded to what Christians would call “God’s pres- ence” among them. Perhaps this great human movement of seeking, and of frnding, is part of what we speak of as “the providence of God.” Saint Paul re- minded those to whom he preached in Athens that “from one ancestor God made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotte d the times of their ex-

istence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him-though he is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’

as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring”‘ (Acts

ry:26-28). Despite Paul, there are many Christians who are happy to se e people of other

faiths as “searching and groping” for God, but are not so sure about the finding.

In r983, at the Vancouver Generai Assembly of the Worid Council of Churches,

there was a heated debate over a single sentence in a report which recognized “the work of God in the lives of people of other faiths.” Is God really at work in

rhe lives and faith of others I Many delegates were not sure. A dozen substitute formulations we re offered. There was scarcely time to consider the matter fully

at the end of a steamy week in August. Finally, the assembly settled for a watered-down recognition of “God’s creative work in rhe see\ing for religious

“I s o u R c o D L r s r s N r N c l”

“There’s aWideness in God’s Mercy”

For the Christian pluralist, there is no such God as “our” God. Humility or sim- ple honesty before God requires that we nor limit God to the God rve know or to the particular language and image through which we know God. As Wilfre d Cantwell Smith has repeatedly put it, God rranscends our idea of God. We sing the hymn “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea. . . .” But what does it really mean to take seriously the wideness of God’s mercy I

Religiously, the move to pluralism begins for Christians rhe momenr we imagine that the one we call God is greater than our knowledge or understand- ing of God. It begins the momenr we suspect rhar the God we kno-w in Christ “listens,” if we wish to put it that wây, to the eârnestprayers of people whose reli- gious language and whose God we do not even understand. It is our understand- ingof thewideness of God’s mercythatprovides thetheological impulse toward pluraiism. And, as we shall see, it is also our confidence in Jesus, the Christ, who was open to all people regardless of religion or srarus, rhar pushes Christians into the wider world of faith.

For Christians, to stre ss God’s transcendence does nor uke away the precious particularity of the Christian tradirion, but it doe s rake away our ability to claim the comprehensive, exhaustive universality of our own tradition. The¡e are “other sheep,” as Christ himself aftrms, who are not of this fold (lohn ro:r6). There are faces of the Divine that must lie beyond what we ourselves have glimpsed from our own sheepfold. It is God’s rranscendence which,jrives us to find out what others have known of God, seeking truly to know, as it was put at the Parliament, “how God has revealed himself in the other.” It is God’s tran- scendence which drives us to inquire more deeply into the insights of those Bud- dhists who do not spe ak of God at ali.

In a Christian pluralist perspective, we do not need to build walls to exclude the view of the othe¡ nor do we need to erect a universal canopy capable of gath- ering all the diverse tribes together under our own roof. ‘We do not need to speak

of “anonymous Christians.” From a Chrisrian pluralisr standpoint, the multi- plicity of religious ways is a concomitanr of rhe ultimacy and many-sidedness of God, the one who cannot be limited or encircled by any one rradirion. Therefore, the boundaries of our various traditions need not be the places where -we halt and contend over our differences, but might well be the places where we meet and catch a glimpse of glory as seen by another.

This does not mean we cease speaking in our own language and adopt some

IBB ENCOUNTERING GOD

truth among people of other faiths.”2a In the confusion of plenary debate, dele-

gates were frnally uncertain about the “finding.” But the aPostle Paul was not

ûncertain. He did not leave others groping after the Divine. He acknowledged

the frnding as well as the seeking. How many Christian missionaries, Iike Paul,

have thought to “bring God” to some pert of Africa or Asia, only to fin’J rhat the

one they called God was already there. So if there is a “finding,” is it not the im-

perative of the Godward hea¡t to inquire afte r what has been found I

In January of r99o, the World Council of Churches calied a theological con-

sultation in the little viìlage of Baar in Switze¡land to address the theological

confusion among Chrisrians about what it means to speak of God’s presence

among people of other faiths. Protestant, Catholic, and O¡thodox th:ologians

formulated a stâtement of current thinking on the mattet beginning with an

understanding of creation and the implications of afirming God as the creator

of heaven and earth.

We see the plurality of religious traditions as both the result of the mani-

fold ways in which God has related to peoples and nations as weli as a man-

ifestation of the richness and diversity of humankind. We aft¡m that God

has been prese nt in their seeking and finding, that where the¡e is truth and

wisdom in their teachings, and love and holiness in their living, this, like

any wisdom, insight, knowledge, understanding,love and holiness that is

found among us, is the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . .

This conviction that God as creator of all is Presenl and active in the

plurality of religions makes it inconceivable to us that God’s saving activ-

ity could be confrned to any one continent, cultural type, or group of peo-

ples. A refusal to take seriously the many and diverse religious testimonie s

to be found among the nations and peoples of the whole world amounts to

disowning the biblical testimony to God as creator of al1 things and father

of all humankind.25

In some ways it is not so unlike the catholic language of .Ò/o stra Aetx.te .There

is much that is necessarily inclusivisr in such a recasting of Christian language’

And yet there is an important point of departure he¡e. For if Christians ac- knowledge-as do those of us who forged this language a,3.”¡-¡’1t only the “seeking” but the “finding” of God by people of other faiths, then the encounter

with the Hindu or Muslim is truly an opportunity to deepen our knowledge and

understanding of the one we call God. It is an occasion for truth-se:king dia-

logue-to offerour own testimony, to hear the testimonies of othe¡s in thei¡ own

I s o u R c o D L I s r s N r N c ?” IB9

te¡ms, to wrestle with the meaning of one another’s terms, and to risk mutual transformation.

Within each tradition there are particuiar religious resources for the move toward the active, truth-seeking engagement with others that is the distin- guishing mark of pluralism. And there are people in each religious tradition attempting to think afresh about their own identity within rhe contexr of inter- religious dialogue . I speak of what I call “Christian pluralism,” exploring the wider world of faith as a Christian. Jews who seek a conrext for pluraiistic think- ing often speak of God’s ancient and unbroken covenant with the whole of hu- manity-the covenant with Noah signaled by the rainbow and spanning the ea¡th as the sign of God’s unive rsal promise. Muslims also begin wirh the sover- eignty of God, the creator of the universe, the sole judge in matters of truth, and the one who challenges ¡he diverse religious communities to “compete in righ- teousness.” As the Qur’an puts it, “If God had so willed, He would have made all of you one community, but He has not done so that He may rest you in what He has given you; so compete in goodness. To God shall you all return and He will tell you the Tiuth about what you have been disputing” (5:a8). Buddhists ofren refer to the Buddha’s teaching of the interdependence of all things and remind us of the Buddha’s simple statement abortrhe raftof dltarmø,of religious prac- tice, as a way of crossing the river; it is a vehicie, not an end in itself. Only the fool would reach the far shore and then, out of ioyalty to the raft, pack it aiong wirh him. Hindus begin with the oneness and transcendence of what they call Sat- the Real, Truth. It is that which becomes known to human beings through many names and forms. It is that which human beings can no more comprehend as a whole than the blind men of the parable can comprehend the enrirety of the elephant.

The aim of all thìs religious thinking is not ¡o find the lowest common de- nominator o¡ the most neutral religious language. Far from it. The aim is to find those particular places within each tradition that provide the open space where we may meet one another in mutual respect and develop, through dialogue, new

ways of speaking and iistening. The aim is not only mutual unde¡standing, but

mutual self-understanding and mutual transformation. As the Jewish scholar

fean Halperin put it at an interreligious consultation held in Mau¡itius in r983, “We not only need to understand one another, we need one another to under-

stand ou¡selves.”26

The British philosopher and theologian lohn Hick has been a pioneer in pluralist thinking. He speaks of pluralism as the “Copernican revolution” in

ê !.

r

I I9O ENCOUNTERTNG cOD

contemporary theology. From a “Ptolemaic” Christian inclusivist position in which other traditions of wisdom or devotion were understood to revolve around the sun of the Christian tradition, their validity measured by their dis- tance f¡om the center, the Christian pluralist makes a radical move , insisting that

as we become awa¡e of the t¡aditions of Buddhisrs or Muslims, we musr begin to see that it is God or Ultimate Reality a¡ound which our human religious tra- ditions revolve-not âny one tradirion or wây of salvation. As Hick puts it, “We have to ¡ealize that the universe of faiths centres upon God, and not upon Chrisrianity or upon âny other religion. [God] is rhe sun, the originative source of lightand life,whom all the religions reflectin theirowndifferentwal’s.”27For Christians this means that others cannot simply move inro our own orbir, but must be seen and appreciated on thei¡ own terms, moving, as we ourselves do, around that center which cannot be fully owned or claimed by any one tradi- tion alone.

TheWorldHouse:

Toouard a Prøctical Understanding of Pluralism

The Copernican revolution is a good image for dramatizing the revolution in ¡e- ligious understanding that we âre now expe riencing. It is as dramatic as Coper- nicus’s discovery that what we thought was at the center of our universe turned out not to be . God always transcends what we humans can apprehend or under-

stand. No tradition can claim the Holy or the Truth as its private properry. As Gandhi put it so succinctly, “Revelation is the exclusive property of no nation, no trrbe.””

Every image has its limitations, however, and that of the Copernican revo- lution and the new solar cosmos is no exception. We know today, for example, that ours is but one of a number of solar systems, so even the heliocentric uni- verse has its limits. Anyway, the paradigm of all the great religions sailing around the center on their own pârticular orbits is not entirely satisfâctory. It Iacks the dynamic interaction of the world in which we live . Our wo¡lds and our

worldviews are not on separete orbits, but bump up against one ânother ell the

time, even collide. People of different religious traditions do not live âDarr, bur are in constant interaction and need, if anything, to be in mo¡e intentional inter- reiation. A theocent¡icity patterned after the solar system will not carry us far as an image for ou¡ new world, for our problem is not only our understanding of

I9I

Tiuth, buc our relationship to one another. We need a more interactive way of thinking.

If the move toward pluralism begins theologically in the places where people of diferent traditions frnd an openness-and even an imperative-toward encounter with one another, it begins historically and culturally with the plain fact of our ¡eligious diversity, our cultural proximity to one anorher, and our hu- man interdependence. In very practical te rms, how are we all to live with one an- other in a climate of mutuality and understandingl Is it even possiblel Those who live according to an exclusivist paradigm frankiy do not wish to live closely with people of other faiths and would prefer to shut ¡f¡srn 6¡¡-\À/hich is in- creasingly impossible-or to convert orhers ro thei¡ own view of the world. Those who appropriate differences, as do the inclusivists, assume rhat the wo¡ld –

view of othe¡s Ìooks very much like their own, and rhe ground rules are pre- sumed to be “ours.” But those who think about life toge ther as pluralists recog- nize the need for radical new forms of Iiving together and communicating with one another.

‘What, then, is pluralism? The word has been used so widely and freely as a

virtual synonym for such te¡m sas relatiuism, subjectiuism, muhiculturalism,and globalism that we need to stop for a moment and think clearly abour what it does and does not meân. Pluralism is but one of several responses to diversity and to modernity. It is an interpretation of plurality, an evaluation of religious and cul – tural diversity. And finally it is the ability to make a home fo¡ oneself and one’s neighbors in that multifaceted reality.

First, pluralism is not the sheerfact of plurality alone, but is actiue engagement t’t,ithplurality. Pluralism and plurality are sometimes used âs if they were synon- ymous. But plurality is just diversity, plain and simple-splendid, colorful, maybe even threatening. Diversity does not, howeve r, have to affectme. I can ob-

serve it. I can even celebrate diversity, as the clicÉe goes. But I have to participate

in pluralism. I can’r just stand by and watch.

Religious and cultural diversity can be found just about everywhere-in Britain and Brazil, in the ethnic enclaves of ¡he former Eastern bloc, in New Delhi and in Denver, in the workplace and in schools. Pluralist models for suc- cessfully engaging diverse peoples in an energetic community, however, are relatively rare. In the Elmhurst area of Queens, for example, a NeruYorftTimes reporter found people from eleven countries on a single floo¡ of an apartment building on Justice Avenue. There were immigrants from Korea, Haiti, Viet-

IS ouR GoD Lrsr¡NrNcl

l

l

I

r92 ENCOUNTERIN,f cOD r93

are many places in the world where the emergence of a culture of tolerance would be a step forward-when religious, racial, and ethnic rival¡ies flash into violence in Northe¡n Ireland, in India, in the Sudan or Nigeria, or in Los Ange- les or Miami. But tolerance is a long way from pluralism.

As a style of living together, tole rance is too minimal an expectation. Indee d, it may be a passive form of hostility. Ch¡istians can tolerare rheir Jewish neigh- bors and protect their civil liberties without having ro know ânything abour them and without having to reconsider some of the roots of Ch¡istian anti- Semitism. Tole¡ance alone does nothing to remove our igno¡ance of one anothe r by building bridges of exchange and dialogue. It does not require us to know ânything ne% it does not even entertain the fact that we ourselves might change in the process. Tolerance might sustain a temporary and shaky truce, but it will never bring forth a new creation.

Third, pluralism is noÍ simply relatiuism, but assumes real commitment. In a world of religious pluralism, commirmenrs are nor checked ar the door. This is a critical point to see plainl¡ because through a cynical intellectual sleighrof hand some critics have linked pluralism wirh a valueless relarivism-an undiscrimi- nating twilight in which “all cats are gray,” all pe rspectives equally viable, and as a result, equally uncompelling. In saying that pluralism is not simply relativism, I do not wish to side with today’s slippery critics of reiativism, such as Allan Bloom, who stigmatize openness and cultural ¡elativism as new academic dog- mas. My main points is to distinguish pluralism from certain kinds of ¡elativism. While there are similarities between pluralism and relativism, the difference be- tween the two is important: Relativism assumes â stance of openness; pluralism assumes both openness and commitment.

Relativism, like pluralism, is an interpretation of diversity. It is also a word with many meanings. On the whole, reiativism simply means that what we know of the world and of truth we can only know through a particulâr frame- work. In this, the pluralistwould agree-whar we speak of as truth is relative to our cultu¡al and historical standpoint as well as the frame of reference through which we see it. What is true is always “true for” someone, for there is always a point of yis\¡/-6e¡cli¡ioned in multiple ways by whether one is Chrisrian or Musiim, American or Asian, male or female , rich or poor, a prosperous farmer

or a homeless refugee. Matters of truth and value are relative to our conceptual framework and worldview, even those matters of truth that we speak of as di- vinely ordained.

Relativism. then, to a ce¡tain extent is a commonsense inrerpretation of di-

–r s o u R G o D L I s r r N r N c I

nam, Nigeria, and India-all iiving in isoiation and fear-each certain thar they were the only immigrants there.2e Diversity to be sure, but not pluralism.

Mere cosmopolitanism should also not be misraken for pluralism. In Cam- bridge, Massachusetts-which, Iike Queens, is highly cosmopolitan-Mus- lims, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists Iive along with many people who have no active or passive identificâtion wirh any religious faith at ail. The whole world seems to live in this small city. There is cuitural diversity and diversity of style; anyone sitting in the sidewalk cafés of Flarvard Square will observe the parade of Cambridge life. But again, the mere presence of wide-ranging religious diversity is not itself pluralism. Religious piuralism requires active positive engagement with the claims of religion and rhe facrs of religious diversity. It involves not the mere recognition of the different re ligious traditions and the in- suring of their legitimate rights, but the acrive effort ro understand difference and commonality through dialogue.

Second, pluralkm is not simply tolerance, but ako the seefting of understand.ing. Tolerance is a deceptive virtue. I do nor wish to belirtle tolerance, but simply to recognize that it is not a real response to the challenging facts of difference. Tol- erânce can enable coexistence, but it is certainly no way to be good neighbors. In fact, tolerance ofren stands in the way of engegement. If as a Christian I tolerate my Muslim neighbor, I am not therefore required to understand her, to seek out what she has to say, to hear about he¡ hopes and dreams, to hear what it meant to her when the words “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate” were whispered into the ear of her newborn child.

‘Iolerance does not take us far with ideas that challenge our own. For a ma- jority people, tolerance is simply another expression of privilege . As the philos- opher Elizabe th Spelman puts it, “If one is in a posirion to allow someone else to do something, one is also in a position to keep that person from doing it. To tolerate your speaking is to refrain from exercising the power I have to kee¡r you from speaking. . . . And of course I don’r have ro listen ro what you have ro say. . . . Tolerance is easy if those who are asked to express it needn’t change a whit.”io

Tolerance is, of course, a set forward from active hostility. When the mosque

in Quincy was set ablaze by arson, when a mosque in Flouston was fire-bombed at the time of a Middle East airplane hijacking, when the Hindu-Jain temple in Pittsburgh was vandalized and the images of the deities smashed, and when a group of youngsters soaped swastikas on windows and cars in Wellesley, pe ople called fo¡ tole rance-an unquestionable vi¡tue under the circumstances. There

194 ENCoUNTÊRIN,] GoD

versity. It is clear that what I hold as ¡¡uth is historically relative. If I had lived in the fourteenth century, I would likely have held the world to be flat. What I hold ast¡uth is also culturally and religiously relative. As a Christian,I know that

the Muslim who speaks of justice and human community appeals to the au-

thority of the Qur’an es energetically as I appeal to the authority ,rf Iesus or the Bible. It is indisputable that certain “facts” of my childhood learning, such

as “Columbus discovered America,” were accurate only from a European point of view. From the standpoint of the native peoples of this continent, “the

discovery” was perhaps more accurately an invasion. And as for morality, it is clear that in some frames of reference, the Hindu or f ain for instance, any wilÌful taking of life, including animal life, is rejected; vegetarianism is religiously en- joined and culturally presupposed. Through other frames of reference, in- cluding ours in most of the Ch¡istian West, there is little reiigious debate about

the moral dime nsions of what we should eet. But when it comes to the taking of human life-through war, capital punishment, or abortion-there are reli- gious people line d up on both sides of every argument with evidence to support

their views.

A thoughtful relativist is able to point out the many ways in which our cogni-

tive and moral understandings are relative to our historical, cultura.i, and ideo-

logical contexts. So far, the pluralist wouid be a close cousin. But there are two

shades of relarivism that are antithetical to pluralism. The first is nihilistic ¡ela-

tivism,which denies the very heartof religious truth. One of the common strâte-

gies for diffusing the challenge of religious and ideological difference is to insist

that there is no ultimate centering value, no one life-compelling truth. For the

nihilistic relativist, the impossibility of universalizing any one tmth claim sug-

gests the emptiness of all truth claims. According to Spelman, the rihilist says, “If I can’t maintain my position of privilege by being the sole arbite r of trurh, I at least cen insist that no one is.”31 If all religions say different things, this only proves thât all of them a¡e false. As we well know, nihilistic relativism is not the

property of any one culture or contine nt today. It is a truly worldwide phenome-

non, just as religious exclusivism and secular materialism are worl’Jwide phe-

nomena. As Abraham |oshua Heschel puts it, ” We must choose between inter-

faith and inter-nihilism.”32

The second shade of relativism that must clearly be distinguishe J from plu-

ralism is a relativism that lacks commitme nt. The re are reiativists w:ro a¡e com-

mitted Jews, Christians, and Hindus who speak of commitment to “relative

IS r95

absolutes,” recognizing the relativity of those symbols we hold as “absolute.”

There are many more, however, who are completely uncommitted, which is

why relativism is equated by some critics with laissez-faire plurality. Mind you, the uncommitted certainly have a place in the dialogue of a pluralistic world, but

the heart of the issue with which we struggle is the dificult, potentiâlly explo- sive, and potentially vibrant encounter of people with srrong and very different

commitme nts. Pluralism can only generate a strong social fabric through the in-

terweaving of commitments. If people perceive pluralism as entailing the re lin- quishing of their particular religious commitments they are not interested. Nei-

ther am I.

Relativism for me and for many othe rs become s a problem when it means the

lack of commitme nt to eny particular community or faith. If everything is more or less true, I do not give my heart to anything in particular. There is no beloved

community, no home in the context of which values a¡e tested, no drearrr of the

ongoing transformation of that community. Thus the relativist can remaìn un-

committed, a perpetual shopper or seeker, set apart from a community of faith,

suft^ering from spiritual ennui. Indeed relativism as a view in itself is often iden-

tified with secularism and the disavowal of any religious faith.

The pluralist, on the other hand, stands in a particular community and ìs willing to be committed to the struggles of that community, even as restless critic. I would argue that there is no such thing as a generic pluralist. There a¡e

Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists, and even avowedly humanistic plural- ists-all daring to be themselves, not in isolation from but in relation to one an- other. Pluralists recognize thatothers also have communities and commitments.

They are unafraid to encounter one enother and ¡ealize that they must a1l live

with each other’s particularities. The chailenge for the pluralist is commitment

without dogmatism and community without communalism. The theological

task, and the task of a pluralist society, is to create the spâce and the means for the

encounte¡ of commitments, not to neutralize all commitment.

The word credo,soimportantin the Christiantradition, does notmean “I be-

lieve” in the sense of intellectual âssent to this and that proposition. It means “I

give my heart to rhis.” It is an expression of my heart’s commitment and my life’s

orientation. Relativism may be an appropriate intellectual answer to the prob-

lem of religious diversity-all traditions are relative to history and culture. But it cannot be an adequate answer for most reiigious people-not for me, nor for

my Muslim neighbor who fasts and prays more regularly than I do, nor for my

o u R G o D L r s r r N I u c l”

ry6 ENCOUNTERINGGOD

Hindu colleague whose world is made vivid by the presence of Krishna. We live our live s and die our deaths in te rms of cherished commitments. We are not rela-

tively committed.

Pluralism is not, then, the kind of radical openness to anything and every- thing that drains meaning from particularity. It is, howeve r, radical openness ro Tiuth-to God-that seeks to enlarge understanding through dialogue. Plu- ralism is the complex and unavoidable encounter, diftcult as it might be, with the multiple religions and cultu¡es that are the very stuff of our world, some of which may challenge the very ground on which we stand. Unless a1l of us can en-

counter one another’s religious visions and cuitural forms and understand them

through dialogue, both critically and self-critically, we cannot begin to live with maturity and integrity in the world house.

Fourth, pluralism is not syncretism, but is based onrespectfor differences. Syncre-

tism is the creation of a new religion by the fusing of dive ¡se elements of diffe¡- ent t¡aditions. There have been many syncretistic religions in history. In the fourth century B.c.E., the Ptolemaic kings fused Greek and Egyptian elements

in the cult of Serapis to aid in the consolidation of empire. In the third cenrury, Mani interwove strands from the Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Christian tradi- tions to create Manichaeism. The Mughai emperor Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi (“Di- vine Faich”) brought together Hindu and fain philosophy, Muslim mysticism, and Zoroastrian Êre sacrifrce in sixteenth-century India. To a certain extent what goes by the name of New Age religion today is an informal religious syn- cretism, piecing together a peckage of spiritual aids from Native American ¡it- ual, Hindu yoga and Ayurvedic medicine, Buddhist meditation, and Sufi and Christian mysticism. Of course it goes without saying that there is a process of adaptation and enculturation that is part and parcel of every tradition as it en- ters into the life of new peoples and new cultural contexts- The discussion of whether this is or is not “syncretism” is a long one and hinges too much on te rmi- nology to detain us here.

There are some critics who imagine, howeve¡ thar pluralism is aimed at gen-

erating a new syncretistic religion knit together from the most universal or most interesting eìements of various world religions. Or that pluralism is a kind of global shopping mall where each individual puts together a basket of appealing

religious ideas. Or that pluralism will reduce each tradition to the bland unity of the lowest common denominator. So it is important to say, once again, that plu- ralism, while not pluralit¡ is based on plurality. A pluralist cuiture w’ill not flat- ten out differences, but has respect for differences and the encounter of differ-

”I s o u R G o D L I s r B N I N c l” r97

ences. Its aim is quite the opposire of syncrerism. While common ianguage will be crafted out of the give-and-take of dialogue, there is no attempr to make up a common language, to produce a kind of religious esperânto that all would speak.

There are religious traditions that have an open and somewhat syncretistic flavor today. The Unitarian Universalisrs, for example, who hold a humanitar- ian view of fesus and a wide respect for other religious teachers, often include the prayers and scriptures of many rraditions in rheir wo¡ship. The ecclecticism of some Unitarian congregations today includes neopegan and neo-Hindu in- fluences as well as a strong Christian universalism. The Baha’is build a similar appreciative stance toward religious diversiry into their various temples- In New Delhi, for exampie, there is a splendid new Baha’i temple built in the shape of a Iotus and housing a number of shrines around its central sanctuary, one for each of the religious traditions, all brought togerher under one roof.

The aim of pluralism, however, is quite different. It is not to create a world- wide temple of all faiths. It is rather to ûnd ways to be distinctively ourselves and ye t be in relation to one enother. No doubt there is common ground to be discov- ere d along the way; no doubt there are common aspirations to be articulated. But joining togethe ¡ in a new “world religion” based on the lowest common denomi- nator or pieced together from several religious traditions is not rhe goal of plu- ralism. In some ways, it is the very antithesis of pluralism.

Fifth, pluralism is based on interreligious d.ialogz¿e. The isolation or dogmarism of the exclusivist is not open to dialogue. The inclusivist, while open to dialogue, does not really hear the self-unde rstandingof the other. The rruth seekingof the pluralist, however, can be buiit on no other foundation than the give-and-take of dialogue . There is something we ¡¡¡5¡ lç¡e1¡¡-both about the other and about 6u¡sslys5-¡hat can be found in no other way.

We do not enter into dialogue with the dreamy hope that we will all agree, for rhe truth is we probably will not. We do not enter into dialogue to produce an agreement, but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premised

upon mutual understanding, not upon âgreement. Christians and Muslims, for example, may frnd we âgree on many things. We share prophets iike Abraham

and foundational values like justice. But a clear understanding of differences is

as precious as the afirmation of similarities. The language of dialogue is the two-way language of real encounter and it is

for this reason that dialogue is the very basis of pluralism. There musr be con- stentcommuniç¿¡ie¡-¡¡ssting, exchange, traftc, criticism, refection, repara-

rg8 ENCOUNTERING GOD

tion, renewal. Without dialogue, the diversity of religious rraditions, of cukures and ethnic groups; becomes an array of isolated encampmenrs, eâch with a dif- ferent flag, meeting only occasionally for formalities or for battle. The swamis, monks, rabbis, and archbishops may meet for an interfaith prayer breakfast, but without re al dialogue they become simply icons of dive¡siry, nor instrìrments of relationship. Without dialogue, when violence flares-in Queens or Los Ange – les, Southall or New Delhi-there are no bridges of relarionship, and as rhe floodwaters rise it is roo late to build them.

A second aim of dialogue is to understand ourselves and our faith more clearly. Diaiogue is not a debate between two positions, but a truth-seeking encounter. If Muslims assume that the taking and giving of interest on loans is morally wrong and Christians embedded in a capitalist framework never thought to question the matter, what can we learn from one another? If Bud- dhists de scribe the dee pest reality wirhout re fe rence to God and Christians can- not imegine religiousness without God, what will each of us learn that is quite new, through the give-and-take of dialoguel The theologian John Cobb has used the phrase “mutual rransformation” to describe the way in which dialogue necessariiy goes beyond mutual undersranding to a new level of mutual self- understanding.

The Sri Lankan Christian theologian Wesley Ariarajah has spoken of dia- logue as the “encounter of commitments.” When dialogue was ûrst discussed broadly and ecumenically by the Chrisrian churches ar the assembly of the World Council of Churches in Nairobi in ry75, rhere was much heated discus- sion. A bishop of the Church of Norway led the attack, calling dialogue a be- trayal of Christian mission. The church should be engaged in proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth and makingdisciples of all nations, not in inrerre- ligious dialogue, he said. There were mâny, then and now, who saw dialogue as a sign of weakness of fairh. Ariarajah and many others have insisted that quite the opposite is true. What kind of faith refuses ro be tested by real encounrer with othersì What kind of faith grows by speaking and proclaiming without having to listen, perhaps even be challenged, by the voices of others ?

Discovering one’s own faith is inherently part of rhe human piìgrimage. Whar motivates us deeply, what orients us in the world, what nourishes our growth and gives rise to our most cherished valuesl Every human b:ing must cope with these questions or suffer the anxious drift of avoiding them. But our challenges on the human pilgrimage âre nor solved once and for all by rhe un- folding discovery of our own faith, for we encounter other pilgrims of other

I s o u R G o D L I s r p N t t¡ c ?” r99

faiths. Dialogue means taking a vibrant inrerest in what motivates these other pilgrims, what orients them in the world, what nourishes their growth and give s rise to their most cherished values. To live together we need to know these things about one another and ro ¡isk rhe changes of heart and mind that may welr come when we do.

There is a third aim of dialogue. Murual understanding and muruar r¡ans- formation are important, but in the world in which we live, the cooperative transformation ofour global and local cultures is essential. It is surely one ofthe most challenging tasks of our time. Buddhisrs and Hindus, Muslims and f ews, Maoris and christians have urgent work to do that can only be done togerher. As wilf¡ed cantwell smith so succinctly put ir, “our vision and our loyalties, as weil as our aircraft, must circle the globe.”3r

BEA,CON PRESS

2j Beacon Streer Boston, Massachusetts 02ro8-2892

wwwbeacon.org

Beacon Press books are published under rhe auspices of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

@ ryg3,zoqby DianaL.Eck All righrs reserved

Printed in the United States ofAme¡ica

1312rrroog nro9876

This book is printed on acid-free paper rhar meers rle uncoated paper eNsr/Nrso specifications for permanence as revised in r992.

Text design by David Bullen Composition by Wilsted tr Täylor

Li brary of C ongres C øøloging -in -Pub lication Data Eck,DianaL.

Encountering God : a spirinral journey from Bozeman to Ba¡raras /Diana L. Eck.

P.cm. Originally published: Boston : Beacon Press, cr993. With new pref.

Includes bibliographical references and index. rsnx o-8o7o-73or-6 (alk. paper)

r. Christianity and other religions. z. Eck, Diana L. I. Title. BPt27.E252Oo3

z9r.r’72-dczr zoozo36u4

This booftàr dedicaæd n my motha Dorothy Ecfo

andtothemernory

ofmyfathea HugoEcfr,

ønd my brother, I-aurence Ecfr