MISSION AS DIALOGUE

The Challenge of Religious

Pluralism to Christian
Mission in Malaysia
By DAVID CHONG

H AVE you heard the ancient story of ten blind men trying to describe an elephant after touching different
parts of its body? As the blind men announced their conflicting discoveries, a heated argument ensued.
Awakened by the quarrel, the Rajah corrected all of them by saying, “The elephant is a huge animal and each
of you touched a part. In order to know the whole truth about what the elephant looks like, you must put
together all the parts!”1

The moral of the story is that no
religion has privileged access to the
whole truth. Each religious view is a
partial experience of the same
Reality from its own culturally-
conditioned perspective. Religious
pluralism sees all religions as
equally valid in terms of access to
truth and effectiveness in salvation.
This view is popular because we
need to ward off violent fundament-
alism in the wake of post-911 ‘war
on terror’. After all, it is no longer
politically correct to claim to have
the truth while contrary views are
wrong in a society of diverse
religious perspective like Malaysia.
Surely, there are many sincere, self-
giving and authentic people in all
expressions of faith!
The case for truth
On a closer look, religious pluralism
is self-defeating since the pluralist
has unwittingly assumed a
‘privileged position’ to truth even
while he denied everyone the same
access. Isn’t it exceedingly ironic
that the pluralist took on the role of
the all-seeing Rajah right after
admitting his own limited percep-
tion as one of the ten blind men?
According to pluralism, all religions
are deemed mistaken in supposing
their basic beliefs are true. Sure,
they all make contact with the
elephantine Reality but not in the
same manner in which the believers
themselves think they are. Is the
pluralists’ way of rejecting other
religious beliefs as mistaken any
more ‘tolerant’ than others?
“…witness does not
preclude dialogue but
invites it,… dialogue
does not preclude
witness but extends and
deepens it.”
More importantly, could
religious pluralism really deliver its
practical promises of peace and
tolerance? In reality, it could only
do so if adherents of all faiths
relativize their conflicting truth
claims in favor of pluralism. In the
end, the only way humanity could
attain unity is when they exclusively
agree on a ‘faith’ different than their
own.
The late Lesslie Newbigin wrote
that it is precisely because we want
unity that we seek the truth by
which alone humankind can become
one: “That truth is not a doctrine or
a worldview or even a religious
experience; it is certainly not to be
found by repeating abstract nouns
like justice and love; it is the man
Jesus Christ in whom God was
reconciling the world. The Truth is
personal, concrete, historical.”2
Implications on Mission in
Malaysia
Genuine peace could be attained not
at the cost of dismissing genuine
differences. In fact, tolerance itself
implies disagreement. We do not
‘tolerate’ people who agree with us.
They are on our side! If every
religious person is a pluralist, what
room is there for tolerance? Instead,
genuine tolerance recognizes
conflicting truth claims and does not
press for artificial, minimal
denominator. We respect and honor
one another as persons who have the
God-given right to believe, practice
and propagate our faiths. We
celebrate and not begrudge the fact
that men of different creeds are
capable of moral exploits, profound
insights and creative aesthetics.
Missionary Martin Goldsmith wrote,
“Sin and the remnant image of God
interact both in cultures and
religions. We dare not dismiss them
as merely demonic, evil or totally
false.”3

BERITA CCM JULY – SEPT 20056

 Usually a pluralistic vision of
mission tends towards ‘truth-
seeking’ mode of interfaith dialogue
as a substitute for evangelism. As a
result, we shun away from such
invitations even though the Prime
Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah
Badawi recently called for dialogues
to promote social harmony at the
WCC Faith and Order Commission
meeting in Kuala Lumpur in August
2004.
However, dialogue and
evangelism should not be seen as
mutually exclusive. Missiologist
David Bosch wrote, “We affirm that
witness does not preclude dialogue
but invites it, and that dialogue does
not preclude witness but extends and
deepens it”.4
Although the main goal of
dialogue is mutual understanding,
there is a sense of fair play in
‘interfaith forums’ that draw crowds
who otherwise would not have
stepped into a one-sided evangelistic
meeting.
In all such endeavors, Newbigin
wrote, “The Christian who
participates in dialogue with people
of other faiths will do so on the
basis of his faith. The pre-
suppositions which shape his
thinking will be those which he
draws from the Gospel… He cannot
agree that the position of final
authority can be taken by anything
other than the Gospel – either by a
philosophical system, or by mystical
experience, or by the requirements
of national and global unity.
Confessing Christ – incarnate,
crucified and risen – as true light
and true life, he cannot accept any
other’s alleged authority as having
right of way over this.”5
Mission as dialogue
While there is certainly legitimate
place for worldview encounter,
other constructive themes deserve
our attention such as promoting joint
action in overcoming racism, AIDS,
abortion and poverty. The church
has yet to draw from the rich
resources for social programs that
BERITA CCM JULY – SEPT 2005
7
spring from a common theistic economic equity? If our proclaim-
outlook with Islam. ation is not embodied concretely,
the world would see our faith as
At the same time, dialogue-in-
“privately engaging, publicly
life should permeate the rank and
irrelevant”.
file in the office, classroom,
cafeteria and ‘rumah terbuka’ during
Reference Cited
festivities. That is, Christians should
1. Lillian Quigley, The Blind Men and
abandon a ‘ghetto’ mentality and
the Elephant, (New York: Charles
actively pursue to be with the other,
Scribner’s, 1959)
collaborate with them in action and
2. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a
discourse to understand and be pluralistic society, (Grand Rapids:
understood.6 Eerdmans, 1989), page 170
3. Martin Goldsmith, What About Other
Faiths? Is Jesus Christ the only way to
God? (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
Christians should 1989), page 116
abandon a ‘ghetto’ 4. David Bosch, Transforming Mission,
(New York: Orbis, 1992) page 487
mentality and actively 5. Lesslie Newbigin, The Basis,
pursue to be with the Purpose and Manner of Inter-Faith
Dialogue, (Scottish Journal of
other, collaborate with Theology, volume 30, no. 3, 1977),
page 255
them in action and 6. Chia, E, Towards a Theology of
discourse to understand Dialogue, pages 245 – 256
and be understood.
David Chong currently worships at
City Discipleship Presbyterian Church
In summary, mission-as- and writes for The Agora ministry
dialogue would not be effective if (http://theagora.blogspot.com), which
the Malaysian grassroots were not seeks to inspire and train lay people in
trained to know what and why they the marketplace to live and proclaim the
believed. Leaders also have a Lordship of Christ over every domain of
their life.
responsibility not to “isolate” the
church but to ‘inoculate’ them by
accurately representing the religious
views of others also. At the same
time, we must decide to embrace
unpopularity or persecution, if need
be, as the cost of following Christ.
Leaders also have a
responsibility not to
“isolate” the church but
to ‘inoculate’ them by
accurately representing
the religious views of
others also.
How shall we demonstrate that
Shwemawdaw Pagoda in Bago, 100km east of
the gospel speaks to here-and-now Yangon. Myanmar Jan 1996
Malaysian issues like the © Peter Williams / WCC
politicization of religion, AIDS
prevention, good governance and