Books Mission as dialogue means both sides teach, both learn
SHARING THE BOOK:
RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES ON THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF PROSELYTISM By John
Witte Jr. and Richard C. Martin, editors Orbis Books, 423 pages,
$25
|
|
By PAUL KNITTER
In view of the ruckus caused by the popes November visit to
India, this is a timely book. Though warned not to, the pope renewed the
Christian call -- and right -- to convert India, and all Asia, to Christ. The
magazines Hinduism Today and Asian Week summarized Hindu
reactions: The popes summons was a war against Hindus and
Buddhists, a spiritual crime, an expression of the
Vaticans expansionist agenda.
The premise behind these criticisms is that religions should leave
each other alone, that none should seek converts from the others. Every land,
every nation, has its own religion. But what about religious freedom?
Doesnt freedom to practice my faith include freedom to preach it? To take
matters one step further, when does my right to preach infringe on your right
to be left alone?
The declared purpose of this book is to compare what
religions with authoritative scriptures have to say on human rights and on the
rights to proselytize.
Practicing and scholarly spokespersons from the religions of the
book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and from modern missionary
movements (Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists and
Bahais) review and interpret their histories on how well they have
balanced sharing their good news with respecting their hearers human
rights. It is a rich, engaging book.
Opening and closing essays by Martin Marty and M. Thomas Thangaraj
both summarize and endorse the drift of most of the contributions: Proselytism,
no. Evangelism, yes.
In proselytizing, I coerce and look down upon the others. My
central intent is to move them from their religious backyard to mine. In
evangelizing (a Christian term, admittedly), I share and invite, respecting the
freedom of the other and recognize our common humanity.
This distinction between proselytizing (or cajoling) and
evangelizing (or witnessing) can serve as the criterion for reviewing the
books essays and drawing up a tentative scorecard for each religion: Have
they been -- and are they today -- more proselytizers or evangelizers?
The three Jewish essays show that Judaism is unique among
the Peoples of the Book. While there have been periods when Jews were
open to and sought conversions, for the most part, especially since the 18th
century, they have actively discouraged convert-making.
Their concern is much more with in-reach -- making
Jews better Jews. In the Jewish experience, proselytizing -- especially when
based on one religions claims to supersede another -- leads to
persecution. The flip side of Christian mission, one of the essays
claims, is anti-Semitism.
The writers on Islam correct some popular misconceptions. While
Islam as a social and economic system was often carried by the sword,
conversions to Islam generally were not. For the most part, people opted to
join the Muslim umma (a sacred word meaning community) because it
brought economic advancement and liberation; this was especially the case for
women during the Middle Ages.
Present-day Muslim scholars lay out the inherent openness of the
Quran to other religions; the condemnations of polytheistic faiths are
contextual, therefore interpretable. Muslim liberation theologian Farid Esack
calls for an interreligious dialogue based on liberation praxis; this would
offset the widespread disemboweled pluralism that he finds taking
place around most scholarly dialogue tables.
Theres more variety among the books Christian voices.
From the perspective of history, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that while the
early Christians were eager to proclaim, they never coerced. And James Muldoon
shows that even during the age of colonial expansion, canon lawyers insisted
that force could not be used to convert the natives. (Though it could be used
if they refused to trade.)
Although Cardinal Josef Tomko of the Congregation for the
Evangelization of Peoples, claiming to give the position of the Roman
Catholic church, is opposed to coercion, he does insist that since
Gods revelation and offer of salvation in Jesus Christ is absolute,
total, and final for all humankind, all other religions are meant to be
subsumed [into] this one, unique and universally applicable way of
salvation. Tomko declares, further, that this will not promote an
attitude of superiority.
The Protestant perspectives balance the cardinals, making
clear how Protestant calls to practice and promote religion as an open
quest and publicly debatable claim are the seedbed for human rights and
democracy in the United States (as John Adams saw and Thomas Jefferson did
not).
The essays on modern mission movements are
provocative. All of them -- Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Seventh-day
Adventists, even Bahais -- show how vigorous preaching, combined with
firm resolve to avoid coercion can lead to impressive, often phenomenal,
increase in membership. (Since 1950, Mormons have grown by 50 percent every
decade.) But theres a difference: Only the Bahais recognize both
the legitimacy and the validity of other religions. For Bahais, God does,
because God must, act through many religions.
Theres a lesson here. Yes, we want more evangelizing and
less proselytizing. But the attitude, or the theology, one brings to the
evangelizing makes for a big difference. Do I look on the other as someone
whose human rights I must respect, or as someone in whom God may be speaking to
me? Its the difference between witnessing to a pagan whose
religion I respect but hope to replace or to a child of God in whom
the divine is already present and active.
Its the difference between mere tolerance and genuine
openness, between just witnessing and also being witnessed to. This difference,
it seems, is determined by whether one religion makes absolute or final claims
over all others. If I think I always have the final word, Im not going to
be a very good listener. And if Im only tolerant and nice to you, it may
be difficult to maintain that attitude when the power shifts to my side and
Im in control.
To carry out the lessons of this book, all religions need not just
to share but to mutually share. The foundational attitude (theology?) would be
that while each religion has something of divine truth that the others
dont, none of them have it all. Therefore, they have to not just talk to
but also listen to each other. In such mutual sharing, both sides teach but
also both sides learn.
Conversion, in the sense of changing ones mind and actions,
is integral to such mutual sharing. All partners in the sharing seek to change
and persuade the others, but also theyre ready to be changed and
persuaded. Its more a matter of intra-conversion: The Hindu
or Christian is changed and becomes a better Hindu or Christian. As for
inter-conversion (a Hindu becoming a Christian, or vice versa),
while it is not the primary intent of such sharing, its not discouraged.
It just happens.
So maybe the better word for evangelism or
mission is dialogue. For authentic dialogue to take place, both
sides have to talk and listen, witness and be witnessed to, teach and be
taught. In mission-as-dialogue, real, mutual sharing takes place. With such an
understanding of mission, perhaps the pope would be more readily heard in India
and in the world.
Paul Knitter is professor of theology at Xavier University in
Cincinnati and is author of One Earth, Many Religions (Orbis
Books).
National Catholic Reporter, March 24,
2000
|