Interreligious Dialogue: A Brief Reflection on What Is at Stake

Interreligious Dialogue: Between Religious Studies and Syncretism

Thich Nhat Hahn, besides being one of the major spiritual and intellectual leaders of Zen Buddhism in Southeast Asia, one of the popularizers of Buddhism in the West, and one of the great advocates of the peace movement, was also one of the trailblazers of Buddhist-Christian dialogue. A friend of such Christian theologians and churchmen as Fr. Thomas Merton and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Hahn was fond of certain theological and spiritual motifs within Christianity, and in his writings he frequently draws out the parallels and potential points of contact between Buddhism and Christianity.

In his work Living Buddha, Living Christ, one of his best-known works on Buddhist-Christian relations, Thich Nhat Hahn, calling to mind a conference on interreligious dialogue, writes the following:

Twenty years ago at a conference I attended of theologians and professors of religion, an Indian Christian friend told the assembly, “We are going to hear about the beauties of several traditions, but that does not mean that we are going to make fruit salad.” When it came my turn to speak, I said, “Fruit salad can be delicious!”¹

This excerpt shows, in a particularly poignant manner, the first thing that is at stake in interreligious dialogue: namely, an articulation of its goals. Ecumenism has a well-defined goal, namely the reestablishment of ecclesial communion between the different factions of Christianity. Dialogue between different schools of thought or movements within a religion can serve to clarify the history, origins, and initial meaning of certain doctrines or practices within a religion. Yet, interreligious dialogue suffers from what could be called teleological ambiguity: there is no universal or even general agreement on the goals of interreligious dialogue. Is there only one, overarching goal, or multiple? If there be but one goal of interreligious dialogue, what is it? If the goals are multiple, what are they and how are we to prioritize them?

The exchange that Thich Nhat Hahn recalls in Living Buddha, Living Christ showcases the extremes in interreligious dialogue. It is easy to reduce interreligious dialogue to merely comparative religious studies. One who leans toward this interpretation of interreligious dialogue can easily see the purpose as the comparing and contrasting of different religions, pointing out points of similarity and points of departure between them, and thus can easily fall into the trap of demanding that each religion stay in its own lane, thereby becoming an ossified, stereotyped version of itself that can learn nothing from other faith traditions, incorporate nothing of other traditions into itself.

On the other hand, the comparison to the making of a fruit salad seems to imply that interreligious dialogue can become a sort of reckless syncretism: that is, the ad hoc combining or synthesizing of various elements of different religions, an overstating of the similarities between religions done to justify the claim that different or even incompatible religious traditions are merely differing expressions of a common set of truth claims. This approach to interreligious dialogue is impossible apart from misinterpreting the beliefs of one or all traditions involved in the dialogue, or interpreting them in the broadest, vaguest, most ill-defined manner, thereby making it possible to overlook the differences in emphasis (or even more substantial differences in worldview) that underlie these doctrines or beliefs in order to make them easier to reconcile.

There are three broad approaches to interreligious dialogue. This is not an exhaustive list, but rather represents just a few prominent examples that allow us to see how different individuals or schools of thought articulate what is at stake in interreligious dialogue, confront the pitfalls of such dialogue, and articulate the goals of interreligious exchange. These broad approaches can be called the educational, the existential, and the natural law approach.

The first approach has, for one of its proponents, the Catholic theologian Mary Boys, who writes the following in her work on Jewish-Catholic dialogue:

I believe we need to educate for religious commitments that are both clear and ambiguous, rooted and adaptive. . . . [Religious formation includes] educating persons who are knowledgeable about their faith and grounded in its traditions and practices in such a way that their religious identity is manifest in the way they live. . . . The other pole [of religious education] . . . [includes] teaching about our traditions of faith in ways that give religious commitments dimensions of ambiguity and adaptability.²

Religious education is twofold: it concerns training in one’s own religious tradition as well as the increase in understanding of the religious traditions of others. According to Boys, religious education must help us to create a clear understanding of the teachings, practices, and history of our own religion. Yet, an overemphasis on this element of religious education tends toward the creation of an overly dogmatic approach to religion wherein one cannot use their religious beliefs to adapt to new circumstances. While a religious tradition not rooted in adaptability creates a worldview build upon shoddy foundations, a worldview with no clear beliefs, incapable of actually engaging the beliefs of others or changes in the world around us, in a sad irony, loses that which is most precious in our tradition.³ To be rooted means to be clear in what we believe or stand for, which, in turn, allows us to address changing circumstances head-on without losing ourselves. Religious education thus means to not only have instilled into us a clear understanding of what we believe, but also given the tools to adapt what we believe to changing circumstances. This includes the introduction of new or foreign beliefs into our world, being exposed to those whose way of thinking whose beliefs or ways of articulating their beliefs are radically different than ours.

Interreligious dialogue therefore presupposes both clarity of vision concerning and rootedness in our respective religious traditions; on the other hand, it also presupposes the ability to be open to anything true or good in the beliefs of others, and therefore necessitates an interpretation of our religious tradition that is flexible enough to learn important lessons from others. It requires neither the ossification of our tradition (and therefore mere comparison of religious systems), nor the arbitrary or indiscriminate synthesis of beliefs and practices from differing religions. It assumes that everyone is entering into the discussions and debates that constitute interreligious dialogue with a specific set of standards by which they evaluate both their own beliefs and practices and those of others; it also assumes that each religious tradition has its own limitations, and therefore keeps open the possibility that certain religious traditions may, to some degree, complement one another.

The second approach — the existentialist approach — is rooted in the belief that there are certain fundamental spiritual, moral, and metaphysical realities which are capable of being embodied by various actions, dispositions and worldviews (considered in their broadest possible parameters). Beliefs and practices are meant to explicate and flesh out, to give expression to in a more precise manner, that which is embodied by our actions, dispositions, and that sense of awe found in the experience of some fundamental aspect of reality expressing itself to us. Thich Nhat Hahn articulates such a view in the following terms:

When you touch someone who authentically represents a tradition, you not only touch his or her tradition, you also touch your own. This quality is essential for dialogue. When participants are willing to learn from each other, dialogue takes place just by their being together. When those who represent a spiritual tradition embody the essence of their tradition, just the way they walk, sit and smile speaks volumes about their tradition. . . . For dialogue to be fruitful, we need to live deeply our own tradition and, at the same time, listen deeply to others. Through the practice of deep looking and deep listening, we become free, able to see the beauty and values in our own and others’ tradition.⁴

While such an approach often has a propensity to drift into one extreme of interreligious dialogue (syncretism) — which can be seen in the tendency of some thinkers representative of this approach toward overstating the similarities or points of agreement between different religious traditions — it should lead us to ask the question: What broad patterns concerning the Divine Nature and/or the fundamental nature of reality are commonly expressed by different doctrines, symbols, approaches, or practices of different religions? Different religions may have beliefs, practices, or traditions that are similar or in some sense actually related; other beliefs may be only broadly similar or parallel each other in a surface-level or cosmetic sense. In either case, supporters of this approach to interreligious dialogue may ask the question, “Why did multiple, distinct religions give rise to the same or similar beliefs? Why did these beliefs or practices arise in religions from parts of the world with little or no contact? What is it that makes people willing to agree with or incorporate into their own religion beliefs and practices found in religious traditions outside of their own?” Supporters of this approach to interreligious dialogue believe that there are some broader trends in the nature of religion which most religious individuals perceive, either implicitly or explicitly, and thus seek to bring about deeper interreligious dialogue by identifying those parts of reality that most or all religions at least implicitly recognize or approximate.

The third approach to interreligious dialogue is the natural law approach. Such an approach is that which has defined much of the Catholic approach to interreligious dialogue, particularly since the time of the Second Vatican Council. This approach emphasizes the different ways in which God can be known by (or make Himself known to) His creation. In particular, this approach emphasizes the twofold nature of Divine Revelation: the natural and the Supernatural. Natural revelation is, in a word, those spiritual or moral truths that all humans can access by the use of reason; Supernatural Revelation refers to those spiritual or moral truths that supersede the ability of human reason to discern by its own power. Supernatural Revelation, in the Catholic approach, is articulated in the words of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and definitively interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. Catholicism, rooted as it is in Supernatural Revelation and the proper interpretation thereof, is rooted in truth claims that go beyond the ability of non-Christian religions to attain or articulate. Nonetheless, there is nothing that prevents non-Christian religions, founded upon natural speculations on the Nature of God, morality and the spiritual life, from discerning certain truths in this domain. Interreligious dialogue is therefore something that takes place primarily on a natural level: how do different faith traditions discern different aspects of natural revelation, and how do we, as Catholics, evaluate these insights from the perspective of the truths contained within Supernatural Revelation. Aeterni Patris, for instance, states,

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. . . . The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. (Aeterni Patris, #2)

The history of religion is therefore a history of humanity working out those existential questions that dwell in the heart of every man. Humans have long struggled to answer questions on the meaning of life, on the contents and foundations of the moral law, on the purpose of our existence. This has frequently articulated itself within the framework of explicitly religious terms, something the Catholic Church explains in terms of the human heart having an acute awareness of the Divine Presence permeating all things. Over time, the various religions of the world began to develop ever more sophisticated ways of expressing those spiritual, moral, and existential truths that humans have attempted to make sense of for most of the history of this species. Nonetheless, Aeterni Patris states that the Roman Catholic Church contains the fullness of the truth, being founded by Jesus Christ Who is the Divine Truth incarnate. The truths of Christianity are thus of a higher order than any religious truth communicated by non-Christian religions. Nonetheless, this common desire for truth, meaning, and encounter with the Divine, as well as those truths which all individuals can access by the power of their own reason, can serve as the basis for the common promotion of spiritual and moral progress and social justice.

Interreligious Studies and Infallibility

One of the primary questions of interreligious dialogue is: How do religions dialogue with one another — or, put another way, members of religious traditions learn from one another — without reducing interreligious dialogue to either syncretism on the one hand or simple comparative religious studies on the other? Interreligious dialogue is something that reaches its full potential when it is rooted in the notion that different religious traditions have something to offer one another. Yet, the notion that religions can somehow learn from one another, that they can be mutually enriching, leads to questions on the nature of infallibility or indefectibility.

Not every faith tradition believes that its sacred texts or religious institutions are infallible or indefectible. This thus provides one frame of reference within which one can approach interreligious dialogue: there is no reason why one cannot see their religious beliefs or system of doctrines expanded or modified by the beliefs of another. There is no reason to suppose that there aren’t true beliefs, beliefs that are integral to spiritual and moral growth, that were overlooked by one’s faith tradition but expressed in those of another. Further, there is no reason to insist that every part of one’s belief system of necessity be true. Thus, for those who do not see their faith tradition as infallible, there is always the possibility of correcting one’s (even officially held, that is, institutionally held or dogmatically defined) beliefs or practices.

On the other hand, how would one engage in interreligious dialogue if one believes that their faith tradition is infallible or indefectible? If one believes that one’s particular faith tradition can never stray from the truth (indefectibility), then one must conclude that it can never fall into error when identifying, interpreting or passing on the truth (infallibility). Wouldn’t this, in turn, lead to the conclusion that one’s particular faith tradition is a self-enclosed system? That is, wouldn’t the notions of indefectibility and infallibility lead to the notion that one’s religion is entirely correct on all those issues central to salvation, spiritual enlightenment, growth in holiness, etc.? What could a faith tradition that sees itself as infallible or indefectible learn from another?

There are a few different ways of interpreting indefectibility or infallibility, each of which is compatible with the notion of interreligious dialogue to various degrees, and which, within the context of interreligious dialogue, brings with it different challenges and opportunities. One potential approach may assign indefectibility and infallibility to the broad theological parameters of one’s faith tradition, but not to every individual part of it. That is to say, one approach to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church would see infallibility and indefectibility not as a quality of individual beliefs or practices, but of the general framework of Church teaching. Due to the reality of the Incarnation, Christ represents the most direct encounter with Ultimate or Divine Truth. This doesn’t mean that every experience, teaching, theological concept or practice derived from the Church is equally authoritative or even infallible; what this does mean, however, is that the Christ-event represents the most sure context within which to navigate a world filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of different religions or approaches to spirituality, and therefore the complex and multifaceted world of interreligious dialogue.

The other approach, which is more in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church (both in terms of its officially defined teachings and in terms of the general historical trajectory of Church teaching), sees indefectibility as an essential quality of the Church’s mission; more specifically, it interprets Biblical texts such as Matthew 28:20 and 1 Timothy 3:15 as implying that the Church is protected by Our Lord, acting through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in a special way so as to be protected from failing to carry out its mission of preaching the truth to the nations. Thus, such a view extends infallibility not only to the broad framework of Church teaching, but also under certain circumstances to specific teachings or Magisterial decrees of the Church.

When not only the broad framework but also certain specific teachings are seen as infallible and therefore non-negotiable, this leads to a series of questions on how to take part in interreligious dialogue. Is dialogue truly possible when there are certain teachings or practices which the Church cannot, under any circumstances, modify or abandon? It would appear as if interreligious dialogue is easier when one endorses the former approach to the Church’s infallibility: while allowing for one to maintain their theological commitments, it also allows for the flexibility necessary to engage in interreligious dialogue.

Nonetheless, an approach to interreligious dialogue is possible given the latter understanding of the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility if one accepts a very specific understanding of natural theology, that is, one that does not give in to the modern tendency to create an overly sharp distinction between natural and revealed theology. Some scholars have noted that, in the modern era, the term “natural theology” has come to refer to any theological discourse not determined by any prior dogmatic commitments, which makes claims on the Divine Nature, the fundamental nature of reality, or the spiritual realm that can be proven or disproven through our natural faculties and which do not require any assent of the mind caused by the illumination of our cognitive faculties by anything higher than the senses or reason (i.e., faith, mystical experiences, the beatific vision). Natural theology is therefore an attempt to establish religious truth on purely rational grounds, not feeling that one must fit all one’s theological speculations into an already defined worldview proposed by a religious text or a religious institution. There was thus both a distinction as well as some level of tension between what was called “natural theology” and, on the other hand, “revealed theology” or “dogmatic theology.” Natural theology was seen as a way of establishing religious truth on non-sectarian terms that could be accepted by everyone, or by as wide a number of people as possible. Yet, prior to the modern era, the tension between natural and revealed theology was not so stark. Natural theology was not seen simply as that discourse concerning theology based on rational starting points — that is, starting points knowable through reason alone — which may or may not lead to certain conclusions accepted by institutional or dogmatic religious systems. Rather, natural theology was seen as part and parcel of a larger project that inevitably reached its culmination in revealed theology. It was not something that provided a foundation for religious truth in a manner autonomous of (and even to some degree in opposition to) revealed theology, but rather referred simply to spiritual reality as it was known by people who hadn’t yet accepted (at least not the fullness) of supernatural revelation or Church teaching.⁵

What lays the basis for the traditional Christian view is the belief that all of reality is seen as bearing the mark of the Divine. All of creation reflects, in microcosm, its Creator. Thus, while supernatural revelation makes known those truths about God or His Plan that go beyond what reason by its power can know, it is making known something about God that goes beyond what can be reflected by the created realm, but which is not fundamentally in opposition to what God has revealed through nature. There are certain spiritual truths written in the depths of every man’s heart, and all spiritual truths are a preparation for what was revealed explicitly in Scripture and interpreted in a definitive way in the teachings of the Church. Thus, the beliefs of non-Christian religions represent greater or lesser approximations of the contents of supernatural revelation. Such a perspective can be stretched so as to be interpreted in a perennialist sense; yet, it can also be interpreted in a more moderate way: while recognizing the substantive and sometimes serious differences that exist between different religious traditions, similarities between different different religious doctrines or theological concepts can signify broader trends in the way of thinking about spiritual issues, trends deeply rooted in the human soul which reflect the imago Dei’s fundamental orientation towards and (albeit after the Fall limited) intuitive grasp of spiritual truth.

Some of the writings of Pope St. John Paul II on this issue represent an example of such a view in practice. In his work Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he speaks of “the common fundamental element and the common root” of all religion. This common and fundamental element is what John Paul the Great calls the “seeds of the Word” that are “present in all religions.” It is the reality of the “seed of the Word” that allows Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate to simultaneously say that the “Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions,” and at the same time see itself as “bound to proclaim that Christ is ‘the Way and the Truth and the Life’ (John 14:6)” (Nostra Aetate #2).⁶ The Church has a duty to proclaim the Gospel since a willful rejection of Christianity, and the Catholic Church in specific, as the guardian of the fullest expression of Divine Revelation, excludes one from union with God and therefore salvation; further, a rejection of the teachings and example of Our Lord and of His Church opens one up to a variety of spiritual pitfalls potentially dangerous to one’s spiritual journey. On the other hand, the fact that all created realities, in some sense, point towards God, as well as the fact that the effects of the Fall, no matter how thorough, were never thorough enough to completely eliminate even if only a vague, partial or incomplete retention of the sensus Divinitatis, implies that people who reject the Catholic faith are never entirely beyond the possibility of conversion, and those who die rejecting the Catholic faith out of invincible ignorance are not, due to the fact that their rejection of the faith was a result of factors beyond their control, automatically excluded from heaven. In John Paul II’s words, “The Church is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, inasmuch as He is the Redeemer of all humankind. The Paschal Mystery is equally available to all, and, through it, the way to eternal salvation is also open to all.”⁷ He notes how such sentiments are reflected in the words of Lumen Gentium #13. In particular, we see this in the following passage:

All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.

Though this is not directly cited by the Pope, we see vaguely similar sentiments in the words of Lumen Gentium #14 and 16:

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. … [T]hose who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. … Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

While willful rejection of the truths of the Gospel — that is, willfully rejecting the truths of the Christian faith, those truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church knowing that it is the truth — alienates one from God and from eternal salvation, God is not far from those who, though genuinely misguided, still seek the truth in good faith. All who genuinely seek the truth are related to God through Christ. Since there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ, Christ is guiding all people to the truth, even if they are unaware of the specifically christological element of their spiritual journey.

Such a view is rooted in the twofold nature of the human person: firstly, the truths of God are indelibly written in the depths of man’s heart, never to be destroyed by the effects of the Fall or sin; yet, our knowledge of God is blurred by the effects of the Fall and of personal sin. Thus, many of the errors of non-Christian religions are the result of misguided attempts at understanding or articulating those truths about God which are, in a sense, built into the very fabric of the human person.

Pope St. John Paul II noted something roughly similar when speaking of ecumenism in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint. While ecumenism concerns the dialogue between various Christian groups, he puts forward a specific set of principles which give us insight into the principles mentioned above. Dialogue between religions requires both a set of well-defined principles and goals that guide the dialogue, but more than a commitment to a common set of goals is personal conversion. There must be a mutual commitment to growth in holiness, virtue, and communion with God. An increased emphasis on this element of interreligious dialogue leads to an increased appreciation of the ways God is at work outside of the institutional limits of the Church. Since the time of the Second Vatican Council, there has been an increased awareness of the fact that while all growth in holiness is the result of one and the same Spirit, and the culmination of this growth in holiness — perfect union with God in heaven — is the result solely of the saving mission of Our Lord, any growth in holiness, even when exhibited by non-believers, is a work of the Holy Spirit (#15).

The close relationship between the common commitment to holiness and, one other hand, dialogue between religions thus means that the call to renewal, reform and conversion applies to all religious denominations. Therefore, an important feature of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue is what Pope St. John Paul calls “frank dialogue,” in which different communities interact with each other in a manner that facilitates more intense self-reflection, a self-reflection whereby we, in light of all that is true and good in our faith tradition, better understand the extent to which we are adequately open to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (#16).

Such a view allows a Catholic (or Christians more generally) to acknowledge the unique and singular nature of the Revelation that lies at the root of Christianity, and the unique authority of the Church in passing on and interpreting Divine Revelation, or the special guidance of the Holy Spirit granted to the Church in this process of passing on and interpreting what God has revealed, while also allowing the spiritual or intellectual flexibility to engage in dialogue with non-Christians.