Father Amaladoss, how will you explain to an non-Asian your approach to faith?
Some one who is confined to his Christian community, closed in and self sufficient, with the usual catechetical and liturgical practices, has no problems. For many centuries the church in Asia – even the one in Kerala which claims its origin from St. Thomas – was like that. But once it opens up and encounters other religions, then the whole situation changes. Meeting Hindu sannyasis and listening to their deep experience of faith or seeing the spiritual life of other believers mean that we are forced to recognize that among the Hindus and Muslims also there are people who are really spiritual, and appreciate their capacity to live a profound religious quest. They search God and have experience of God. This does not mean that all the ‘prophets’ and ‘peoples of God’ are equal; but we at least avoid simplifications like: “God is in this tradition, not in the other one”. There are different revelations. Our own revelation will be discovered anew thanks to the challenges of such encounters. We do not know everything, even of our own tradition. We could speak of complementarity, even of competition and criticism, but always in dialogue.
We have to recognize the others. This was the first, fundamental discovery made at the beginnings of the last century. Brahmabandab Upadhyaya (1861-1907) called himself a Hindu-Christian: Hindu socially and Christian religiously. His project to start an ashram was not approved by ecclesiastical authority. He thought that Hindu philosophy will find fulfilment in the Christian philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. J. N. Farquahar (a Protestant) wrote a book: Christianity, the Crown of Hinduism. (1913) Pierre Johanns (a Belgian Jesuit) published a series of booklets: To Christ through the Vedanta (1944), in which he showed how the philosophical search of the Hindu Vedanta system will find its real answers in Christianity. In 1950 Jules Monchanin and Henri Le Saux from France founded the ashram Shantivanan (forest of peace) to develop a dialogue with Indian spirituality. I would say that this openness in the beginning comes from experience of life. There is nothing negative about reading the scriptures and the philosophers of the Hindus. On the contrary they may find their fulfilment in Christianity. This became the orientation of the Church and of its pastors. They did not start from dogma, but from spiritual experience which could sometimes be mystical.
For you, therefore, the Western preoccupation regarding the tension between dialogue and evangelization has been overcome?
Yes. For us there is no evangelization without dialogue, which respects the freedom of God who reveals and the freedom of the people who respond. After the researches of the 70s, we accept that God has spoken also to the non-Christians. But we ask ourselves: Is it realistic to expect that the whole world will become Christian? Or will the different religions in some way continue? Christianity certainly will have a central role, but God is greater than the Church. Could the 20% of the Christians in the world slowly absorb the remaining 80%?
Once we realize this, dialogue takes a new orientation and is no longer made an instrument. It is not directed only to conversion, but also to the mutual purification of oneself and of the other. When I talk to a Hindu, if he perceives me as some one wanting to convert him, he will show resistance. If the dialogue is sincere, some may be converted – and we are happy about it -, but every person can deepen his/her own faith. Dialogue is something worth doing for itself, not only directed to converting others. Gandhi knew the gospel well and often said that if a Christian is a disciple of Jesus, then he was a Christian. But he did not want to become a member of the Church.
The gospel changes the one who hears it, even if s/he is not ‘converted’. We have to accept that the goal of evangelization is not merely to make others Christians, but also to make them better practitioners of their own faith, challenged by the gospel. I have in mind missionaries who have lived and worked in India without baptizing a single non-Christian. Should we conclude that their witness has been useless? I do not think so. Of the 7000 students in my university, more than 5000 are Hindu, and among these, for many years, there has not been any conversions. Does this mean that our work has been meaningless? But if our witness makes them better persons and improves their own faith then it is still meaningful for us. All these reflections are born out of our experience and are common in India from the 70s. The goal of evangelization is the growth of the Kingdom of God. John Paul II has said this in his encyclical The Mission of the Redeemer.
The situation may be different in Africa. As the Sri Lankan theologian Aloysius Pieris says: religions can be cosmic or metacosmic. In Africa Christianity is facing ethnic and tribal religions that are at the cosmic level. Conversion in such a context either to Islam or to Christianity seems more easy. But confronting the metacosmic religions of India, which have their own scriptures, traditions, spirituality and theology is quite different. It is not easy to tell them: “We have the truth and you have nothing”, if we consider their theological, spiritual and mystical development. If we do not engage in a serious dialogue with them we will simply be ignored.
You are doing contextual theology, which is not limited or partial for that reason
Contextual theology does not mean that it is determined by the context. It is born of the gospel, which has to be read in the context and which acquires a special meaning in the process. This theology is expressed in the local language according to local ways of thinking. Because of the various situations in Asia, theologies will also be very different. Their differences depend on the various cultures to which they refer, but they find their unity in the gospel to which they all relate. For this reason dialogue among us is very important, not to impose uniformity, but to recognize convergences.
Can there be a theology that is not contextual?
No. Every theology is contextual: in Italy, Europe, Germany or elsewhere. It is contextual, both because of its history and because of the concrete situation. However there are theologies which think of themselves as universal because of historical reasons. But every theology comes out of a history. So their pretensions to universality are not credible.
What are the creative points of Asian theology?
I would say that there are three major directions. There are liberations theologies which are inspired by Latin American models. Of course the ideas are adapted and reworked according to the local Asian situations. For example we have Dalit theology in India which focuses on the economic, social and political oppressions that the Dalits suffer. We have similar oppressions elsewhere arising out of poverty or ethnic and religious differences. But the pattern of theological reflection is the same. Today such focus could also be on the situation of women, ecological destruction and so on.
The second source of Asian theology is the pluralism of religions. This is an important context for our faith experience. How do we understand the plan of God? Where do we place the Christian story in the midst of so many other religious stories? If the same God reveals Godself in so many different ways what does God mean to tell us through this? We do not think that there are many gods corresponding to the various revelations. There is only one God who manifests Godself in various ways through various prophets. Can we accept all this without giving up our Christian pretensions of exclusivity? But we can reflect on these questions only in the context of dialogue. We have the responsibility of witnessing to Christ and to proclaim his good news. But the conclusion is not given a priori. No one knows. Only God knows. All that we can do is to search, to search together.
This changes the way of seeing and doing theology: what does terms like God, salvation, revelation and faith mean? It is easy to call this relativism in a negative way. This would be true if we say that every human (and every culture) has an image of God that s/he has created, each one having his or her own truth. But we are not talking of humans and cultures, but of God who reveals and who has spoken to the Chinese or to the Indians for thousands of years. As the Mission of the Redeemer (no.28) affirms, the Spirit is present and at work before and beyond the Christian revelation. Every culture and every religion has a word of the Spirit.
A third important theological direction is, of course, inculturation. Theology is always the mediation between the Word and culture. In the beginnings, Christianity spread rather towards the West and it took shape in the context of Greek culture and Roman legal structures. But can we say that Greek culture is normative for all Christians and that every one has necessarily to pass through it? I do not think so. It was certainly a first effort, of great importance and efficacy, but not the only way of translating the force of the gospel. We cannot stop ourselves from thinking like Indians. But the projects of new inculturation are only at their beginnings. What would an Indian or a Chinese Christianity mean? We are just starting. China is not yet free. Perhaps we Indians have started a little earlier and have a small tradition that we can further develop.
You had mentioned in the beginning European theologians who had discovered the specificities of India. When did the Asians start doing theology?
As far as India is concerned, after the experience of the ashrams, there was a national research seminar in 1973 on “Inspiration in Non-Biblical Scriptures”. The theologians suggested that the scriptures of other religions could be considered inspired analogously in a framework of progressive revelation. They spoke of three covenants: a cosmic covenant that would include the other religions, the Judaic covenant and the Christian one. There have been other similar research seminars on themes like: “The Church Struggling for a New Society”, “Sharing Worship”, etc. An Indian Theological Association was started in 1977. It meets every year. A theme is chosen, papers are presented, a final statement is made. All this material has been published year after year. A wide variety of topics have been covered in the last 30 years. There are theologians of all tendencies in the group. There are similar associations for biblical scholars, missiologists, moral theologians, liturgists, artists and church historians. Some of these are ecumenical. There are also similar associations in regional languages.
At the Asian level, the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, launched in 1974 has played an important role. Besides the general assemblies every four years, there have been meetings on various themes like mission and dialogue. The documents have been published in four volumes as For All the Peoples of Asia. There have also been more than a 100 FABC papers on various themes. From these a common Asian theological voice has emerged.
How is the relationship between theologians and bishops?
Some bishops are also theologians and members of the theological associations. They are regular participants. In general the bishops, at least those whom I know, are supportive of the theologians and seek their help for local pastoral programmes. Most of the bishops have now their basic theological course in India and are open to contextual theology. The Episcopal Conferences in Asia have Doctrinal Commissions. At least in India, for the last ten years, there has been an annual meeting of bishops and theologians. Normally about 15 bishops and 20-25 theologians participate and discuss various themes. This year in July they spoke about conversion. The local doctrinal commissions are also playing a more active role in dialoguing with theologians. I think that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has accepted their role. So there is no distance between theologians and bishops.
What has happened after the publication of the document Dominus Iesus?
Nothing special. People in Europe said that the document was meant specially for the Asian theologians. I do not think so. The document does not talk about particular theologians or theologies. It offers more a sort of general guidance. Indirectly the document recognizes that there is a new situation in which we face the reality of other religions. The theologians in Asia do not abandon their Christianity. People who do not live in Asia may have such an impression. But it is not so.
In what sense is your theology spiritual and non-dualist?
In the logical thinking of the West, the many is subordinate to the One and creation is subject to the Creator. The Indians speak neither of the One nor of the many, but of reality as non-dual (advaita). It is a process that seeks to avoid dichotomies and tries to search for the Absolute in the relative. How can we understand the relations between God and the world? They are not two unrelated beings, with a big untraversable gap between them. We begin with a different starting point. God is in me, the foundation of my being. Even sin does not break this relationship totally. God is not some one who is beyond and outside this world. God is in me and in the world, at the depth of reality. We can experience this God within us. In a Trinitarian context, the Word and the Spirit have a greater role in these relationships. God is not merely transcendent, but also immanent.
How do you judge the new fundamentalistic tendencies in the various religions? What is the situation in India?
I would say that our situation has not changed much. Some fundamentalistic tendencies seem more visible. In a society where they are in a big majority, as in Pakistan, the Muslims tend to affirm their identity in a fundamentalistic way. But where they are a minority (115 millions) in a country like India (with a population that is more than a billion) the fundamentalist tendency is much reduced. On border areas like Kashmir there are still tensions and violence. But it is different in the country where the Muslim presence may vary from 20 to 3% of the population.
A certain conflict between Islam and Hinduism, for example, is long standing in India and has nothing to do with the recent terrorist movements. The situation is becoming more serious today because of the rising Hindu fundamentalism, which has become stronger in the last 15-20 years. They even ruled the country for some years and are in power in some states. But they will never have more than 15% of the popular vote in the country. In general the Hindus are open and tolerant. When they are in power then some small groups tend to be aggressive. But when there is violence it not really religious, but politics making use of religion for its own ends. This will be true of many Asian countries: Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.
So it is nothing more than a certain politicization of religious faith. It is significant that while people speak of terrorist groups operative from countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia (the Al Queda), they do not find a favourable climate in India. There have been efforts at building “common human communities” in which Hindus, Muslims and Christians participate in common civic projects. Sometimes they face opposition from fundamentalist groups.
Have there been efforts to question the secularism of the state in India?
India chose to be a secular republic in 1950. It is not an aggressive secularism as in France, but a secularism that treats all religions equally. For example, the State pays the teachers even in our catholic schools. This does not happen even in the USA. The judiciary has always defended the secularism of the state from encroachment by politicians. In the recent elections (May 2007) in Uttar Pradesh, the biggest state in India, it was an alliance of Brahmins, Dalits and Muslims that won. The Hindu fundamentalist party had only 12.5% of the seats.
What do you think of the future of theology in India and China?
I think that Asian theology will have a great future. I feel that the Asian theologians are aware of the possibilities and challenges. I have been giving a course on “Towards an Asian Theology” in the Loyola School of Theology, Manila. I have also had a few sessions for the Staff. I find great enthusiasm and interest. My generation was one of the last to be formed in traditional theology. These days the younger theologians go abroad for study only for specialization. I still write in English. Many of my students write in local Indian languages. The extent of Asian theology is not known in Europe, because unlike the Indians and the Philipinos, the Indonesians, the Chinese, the Vietnamians and the Japanese write in their own languages.
A new theology will arise when we start reflecting on the living faith experience of the local Churches. Now we have this liberty. I am curious about developments in China. If we Indians are conscious of having an important culture and spirituality, the Chinese are even more proud of their cultural and religious tradition. They will not certainly be happy to play a subordinate role to any one else. When they are more free then we will see how their Christianity interacts with Confucianism and Taoism and also Buddhism. With the support of Asia they will rise up even faster. As a matter of fact they will also sort out their internal ecclesial problems without needing intervention from outside.
If every theology is contextual and there is no universal theology how does the unity of the Church find expression?
If theology is the correlation of reality with faith tradition, which includes scripture, then there are two strong elements of unity. The faith tradition and scripture are the same. The basic problems like suffering, death, relation to God and to others will be the same. The living and cultural contexts will be different and language will be different. The elements of differentiation will actually be minor compared to the points of unity. From the point of view of the method, I think that a symbolic-hermeneutical method is to day becoming universal. It will feel very much at home, for instance, with a method like that of Lonergan, based on our process of knowing. Asian theologians will also feel at home in it. I think that Christian theologians in general would also accept a critical realism in the theory of knowledge in which reality is mediated by symbol. The symbols needs to be interpreted, but one can have a partial, but true, glimpse of reality through it.
The real problem is that the official Church is still holding on to scholastic metaphysics which synthesizes Neo-platonism and Aristotle. I wonder how many creative theologians, either in the East or in the West, use this system any more as a basis for their reflection. How many people today accept a philosophia perennis? It has disappeared from philosophical circles and cannot be a basis of understanding and dialogue with contemporary intellectuals. There is no philosophia perennis for Asians. Besides, the Asians are not interested in substituting scholastic metaphysics with Indian and Chinese metaphysics. We may just borrow some mystical insights of the Indian advaita or the Chinese Tao or the Buddhist inter-being. I have realized this quite recently. Methodologically the symbolic-hermeneutical method has replaced the conceptual-logical one. Both these are basically Western developments. We Asians are happy with them because they suit us. The differences between contextual theologies will not be that radical or deep. I think that the only real difference will then be the symbols and the language, if it is used naturally and creatively, not just to translate a foreign thought. I do not know when the Church will come to terms with this cultural change in the West and in the East.
If metaphysics is given up then we fall back on biblical theology evolved in different contexts, with the bible providing the unifying element. This probably means that most of the dogmas will have to be interpreted and re-formulated as envisaged by the Second Vatican Council. We will not have a universal theology or a universal catechism, but there will be very strong family resemblances between contextual theologies owing to the bible and to the universal human situation. I think that our people need to be introduced to the bible much more than to a conceptual system which they do not really understand.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Chennai, India.