GNANA RO BIN SO N

DIALOGUE WITH PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS

AND THE QUESTION
OF THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS CHRIST

Traditional A ttitude o f Christians tow ards P eople o f O ther Faiths

As a C hristian, I am looking at the subject o f “D ialogue w ith People o f O ther

Faiths” from a C hristian perspective. D uring the m issionary era o f the Christian
church, C hristianity w as the only acceptable religion for C hristians all over the
world and for m any o f them other faiths or other religions w ere either non-exis-
tent or irrelevant. B artholom aeus Z iegenbalg o f G erm any w as the first Protestant
missionary to land in India in the year 1706 and he tried to find som e connection
with the people in India, the m ajority o f w hom belonged to the H indu religion,
which is said to be ageless and w hose philosophy is sanathana dharm a, w hich
means “universal truth” or “eternal truth.” H induism is, as far as w e can tell, at
least three m illennia old. Z iegenbalg w as eager to study H induism in som e depth
so that he could preach the G ospel m eaningfully to the H indus. So he w rote to his
mission board in H alle in G erm any, seeking their perm ission to study Hinduism.
After a long w ait, w e are told, Z iegenbalg received a reply from H alle saying that
he had been sent to India not to study H induism but to destroy it. W albert Buhl-
mann, a G erm an scholar, describes the general attitude o f C hristianity tow ards
other religions this w ay: “C hristianity challenged w orld religions. It cam e out
with the claim to be the only true religion and w ith the goal o f destroying other
religions totally (w ith roots and branches)” (B uhlm ann 1991:16).

M issionaries as w ell as native C hristians in India in the tw entieth century strongly

believed that by the end o f the century Christians w ould conquer all other reli­
gions in India. Evangelistic songs in regional languages w ere m ilitant and trium ­
phant in tone. O ne o f the m ost popular songs in Tam il, m y m other tongue, goes
as follows: “Thasare itharaniyai A nbai Y esuvukku / C hontham A akkuvom ,” that
is, “B eloved, le t’s through love cqnquer this / W orld for Jesus.” A nother song is
trium phant in content: “V eerathi, V eerar Y esu Senai N angal / Senai N angal
Yesuvin Senai N angal,” that is, “W e are the solders o f our valiant hero Jesus /
Soldiers w e are, Solders o f Jesus.”

This is only an echo o f the popular theology that w as prevalent in the m other
churches at that tim e, giving no credit to any religion in the w orld other than
Christianity. Thus the Council o f Florence in 1442 A.D. pronounced the famous

89
S T U D IE S IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 16 (2 0 0 6 ) 1

dictum extra ecclesiam nulla ealus, i.e. “O utside the church there is no salvation.”
T his theological position o f the m other churches was reflected in the teachings
and preaching o f the younger m issionary churches all over the world. Thus in
India C hristians referred to those belonging to other religions as idolaters and
anjanis, i.e. “people with no w isdom ."

M artin L uth er’s theology o f the people o f other faiths has influenced the thinking
o f w estern C hristianity and this has, in effect, been passed on to the churches in
the colonized countries. L uther’s central teaching on “justification by faith” was
accom panied by the teachings o f Solus Chrisius and sola fid e . A ccordingly, for
Luther,

O utside the C hristian C hurch (that is, w here the gospel is not) th ere is no forgiveness, and
hence no holiness .... All w ho are outside (he C hristian C hurch, w hether heathen, Turks,
Jew s or false C hristians and hypocrites, even though they believe in and w orship only the
one, true G od, nevertheless do not know w hat his attitude tow ards them is. T hey cannot
be co nfident o f his love and blessing. T h erefore they rem ain in eternal w rath and dam na­
tion, for they do n o t have the L ord C hrist, and besides, they are not illum inated and
blessed by the gifts o f the H oly Spirit. ( The Book o f C on cord [cf. T ap p e rt 1961]: 418: 56,
419: 66; cited in M aim ela 1988: 164)

In L uther’s teachings on G o d ’s dealings w ith people o f other faiths an elem ent of

spiritual apartheid can be discerned. L uther sees G o d ’s dealings w ith people of
other faiths as “the w orks o f G o d ’s left-hand,” w hereas G o d ’s dealings with
C hristians are seen as “the w orks o f G o d ’s right-hand” (B raaten 1988: 110). God
is said to be engaged in a “double-sided” activity and also a “double-sided” hu­
m an relationship. As T heodore M. L udw ig puts it, “G od w orks in tw o m odes: in
law and gospel and in the left-hand K ingdom and in the right-hand K ingdom ”
(Ludw ig 1988: 152).

In the A sian C ontext “the right-hand” refers to a privileged position as it is also

endorsed in the B ible, an A sian book (cf. M atthew 22:44; 25:33; 26:64; M ark 16:
19; A cts 2:33; 7:55f; Rom ans 8:34; Col. 3:1; etc.). “ L eft-hand,” on the other hand,
is a position o f lesser im portance, often referring to the placc o f rejected or con­
dem ned people (cf. M atthew 25:33, 41). This “ left-hand” treatm ent o f people of
other faiths by G od is further confirm ed by L uther’s teachings on the twofold
revelation o f G od— the revelation o f the hidden G od (Deus absconditus) through
creation and law and the revelation o f the revealed G od (D eus revelatus) through
covenant and G ospel, the general revelation in creation and the particular revela­
tion in Jesus (B raaten 1988: 141). This discrim inatory attitude tow ards people of
other faiths, putting Christians in a privileged position entitled to heaven and la­
belling people o f other faiths as dam ned to hellfire still prevails am ong m any con­
servative C hristians. The follow ing quotation com ing from the Congress on
W orld M ission at Chicago in 1960 reflects this attitude: “ In the years since the

90
 D IA L O G U E A N D T H E U N IQ U E N E S S O F JE S U S C H R IST

war, more than one billion souls have passed into eternity and m ore than h alf o f
these w ent to the torm ent o f hell fire w ithout even hearing o f Jesus Christ, who
He was, or w hy He died on the cross o f C alvary” (Percy 1961: 9).

Christians living in colonized India, although they w ere in the m inority in the
midst o f their non-C hristian neighbours, had a m ajority com plex because o f their
alliance w ith the colonial rulers w ho identified them selves as belonging to the
Christian W est.

Once the decolonization process started in the m iddle o f the tw entieth century,
this favoured position o f the C hristians changed. The hitherto hum iliated and op­
pressed non-C hristian natives began to assert their m ajority identity and the iden­
tities o f their faiths or religions as well. N ative shrines and tem ples, so far forgot­
ten and neglected, have been renovated or rebuilt. New temples and shrines ap­
pear in every nook and com er in the country. Scriptures that had been lying un­
opened for years are being dusted, studied and taught with great interest. Every
religion has been asserting its identity o ver against the identity o f Christianity and
making every claim that C hristianity has m ade in the past.

This changed historical context dem anded a fresh m issionary approach. W hile the
conservative m issionary agencies w ere not in a m ood to change their traditional
missionary approach o f one-w ay traffic, the ecum enically minded m ission agen­
cies tried to find new w ays and m eans o f m eeting people o f other faiths and
“interreligious dialogue” was one o f the m eans o f their new approach.

“What is the goal o f interfaith dialogue?” w as a basic question raised both by

Christians and non-C hristians? “C onversion o f the non-C hristian partner” was the
answer o f m any o f the m ission partners. Because o f this, many o f the non-Chris­
tian partners w ere suspicious and sceptical w henever Christians spoke o f
interfaith dialogue. T hey charged the Christians w ith having a hidden agenda o f
conversion to Christianity.

We live today in a globalized world. People o f other faiths are no longer in

far-away distant countries: they are at our doorsteps and we have to live with
them. I know that people in the W est find it difficult to relate to people o f other
faiths living in their midst. Som e years back, w hile w e w ere living in Germany,
friends in the N etherlands invited m e to visit a school w hose student population
consisted o f both Turkish and D utch students. A couple o f years later I visited the
same school, only to discover that the D utch parents had w ithdraw n their children
and only Turkish children rem ained in that school. Som e years ago an A nglican
congregation in G erm any inform ed m e that their congregation was placed in a
multireligious context and that their m em bers found it difficult to relate to people
of other faiths. They requested me to send some one from India to help them. I re­

91
S T U D IE S IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 16 (2 0 0 6 ) I

com m ended one pastor to them w ho had for som e years worked in Peace Trust
as the coordinator o f the interfaith program m e. He has been serving in that con­
gregation for the last several years. We are getting more and more such requests.

The w hole world is becom ing increasingly m ultireligious. Hindu tem ples, Muslim
m osques and Sikh gurduw aras are being built in large num bers in all areas o f the
w orld. People w ith different w orldview s, different cultures, different dress codes
and eating habits are com ing to us. W hether w e like it or not, w e have to live with
them. The world suffered from racial apartheid for centuries; it should not again
be forced to suffer under a spiritual or religious apartheid.

An analysis o f the m ajor conflicts in the w orld today— in the M iddle East, in Sri
Lanka, between India and Pakistan and betw een North A m erica and its allies and
the G ulf countries— reveal that religious roots are behind all these conflicts. If a
lasting solution to all these conflicts is to be discovered, a faith based on a peace­
ful understanding betw een the parties is indispensable. As long as believers ofone
faith com m unity consider them selves superior to others and discrim inate against
believers o f another faith com m unity, a lasting peaceful solution is impossible.
It is in this context that w e have to think about the aim s and objectives of
interfaith dialogue.

U nder the changed conditions in India, C hristian theologians have been wrestling
with the problem o f relating to people o f other faiths, both interpersonally and
theologically. T heologically, they cam e up with several propositions to
accom m odate H induism and other such m ajor faiths, which m ake claim s equal to
those o f Christianity. These Christian responses are classified under three
paradigm s: the exclusivist paradigm , the inclusivist paradigm and the pluralist
paradigm.

The exclusivist paradigm presents the traditional position o f the church that sal­
vation is to be found exclusively in Christ. O ne o f the strongest proponents o f this
position was H endrik K raem er, w ho w as very m uch influenced by Karl Barth and
Emil Brunner. This exclusivist paradigm dom inated the three great International
M issionary Conferences (Edinburgh 1910, Jerusalem 1928 and Tam baram 1938).
The W orld Council o f Churches also held to this position under the leadership of
W illiam Visser ‘t H ooft until his retirem ent in 1966.

M any committed Christians w ho genuinely w anted to accom m odate the claims

o f other religions into the fram ew ork o f their Christian faith tried to develop an
inclusivist paradigm. John Farquhar, the Scottish m issionary, presented C hrist as
“The Crow n o f H induism ” (1913). A ccording to Farquhar, m issionary activities
in India should seek not to destroy H induism but to .fulfill the potential in it,
w hich only Christ could bring to fruition. D ifferent versions o f this inclusivist

92
 D IA L O G U E A N D T H E U N IQ U E N E S S O F JE S U S C H R IS T

paradigm are found in the w ritings o f Paul Tillich, W olfhart P annenberg, Jurgen
Moltmann, John Cobb, J.A .T. R obinson, Kaul Rahner, R aym ondo P an ik k aran d
Eugene H illm ann. Stanley S am artha’s contribution has been seen as a variation
of inclusivism, w hereby he affirm s “the decisive, but not exclusively unique
revelation o f G od in C hrist” and sees other religions as “alternative w ays o f
salvation.”

The pluralist paradigm m aintains “that other religions are equally salvific paths
(0 the one God, and the C hristian claim that it is the only path (exclusivism ) or the
fulfillment o f other paths (inclusivism ) should be rejected for good theological
and phenom enological reasons” (D ’C osta 1986: 22). T he G erm an scholar, Ernst
Troeltsch (Troeltsch 1980 [1923]) and the A m erican scholar, W illiam H ocking
(Hocking 1932) first proposed this view . John H ick is the m ost radical and the
most w ell-know n advocate o f this paradigm , calling for a C opernican revolution
away from an ecclesiocentric or christocentric P tolem aic approach. A ccording to
Hick, God is the God o f universal love, the creator and Father o f all hum ankind
and He w ills the salvation o f all people (H ick 1973: 131, cited by D ’C osta 1986:
25). W ilfred C antw ell Sm ith, A rnold T oynbee, H ans Kiing, P aul K nitter and
Rosemary R uether are am ong those w ho uphold this pluralist paradigm . G avin
D’Costa rightly points out the deficiency in the pluralist position in that it does
not satisfactorily account for the place o f Christ, that G o d ’s salvific w ill is made
known in and through C hrist (D ’C osta 1986: 45).

What we need is an open-ended paradigm , a paradigm that does not deny the cen­
trality o f C hrist for the believer but at the sam e tim e is open to accept people of
other faiths as children o f G od w ith no discrim ination. F or this, w hat w e need in
the first place is a C hristian theology o f religions; w e should first be clear on w hat
place people o f other faiths have in G o d ’s plan o f salvation.

Towards a Christian Theology o f R eligions

Religion, according to a dictionary definition, is “one o f the p revalent system s o f

faith and w orship.” People belonging to different religions follow different sys­
tems o f faith and w orship. All religions are o f hum an origin and, as such, all o f
them are under hum an lim itations. C hristianity is one such religion and there is
nothing unique about it. It is in this sense that S. R adhakrishnan, the form er p resi­
dent o f the Indian R epublic and a H indu philosopher, once said, “ C hristians are
ordinary people m aking extraordinary claim s.” W e C hristians claim that w e are
God’s people. Then the question arises, “W hat about people o f other faiths? W hat
kind o f a relationship does the G od o f our faith have w ith people o f other faiths?”

Christianity is a religion o f m onotheistic faith. Faith in one G od is the first article

of our creed; beside H im there is no god in heaven, on earth nor below the earth.
This G od alone is the C reator, Sustainer and R edeem er o f all. Jesus is the incam a-

93
S T U D IE S IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 16 (2 0 0 6 ) I

tion o f this redeem er God. If this is our fundam ental faith, then we should ask
w ho the people o f other faiths are, if they are not the children o f this God o f our
faith.
T he prophet M alachi raised the follow ing question to his people: “ Have not all
one father? Has n o to n e God created us?" (M alachi 2:10). Perhaps, given his own
context, the prophet was speaking only to the people o f Israel. But in our global
context, the question is applicable to the people o f the w hole w orld, because we
believe that the God o f our faith is the creator and sustainer o f all people in this
world.

T hen the question arises as to w hat kind o f relationship this G od m aintains with
those belonging to other faiths. W e believers may claim that because w e confess
Jesus C hrist and worship him , G od has a special relationship w ith us, w hile the
people o f other faiths have no such relationship because o f their lack o f faith in
Jesus. In the light o f the revelation we have in Jesus w e m ust ask if this can be
true? I f the parable o f the prodigal son gives us any indication o f G o d ’s relation­
ship to those who have gone aw ay from him, it clearly show s that G o d ’s love and
concern are directed m ore tow ards his children who are far from Him than to­
w ards those who are with H im or nearer to H im , like the elder son o f the parable.

For a C hristian who believes in the existence o f one G od all other gods w ho are
w orshipped in the world are non-existent. The w orships and prayers offered to
G od by faithful believers, in w hatever nam e they are offered, should ultim ately
reach this one God. This is w hat the story o f Cornelius in A cts 10 illustrates (see
A cts 10:2-4,34). I f G od’s love and concern is directed m ore tow ards G o d ’s child­
ren w ho are still at a distance from true faith, w hat should our attitude towards
these people be? Should w e not love and care for them as G od loves and cares for
them ? Should we not accept them as children o f God?

O ur b elief in G od is the basis for our spirituality, for our m ission and for our in­
terfaith relations w ith people o f other faiths. H ence, the need to look into our be­
liefs. M ost C hristians share beliefs respecting G od that are com m only held by all
people: G od is om nipotent, om nipresent, and om niscient. In addition, we hold that
our G od is a zealous G od (Isaiah 9:7; 37:32), w ho is not ready to share his glory
w ith any one else (Isaiah 42:8). Further, we believe that our God is a G od of
w rath, w hose anger will destroy all those who are evil (Exodus 22:24; N um bers
11:33). God rem em bers the sins o f the people from generation to generation; we
should therefore fear this God and do everything to please him.

B ecause people o f other faiths do not believe in this G od o f our faith, it is as­
sum ed that God is angry with them and that they are dam ned to hell. Such beliefs
certainly find support in the O ld T estam ent. M any o f the fundam entalist preachers

94
STUDIES IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 16 (2 0 0 6 ) I

who m ake a living through preaching exploit such beliefs to instill fear into
believers and to profit from that fear.

In the light o f the revelation we have received in and through Jesus Christ we
should exam ine the extent to w hich a b elief is truly Christian. E verything in the
Old Testam ent should be understood contextually. As Jesus him self said, many
things in the Old T estam ent w ere said because o f the “hardness” o f the hearts o f
those living in those contexts (see M atthew 19:8)

The G od revealed in Jesus C hrist is the em bodim ent of love, the God who
emptied h im self taking the form o f a servant, the G od who forgives the sins o f
people seven and seventy tim es (i.e. w ithout lim it) (M atthew 18:22); the God
whose nature is alw ays to do good and to save life (see M ark 2:27; 3:4). I f we
substitute the w ord “G od” for the w ord “love” in St. P aul’s song o f love, we
discover the true nature o f the G od revealed in Jesus Christ:

God is p atient and kind; G od is not jea lo u s or boastful; G od is not arrogant or rude; God
does not insist on G o d ’s ow n w ay; G od is not im itable or resentful; G od does not rejoice
at wrong b ut rejoices in the right; G od bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things. (Cf. I C orin th ian s 13: 4-7)

Destruction is n o t part o f G o d ’s nature: “I w ill not execute my fierce anger, I w ill

not again destroy Ephraim . For I am G od and not m an, the H oly one in your
midst, and I w ill not com e to destroy” (H osea 11:9). “I am God, not m an” is the
key to understanding G o d ’s true nature. G o d ’s standards are far higher than hu­
man ones; he does not behave the w ay w e hum ans behave, driven by em otions
and sentim ents, likes and dislikes. Thus, w e read in Isaiah 55:8, 9: “For my
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your w ays my ways, says the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are m y ways higher than your
ways and m y thoughts than your thoughts”

God’s m easures in dealing w ith m en and w om en are very different from that o f
men and w om en; the form er are alw ays redem ptive and not destructive. Jesus
pointed to this w hen he said: “I f you then, w ho are evil, know how to give good
gifts to your children. H ow m uch m ore will your Father who is in heaven give
good things to those w ho ask him ” (M atthew 7:11). Let us see people o f other
faiths as children w ho are not m ature enough to articulate their faith and to ad­
dress the true God. W ill G od, their C reator and Father, be indifferent to their gen­
uine cries and aspirations?

In this context w e should note that our understanding o f G od’s revelation in and
through Jesus C hrist is not fully exhausted. D uring his life Jesus said to his disci­
ples:

95
S T U D IE S IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 1 6 (2 0 0 6 ) I

1 have y et m any things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. W hen the Spirit of
truth conies, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his ow n authority,
but w hatever he hears he will speak, and he w ill declare to you the things that are to come.
(John 16.12-13)

W e know that Je su s’ disciples them selves did not understand him fully during his
life. The risen Lord had to rebuke them for their lack o f understanding and correct
them (Luke 24:25-27). T he B ook o f A cts show s us how the H oly Spirit instructed
and guided the disciples, starting with the experience o f Pentecost w hen, for the
first tim e, a m ultireligious com m unity— devout people from every nation under
heaven (A cts 2:5)— could listen and understand the G ospel o f Jesus Christ. The
disciples needed the guidance o f the H oly Spirit particularly in dealing w ith peo­
ple o f other faiths, about w hom the disciples, com ing from a Jew ish background,
had strong reservations. T hus P eter had to be told “W hat G od has cleansed, you
m ust not call com m on” (A cts 10:15) and to be urged to go and m eet Cornelius,
a “com m on” person in the eyes o f Judaism , and, after m eeting him, Peter could
understand G o d ’s plan o f salvation to the G entiles better and confess: “Truly I
perceive that G od show s no partiality, but in every nation any one w ho fears him
and does w hat is right is acceptable to him ” (Acts 10:34).

Thus, w hile accepting that the revelation in Christ is final and conclusive, we be­
lieve that w e have yet to understand Jesus fully, understand him in relation to ev­
ery new context, every new people, and every new encounter. An open mind,
trusting in the guidance o f the H oly Spirit, is w hat is needed in the multireligious
context in India.

O ur approach to people o f other faiths is very m uch influenced by our understand­

ing o f Jesus Christ. It is therefore im portant that w e be clear w ith respect to our
Christology. Som e C hristians take a m ilitant attitude w hen defending Jesus— his
honour and glory— and becom e intolerant w hen criticism s are leveled by other
people. M any still adopt a “crusader” attitude when talking about m ission. Some
o f us becom e too sentim ental and em otional about the person o f Jesus— m uch of
w hich is exhibited especially during C hristm as and Lent. Jesus is w orshipped as
a baby, as the crucified one and as the resurrected one. The w orship o f his mother
M ary is perhaps the expression o f the hum an desire to appeal to the fem inine as­
pect in God.

All this raises the question o f w ho Jesus C hrist is for us today? Do w e look at Je­
sus as the founder o f a cult or do we take him to be the Revelation o f God, the
Word o f G od? D oes Jesus exist outside the being o f G od? Has the Jesus event in
history m ade a change in the being o f God?

In the m ultireligious context in A sia, the doctrine o f the church on the Trinity has
also not been adequately and convincingly explained. R adhakrishnan is said to

96
 D IA L O G U E A N D T H E U N IQ U E N E S S O F JE S U S C H R IS T

have joked in a lighter vein about the doctrine o f the T rinity, saying that “these
Christians do not know sim ple arithm etic; they say 1+1 +1 = I A r e C hrist and the
Holy Spirit in the G odhead or are they outside the G odhead? T he w ay w e w orship
and preach C hrist gives the im pression that C hrist exists outside the G odhead.
Luther’s dichotom izing teachings on the D eus absconditus and the D eus revelat-
us, the C reator G od and the S aviour G od (C hrist) strengthen the above im pres­
sion. W hat justification is there for us to say the C reator G od, w ho through his
general revelation cares for the needs o f the people o f other religions, does not
care about their salvation? A re G od the C reator and G od the Saviour two different
persons opposed to each other?

I feel that w e have turned Jesus into the hero o f an ancestral cult. Jesus is w or­
shipped in the sam e w ay the founders o f other cults are w orshipped. It m ay sound
blasphemous here, but I feel w e need to give serious thought to our C hristological
assumptions.

In my opinion, Logos C hristology should help us have the right understanding o f

Jesus Christ. T he W ord, w hich w as sent into this w orld to save the w orld by re ­
vealing G od and his will to the w orld, is back w ith G od as in the beginning,
having fulfilled its m ission (cf. Isaiah 5 5 :11)— G od as the “Sarguna B eing,” the
Being that includes all characters, one m ay w orship him the way one wishes: as
a baby, as a father or m other. Paul V ero M artinson, w ho also raises the question
o f who Jesus is for the w orld concludes w ith the answ er: “In the end, to speak o f
Jesus today is nothing else than to speak o f G od, a continuance o f the N ew T esta­
ment Theocentrism w ith a difference” (M artinson 1988: 67). This kind o f an un­
derstanding can help us to appreciate other faiths w ithout com prom ising in our
faith in Jesus in any way.

Elsewhere I have presented Jesus as the open W ay and fellow struggler in the
multireligious context in Asia.

Although Jesus C hrist understood h im s e lf as the W ay o f salvation for all people, C hris­
tianity, as a religion, has m ade this W ay so narrow and has laid dow n pre-conditions for
the people o f o th er faiths to enter i t .

C hrist is the true W ay (John 14:6) and the goal o f the W ay. H e leads all those w ho w alk
this W ay to the R eign o f G od, to eternal life .... T he W ay is open; every one can w alk it
at any tim e.

As an institution, the church has turned its e lf into a m ountain top. T hereby, it has lost its
m obility and has blocked the W ay so that others find it difficult to com e to Jesus. It has
also left no room for others on the m ountain top. (R obinson 1991: 17, 100-05, 110-11)

Any C hristology in a m ultireligious context like that o f India should contain both
aspects: Jesus C hrist as the open W ay and as the fellow struggler.

97
S T U D IE S IN IN T E R R E L IG IO U S D IA L O G U E 16 (2006) I

Like the labourers in the vineyard (M atthew 19:15), we hum ans seem to begrudge
G od his generosity. W e do not w ant people o f other faiths to be saved, unless they
fulfill our term s and conditions. T here is a saying in Tam il: “ K adavul Varam
K oduthalum Poosari V aram K odukkam aattan.” w hich m eans ‘‘Even i f God grants
the request o f his devotee, the priest (the m ediator) will not perm it it.” This seems
to be the attitude o f m any C hristians. W hat the G ospel dem ands o f us is to love
our neighbours, w hether they are believers or non-believers, H indus, M uslims or
Buddhists and not to deny them any o f G o d ’s blessings, including salvation, eter­
nal life and the reign o f God. If we err, let us err in loving others. God will forgive
us.

The Q uestion o f the U niqueness o f Jesus Christ

In my opinion, in the context o f a m onotheistic faith as w e have in Christianity,

the question o f the uniqueness o f Jesus C hrist is irrelevant. A ccording to the Ox­
ford D ictionary, the w ord “unique” m ean “unm atched, unequalled, having no like
or equal or parallel.” W hen we talk about the uniqueness o f Jesus Christ, with
w hom are w e com paring him ? A re we com paring Jesus with Buddha, Krishna,
Ram a or M uham m ed? O ur m onotheistic faith does not give any room for the ex­
istence o f any other god or for any other divine incarnation, and hence we cannot
com pare Jesus w ith Buddha, K rishna, Ram a, M uham m ed or with any other per­
son.

C ertainly, people o f other faiths hold different beliefs and m ake different claims.
W e respect their beliefs and claim s; but respect does not m ean acceptance. We al­
so do not pass on any judgm ent on them , because w e still believe that G od the
H oly Spirit has yet to teach us m any things regarding the revelation in and
through Jesus Christ. W e believe, in and through our encounter with people of
other faiths, that w e have yet to learn many things about salvation in Christ. We
keep our m ind open.

Even if we concede that we can talk about the uniqueness o f Christ, this unique­
ness is a m atter o f personal faith. Just as a Christian has the right to talk about the
uniqueness o f Christ, a M uslim has the right to talk about the uniqueness o f Mu­
ham m ed and a Hindu has the right to talk about the uniqueness o f K rishna or Ra­
ma. O ne cannot im pose o n e’s personal conviction on others and, therefore, there
is no justification for quarrelling over the question o f uniqueness.

True to the saying that the tree is know n by its fruits, the uniqueness o f o n e ’s faith
has to be proved in and through the life and witness o f that faith in the world.
C hristian faith can prove the uniqueness o f C hrist by becom ing the salt o f the
earth and light o f the world, by its contribution to the holistic life o f all people in
this w orld, including people o f other faiths, because Christ cam e in this world in
order “that all may have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

98
 D IA L O G U E A N D T H E U N IQ U E N E S S O F JE S U S C H R IS T

LITERATURE

Braaten, Carl E. “ L utheran T heology and R eligious P lu ralism ’ in Paul Rajashekar (ed.).
LWF R eport 23/24. G eneva: L utheran W orld Federation. Pp. 105-28.
Biihlmann, W albert. (1991. “Jesus, B uddha, K rishna— U nd der eine G ott.” In: Publik
Forum 24 (29 N ovem ber): 14-17.
D’ Costa, G avin. (1986). T heology a n d R eligious Pluralism . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hocking, W illiam . (1932). Rethinking M issions: A L aym an's Inquiry after One H undred
Years. N ew York: Harper.
Hick, John. (1973). G od and the U niverse o f Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy o f Religion.
L ondon el al.: M acm illan.
Ludwig, T heodore M. (1988). “ Som e L utheran T heological Reflections on Religious
Pluralism .” G eneva: L utheran W orld Federation. Pp. 129-58.
Maimela, Sim on S. ( 1988). “A L utheran T heological R esponse to R eligious Pluralism and
L utheran T h eo lo g y .” In: J. Paul R ajashekar (ed.). LW F R eport 23/24. Geneva:
L utheran W orld Federation. Pp. 159-80.
Martinson, Paul V ero. (1988). “ S peaking the T ruth: C ontem porary A pproaches to R eli­
gious P lu ralism .” In: Paul R ajashekar (ed.). LW F R eport 23/24. Geneva: Lutheran
W orld Federation. Pp. 40-73.
Percy, J. (ed.). (1961). F acin g the Unfinished Task: M essages D elivered at the Congress
on W orld M ission. G rand R apids: E erdm ans.
Robinson, G nana. (1991). “C hristus der offene W eg und der M itkam pfer.” In: H erm ann
D em bow ski and W olfgang G reive (eds), D er A ndere Christus: Christologien in
Zeugnissen aus a lle r Welt. E rlangen: V erlag der Ev. Luth. M ission. Pp. 100-15.
Tappert, T heodore G. (transl. and ed.). (1961). The B ook o f C oncord: The Confessions
o f the E vangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: M uhlenberg Press.
Troeltsch, Ernst. (1980). “T he Place o f C h ristianity am ong W orld R eligions.” In: John
Hick and B rian H ebblethw aite, Christianity a n d O ther Religions: S elected Readings.
G lasgow: C ollins Fount Paperbacks.