In keeping with the Asian contextual, inductive and experiential methodology of doing theological reflections, please allow me to begin this paper by sharing with you a letter written by two missionaries in Asia which was sent to their Christian friends back home:

Dear Brothers in Jesus Christ,

First of all we want to thank you for the sacrifice you put on the altar of God which has kept us going for the past ten years. We thank you in the name of Jesus Christ for the support you have given us until now. The water of life is free, but the bucket costs. We have committed ourselves to bringing the water of life to the many people here, but we can’t do it by ourselves. We are happy for the wonderful support which you and your community have always given us. Be assured of our prayers and know that God will grant you everlasting happiness for your help has allowed us to proclaim the Good News of God’s salvation, His glory among the nations, and His wonders among all peoples (I Chr 16:23-24).

Our work here in Boogaloo is going on well. We have a very beautiful Church which stands out in this little village as the most beautiful building. We thank the Lord that our members and our friends are now able to give praise and worship to Him in His sacred house ("friends" refer to the unsaved people who attend church services). We also have a very beautiful community centre located just behind the Church. It has served us well. During the week, we run a school which caters to more than 300 children, about 90 per cent of whom come from families who are still unsaved. We are happy to add that all the students (even those who are unsaved) are able to read the Word of God daily as we make sure that all our teachers are Christians.

The community centre also serves as a health care and counselling centre. Many of the local people come to see us as our services are free of charge. We believe that our acts of Christian love break the religious and social barriers and open the door for sharing the Gospel of Christ with these people. What an opportunity to tell the people that Jesus Christ is both Saviour and Healer. It is through these ministries that many have been born again and come to accept Christ Jesus as their personal saviour. To God be the glory, great things He has done!

We have to add, however, that there are still many who even after having heard the Word, continue to cling on to their pagan idols rather than offer themselves to the real Word of God. We have never ceased to pray for these friends who continue to be bound to the world and we believe that the Holy Spirit will one day open their hearts to receive the Lord, who is the way and the truth and the life (Jn 14:6). We also pray that the Lord will send us more labourers into the harvest (Mt 9:38) for the Gospel must be preached to all peoples before the Lord comes (Mk 13:10). Our message to the people is that Jesus Christ, the eternally begotten Son of God, came down from heaven, died for our sins according to Scripture, was buried, and that he was raised from the dead according to the Scripture for our redemption (I Cor 15:1-4).

We ask you to pray for the success of the School of Evangelization which we are having for the children next month. This is an annual ten-day live-in programme which we discovered as a very important means to reach the unsaved. Children, as we know, have a very gentle way of influencing each other. They are free from the prejudices which adults have. Let me share with you just one incident: Last year, the parents of one of the children came to say that their child refuses to go to school anymore unless he first receives baptism. This, apparently, was due to the Lord opening the heart of the child (Acts 16:14) through his classmates. That is not all. A few months later, the parents of the boy themselves asked to be baptised. Praise the Lord! For through him all things are reconciled to God (II Cor 5:18).

Once again, we thank you for the love you have for us and for the unsaved people of Boogaloo. We promise to work harder so that more will be saved. If the Lord leads you to support us financially, you may do so by sending your gift before Christmas. Also, please help by passing this letter to other brothers in your parish. May God bless you all.

With the love of Christ,

(signed) Joseph and Joseph

Three hypothetical situations

Supposing you, as a Christian, had received this letter personally. What would you do? Would you respond to the request for assistance? Would you pass the letter on to your friends? What are your thoughts about the ministry of the two Josephs?

Let’s take another situation, which we shall call situation two: Now, supposing you are not a Christian. Perhaps you are a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, and you receive this same letter. What would you do? Would you respond to the request for assistance? Would you pass the letter on to your friends? What are your thoughts about the ministry of these two Christian friends of yours?

Let us explore a third hypothetical situation: Supposing you, as a Christian, received a letter which is very similar to the one just read out but not exactly the same. Instead of the letter’s salutation being "Dear Brothers in Jesus Christ", it was addressed to "the sons and daughters of Allah". And, instead of the letter being signed by the two Josephs, the letter was signed by Yusof, or Abdullah, or Osama. And, in place of the Biblical verses you find Qur’anic verses, such as, "Allah has indeed shown grace to the believers in sending them a messenger from among themselves who recited unto them His revelations" (Sura 3: 164), or "Whoever obeys the Prophet [Muhammad], he has obeyed Allah" (Sura 4: 80). What would you do? Would you respond to the request for assistance? Would you pass the letter on to your friends? What are your thoughts about this ministry of your Muslim friends?

Hypothetical situations come alive

Some of us, I am sure, must have received appeal letters such as these before. If you, like myself, have your name and address listed in Catholic directories which are readily available to the general public, appeal letters such as these are bound to appear in your mailboxes. This becomes more frequent especially towards the end of the year, as we approach Christmas, which is supposed to be the season for giving. Thus, the first hypothetical situation, where I asked you to reflect upon what you would do if you were to receive such a letter, is by no means uncommon.

The second hypothetical situation is probably not as common as the first. This is when a person who is not Christian receives such appeal letters, sent specifically to promote the Christian cause, at times at the expense of the other religions. However, even if Christian missionaries do not or seldom send such appeal letters to persons who are not Christians, it is not too far-fetched to suggest that these letters do fall into the hands of persons who are adherents of other religions. The letter above, for example, is not completely fictitious. Even if I have made a lot of editorial changes, the letter was actually a combination of the sentiments and actual words of several letters which I had picked up over the internet. Yes, these ideas do represent what our Christian friends have been posting on Christian websites, which, as all of us know, are readily available to peoples from all over the world. In other words, it is in order for me to suggest that such letters are in the full public view of our brothers and sisters of other religions. Thus, how they respond to such appeals and strategies should be of utmost concern to us and ought to inform our own orientation towards Christian mission. Likewise, if we feel it inappropriate that these letters should reach the hands of our brothers and sisters of other faiths, then the important question we would need to reflect upon is "why is it inappropriate?"

This second hypothetical situation is by no means an exaggeration. You might have noticed that the letter above was signed by "Joseph and Joseph". I acknowledge that the names were made up and artificially inserted. But, this is not without reasons. For indeed, within our own Catholic Church, there are two Josephs who have been sending messages which reflect similar orientations. The first is Cardinal Josef Tomko, who, for many years was the Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, or Propaganda Fide, as it was previously known. He very recently retired. The second is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who, also for many years has been the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Inquisition Office of yester-years. Both these Josephs have been at the forefront of promoting a theology which calls on Catholics to strengthen their evangelistic fervour. They have often emphasized the importance of converting peoples to Christ, and seem to suggest that evangelization in Asia has not been altogether successful as Catholics continue to number no more than three percent of the population. In other words, success in mission seems to be measured by the number of baptisms. Holding two of the most powerful positions in the Vatican’s Roman Curia, their influence on the Holy Father and on the whole Church cannot be underestimated.

For instance, when Pope John Paul II went to New Delhi two years ago, in November 1999, to proclaim the document Ecclesia in Asia, in no uncertain terms did he call for a new drive of evangelization. Specifically, his statement — which was reported in secular newspapers all over the world — was that just as in the first millennium Europe was evangelized, in the second millennium the Americas and Africa were evangelized, thus it was his prayer and hope that Asia will turn to Christ in the third millennium. Imagine how this message would sound to you if you were a Muslim or a Hindu or a Taoist or a Jew living in Asia. You would be no more than an object and a target of the Church’s evangelization. You would have to constantly watch out for all those militantly aggressive evangelizing Christians, to ensure that no one would suddenly pounce upon you and splash water over your head to have you baptised. Is it any wonder, then, that some religious fundamentalists in India reacted very strongly to and protested against the Pope’s visit? Is it any wonder that Christian missionaries all over India continue to be the targets of fanatical violence?

Likewise, a recent document related to interreligious dialogue issued by the second Joseph, through his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled, Dominus Iesus, stirred many controversial and negative reactions. Released in September 2000, the document’s principal objective was to reaffirm the Lordship of Christ, and to reiterate the main tenets of our Christian faith. Of course, there is certainly nothing wrong with this. Every religious community is entitled to reaffirm its own faith and reiterate that which encourages greater commitment and discipleship. But, when the document goes on to describe the Christian religion as "faith in revealed Truth" while at the same time describing other religions as mere "beliefs" which are "still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God", then it has certainly crossed the boundaries of appropriate interreligious relations. Likewise, when the document declares that God is also present to other religions, but in the very same breath implies that these religions contain "gaps, insufficiencies and errors", then it would certainly have aroused negative reactions. But, when the document asserts unequivocally that "it is also certain that objectively speaking [other religions] are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation", then, it is like an open declaration of war on other religions. Such statements seem to be very similar to and of the same genre as statements made by President Bush and his declaration that "we [viz. the American people] are a compassionate people, we are the kind people, and they are the evil ones, they are the evil doers" or his call to the rest of the world that "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists". Such assertions, both that of President Bush’s as well as that of Dominus Iesus’, cannot but evoke a situation where civilization is dichotomized into "we versus they" camps, which then leads to an "us versus them" mindset. "We are the saved, and they are the unsaved", "we are the believers, they are the infidels", "ours is the true faith, theirs is just a belief". Such sentiments, I suppose many of us would agree, cannot but fuel the "clash of civilizations" which Samuel Huntington speaks about.

Let us now turn to the third hypothetical situation. This third situation is perhaps even more significant as it is instructive. If you, as a Christian, were to find out that a group of Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists have established a mission in Boogaloo and are appealing for donations, how would you react? Of course, if we did not know anything about Boogaloo or where it is, then perhaps the event might mean very little to us. However, what if Boogaloo is a centuries-old predominantly Christian village, which is renowned for its simplicity, peace and holiness? Or, what if Boogaloo is your very own hometown, where many of your best friends and relatives still live? Perhaps, the appeal letter would then mean very much to us. We would then want to know if any of our own Christian relatives and friends are attending the school run by these Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim missionaries. We would then want to know if any of our friends and relatives have become members or "friends" of these missionaries. We would then want to know if any of our relatives or friends have been "saved" by these Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist missionaries. We would then want to know if any of our friends or relatives have had their children attend the annual School of Evangelization.

Incidentally, this story of the School of Evangelization did not come from the websites, but is not altogether fictitious either. I actually heard it related by one of our own Catholic Church leaders, who was ever so enthusiastic about it and encouraged its promotion. I wonder if he (sic.) would be equally enthusiastic if his own niece came home one day to say she won’t go to school anymore unless she is first converted to become a Muslim, or a Hindu. I wonder if this Church leader would praise the Lord with such enthusiasm if he heard that this niece’s parents had also asked to be converted to Islam or Hinduism, or Buddhism.

At this point, it would be instructive to be reminded of this quotation: "Do not unto others what you yourself do not want others to do unto you". This, I am sure most of us will recognise, is no more than the Golden Rule, and comes from the teachings of the great master of China, Confucius, as found in the Book of Analects. Jesus, of course, did teach something very similar, except that he phrased it in the positive rather than in the negative. Thus, Jesus taught: "Do unto others whatever you want them to do unto you". Likewise, the holy book of the Hindus, the Mahabhrata, also teaches: "Do not unto others which if done unto you would cause you pain". The Jewish Talmud has it as: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow human being", while the Greek philosopher Socrates has once said: "Do not unto others what angers you if done to you by others". In short, practically all the religious and wisdom traditions teach us to love and respect others the same way we expect to be loved and respected. It is thus a universal law, a Golden Rule, applicable to all and applied by all. It transcends religious boundaries. Thus, in our missionary endeavours it will do us well to be mindful of this rule, not only because we do not want to offend others but so that we can be more faithful to that which is Truth and to the essence of our evangelizing mission.

What happens then to Evangelization?

In the context of the preceding discussions, what then can we say about the mission of evangelization? Is it not our Christian duty to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (ref. Mt 28:19)? Wasn’t that the Final Commission which Jesus gave and something which we ought to obey if we are to be regarded as good and faithful disciples? Would we not be regarded as lax and mediocre Christians if we were ashamed of proclaiming the Good News to our friends, neighbours and all others whom we meet? These, and similar other questions, are by no means insignificant. They are often central to any discussion on interreligious dialogue. It is unfortunate that there has been a tendency to create a dichotomy and a divide between the mission of evangelization and the mission of interreligious dialogue. The two are often brought into contradistinction one with the other. It is as if interreligious dialogue would spell the end of evangelization or that for evangelization to be successful we have to put an end to interreligious dialogue.

This view, of course, has the weight of centuries of tradition behind it. It operates out of the medieval theology where the Church believes herself to be the one and only bastion of truth. Hence, the famous axiom, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church no salvation), provided the guiding principle and interpretative framework for Christians in their dealings with peoples of other religions. Other religions were simply regarded as in error at best, but demonic at worst. Since error has no right to exist, the Church regards it her moral obligation to conquer, to dominate and to replace these religions. Thus the crucified Christ became the conquering Christ. Jesus and Christianity had all the answers, even if the questions had not yet been asked. The question of dialogue with other religions was not even considered since there was really nothing to dialogue about if the other religions were in error in the first place Hence, it does not come as a surprise that the word "dialogue" was never ever used in any Church documents before the Second Vatican Council. Mission and evangelization meant nothing less than preaching the Good News in view of bringing as many to the salvation of Jesus Christ, which can only be effected through baptism and membership into the Church. This mode of operation, therefore, is often regarded as the "conquest" mode, where the ultimate aim and goal of all Christian mission is the conquest of all that is not of God, as represented by the conquest of the other religions for the sake of the salvation of the unsaved.

Things took an about turn, however, at the Second Vatican Council. With Pope John XXIII’s declaration that the Council was to be truly an aggiornamento or a renewal, the bishops at Vatican II saw it fit that the renewal began first and foremost with the renewal of the Church’s theological orientations. Hence, the Church began to reshape her theology, especially vis-a vis her attitudes and relations with the world, including with the other religions. With the 1964 document, Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI, who succeeded John XXIII, introduced the theme of "dialogue", especially the dialogue with the rest of the world which owes no allegiance to the Church. Thus, the notion of "dialogue" entered into the Church’s vocabulary. Dialogue, as we all know, presumes a certain respect and regard for the partner-in-dialogue. No one engages in a dialogue with another who is regarded as unworthy or inferior. Thus, if the pre-Vatican Church operated on the premise that "outside the Church there is no salvation", Vatican II ushered in an era where, according to the landmark 1965 document, Nostra Aetate, the Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in the other religions. Moreover, Nostra Aetate also urges all Catholics to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Thus, with Vatican II, the Church’s attitude towards other religions shifted from the "conquest" mode to a "dialogue" mode. The crucified Christ has now become the dialogical Christ, and the Church’s evangelization is now effected through the praxis of dialogue.

Thus, with Vatican II, the Church not only became open to the mission of dialogue, but had her entire understanding of mission and evangelization renewed and broadened. Besides dialogue, evangelization is now also seen to include the mission of witness, the mission of service, the mission of human promotion, the mission of prayer and contemplation, as well as the mission of proclamation. Notice that I have just described various forms or aspects of mission. Hence, the post-Vatican II Church can no longer regard the proclamation of Christ as the one and only saviour as the sole aspect of mission. Instead, this proclamation must be complemented by witness, service, human promotion, prayer, contemplation as well as dialogue. Put another way, the proclamation of Jesus is no longer the one and only aspect of mission, but one of its many aspects. Equally important is for us not so much to proclaim Christ, but to discover Christ, who is already present in the peoples of other religions, long before the arrival of the missionary and the Church. In other words, mission is now conceived of as an integral and all-encompassing task, and which certainly cannot be reduced to proselytism or calling to membership those who do not yet belong to the Church.

What does dialogue really mean?

This renewed understanding of mission and evangelization has profound implications on all of our works. Specifically, in asserting that dialogue is an integral dimension of the Church’s evangelizing mission, Vatican II seems to imply that Catholics not engaged in interreligious dialogue are not really living out the fullness of their Christian mission and discipleship. This, I am sure most of us would agree, is a rather strong statement, especially since many of us might not see ourselves as being engaged in interreligious dialogue. Moreover, many of us might also construe of interreligious dialogue as an activity reserved for the experts, the scholars and the theologians. This arises from the common misperception that interreligious dialogue refers to events which take place in seminar rooms where doctrines are compared and belief systems evaluated.

However, if we were to look at interreligious dialogue as more about fostering relationships and sharing of life and works with persons of other religions, then we would more readily accept it as part of our mission. Even so, it might be the case that some of us have seldom or have never ever participated in such a mission. Too often, Catholic organizations – like many other religious organizations – are wont to keep to themselves rather than to reach out in partnership and collaboration with persons of other religions. Even if the tasks at hand may be the same, we seem to find it more convenient to operate on our own rather than to work together and with other organizations, especially if they are of another religion. Even when we do come together, very often our coming together is motivated more by common human grounds rather than by religiously motivated ones. Sometimes called the "human" or "secular" approach, we find it less cumbersome to relate with persons of other religions on purely human issues – such as justice, peace, human rights, AIDS, environment, education, etc. – rather than on specifically religious ones. This, of course, is indeed laudable in and of itself. The fact that adherents of different religions can come together to address common human concerns ought to be encouraged.

However, such coming together ought also to be seen as merely the first step. Many more steps need to be taken. In particular, Catholic organizations need also to be able to share with and relate to Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu organizations on specifically religious grounds. Otherwise, each will continue to be suspicious of the other’s religion, since in the absence of knowledge and communication, suspicion tends to take over. In other words, unless there is mutual sharing of each other’s religious motivations and fundamental beliefs, we have no choice but to rely on stereotypes, misconceptions, media reports and prejudices. Religions, unfortunately, are very susceptible to abuse and manipulation, especially for political and socio-economic gains. Thus, in our efforts at building global civil societies, attention has to be given to interreligious dialogue so that we can usher in a culture where persons can be comfortable sharing their religious beliefs, religious motivations, and religious practices with others who do not belong to their religion. Likewise, the ability to share has to be equally complemented by the ability to listen and to learn and to accept what the other is sharing. In cultivating attitudes of authentic openness and sincere appreciation, the tendency to view the world in terms of "we versus they" or "us versus them" will then be minimized. What is more important is that it will then bring about a culture of interreligious harmony, which is a more feasible alternative to the parochialism and segregation which so often characterize multireligious societies. This, therefore, is as much an ideal and a need as it is a demand and a challenge for the Church in general and missionary congregations in particular.

Implications for Missionary Congregations

Since Mission Societies and Religious Congregations are official organs of the Catholic Church, the mission of dialogue, therefore, ought to constitute a primary component of their programmes and agendas. In other words, every missionary is more or less duty-bound to contribute towards a culture of dialogue, since Vatican II has spelt it out as integral to the evangelizing mission of the Church. Thus, as missionaries, whether we be in the fields of education or health care, advocacy or social services, we have to take seriously the challenge of our witness to the evangelizing mission of the Church. And, in the context of Vatican II, this evangelizing mission has to include the mission of dialogue.

As can be seen from the preceding discussions, the mission of promoting a culture of dialogue is indeed a challenge to each of us, as Catholic missionaries. This challenge, of course, comes with serious implications, four of which I will briefly suggest, by way of conclusion, and as points for further reflection: Firstly, before people can come together for the sharing of faith, they ought to have reached a certain level of comfort in their social and working relationships. It would be disastrous for persons who do not even have secure or trusting working relationships to attempt to come together for the purpose of sharing their faith experiences. For, not only will they feel insecure in the sharing of their faith, the experience might compound their feeling that the lack of trust in their working relationship is on account of their differing faith. Thus, religion could be blamed for a fundamentally interpersonal, human and social problem. The implication of this is that missionary congregations must work ever harder to enhance their working relationships with their counterparts and colleagues who belong to other religious organizations.

Secondly, even before such working relationships can materialize, it is important that the prejudices and negative attitudes we have about other religions be set aside first. It would be disastrous for a Catholic who harbours negative feelings about, say Hinduism, to venture into a collaborative arrangement with a Hindu, for the prejudices would inevitably colour and influence the working relationship. Thus, should the collaboration not work out, the chances are that the initial prejudices and misconceptions would be invoked to explain the sour relationship. The implication of this is that each of us has to work harder at eradicating, or at least minimizing, the prejudices and negative attitudes we harbour against persons of other religions. A practical guide for this is to commit ourselves to not being the source of spreading anything which contributes to negative feelings people have about other religions or their adherents.

Thirdly, if one were to engage in interreligious dialogue one has also to work on finding out more about what the dialogue-partner stands for. Thus, the importance of reading up more on the religion and faith which nourishes our partners-in-dialogue. The implication of this is that we have to take time to discover more about our neighbours’ faith, learn more about it, so that what we learn directly from them can be supplemented by the knowledge which we discover from books, websites and other resource materials.

Finally, since interreligious dialogue is as much about learning as it is about sharing, it would be important for us to be able to share our faith not only sincerely, but intelligently as well. Hence, the need for us to be personally conversant with our own faith, especially in a more mature manner, both theologically as well as spiritually. In other words, interreligious dialogue calls on us to be able to share from both our knowledge as well as our practice of the faith. The implication of this is that Catholic missionaries ought to have some degree of theological education, beyond the Sunday-school levels, as well as to be serious practitioners of their faith, beyond the Sunday-obligation levels.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the preceding discussion, the mission of interreligious dialogue is by no means a simple or mundane task. It is at once integral to our being a more authentic Christian as it is integral to our becoming a more authentic Christian. In other words, in exercising our mission of dialogue, we are at the same time developing ourselves in Christian discipleship. Christian discipleship, as we had discussed earlier, is an all-encompassing task, involving the various elements of mission and evangelization. This, of course, owes much to the renewal or change brought about by the Second Vatican Council, which, of course, is but a response to the change which was taking place in the world of the mid-20th Century. This change continues and will take more radical forms in the present 21st Century. Religious Congregations and Mission Societies, if they desire to remain relevant, have no choice but to respond to such changes.

Ref.: Text from the Author (e-mail: edchia@pc.jaring.my). February 2002.

〔 From " SEDOS ( Service of Documentation and Studies ) " 〕