Huston Smith - Interfaith Communication

8/2/2019 Huston Smith - Interfaith Communication

1/5

Interfaith Communication:The Contemporary Scene

H U S T O N S M I T H

M EN need unity and they needGod. Care must be taken neitherto confuse unity with uniformitynor God with our parochial ideas about him,but with these two qualifications, the state-ment stands. The statement also points to aclassic paradox: The more men turn towardGod, who is not only in himself the paradigmof all unity but also the only ground onwhich human unity can ultimately be estab-lished, the more men splinter into groupsand set themselves apart from one another.To be reminded of this we need only glanceat the world map and note the extent towhich religious divisions have compoundedpolitical ones, with a resu ltant fragmentationof the human race. Massacres attending thepartition of India and the establishment ofthe State of Israel are simply recent grimevidences of the hostility such divisions canengender. The words of Cardinal Newmancome forcibly to mind: "Oh how we hateone another for the love of God I"

The source of this paradox is not difficultto identify. It lies in institutions. Institutionsrequire structure, form, and definition, andthese in turn entail differentiation and ex-clusion. A completely amorphous institutionwould be a contradiction in terms; to escapethis fate, it must rule some things out. Forevery criterion which defines what some-thing is, at the same time proclaimsim-plicitly if not openlywhat that somethingis not. Some persons are so sensitive to this

HUSTON SMITH is Professor of Phi losophyat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thisarticle is based on an address before the secondannual conference of the Association for the Co-ordination of University Religious Affairs, held atthe University of Illinois, November 10-11, 1960.

truth as to propose that we do away with in-stitutions altogether; in the present contextthis amounts to the advice that while beingreligious may have a certain justification, weought to dispense with churches. The sug-gestion is naive. Man is at once a gregariousanimal and a form-creating being. Havingonce committed himself to an ideal which heconsiders worthwhile, he inevitably createsforms for its expression and institutions forits continuance. To propose that men be re-ligious without having religious institutionsis like proposing that they be learned with-out having schools. Both eventualities arepossible logically, but practically they are im-possible. As much as men intrinsically needthe unity that is grounded in God, they in-strumentally require the institutions that willdirect their steps toward him.Yet the fact remains that such institutionsdo set men at odds with their fellows. Isthere any way out of the predicament? Theonly way that I can see is through communi-cation. Interfaith communication need not beregarded as an unfortunate burden visitedupon us by the necessity of maintainingdiplomatic relations with our adversaries.Approached creatively, it is a high art. It isthe art of relating the finite to the infinite,of doing our best to insure that the particu-laristic requirements of religious institutionswill not thwart God's intent of unity amongmen more than is minimally necessary. In acertain sense, interfaith communication par-allels diplomatic communication among thenation-states.

What are the pertinent facts affecting suchcommunication at the present juncture ofhistory ? I shall touch on three areas: per-sonal, national, and theological.308


2/5

I N T E R F A I T H C O M M U N I C A T I O N : T H E C O N TE M P O R A R Y S C EN E 309

By personal factors I mean those rootedin personality structure. Some interfaith ten-sions are not occasioned by theological dif-ferences at all, but by the need of men tohave persons they can blame, distrust, de-nounce, and even hate. Such needs may riseto pathological proportions. Modern psy-chology has shown that paralleling "theauthoritarian personality" is "the bigotedpersonality" in which insecurity, inferiority,suspicion, and distrust combine to provide atarget for antagonism so indispensable thatit will be manufactured if it does not existnaturally.1 Fortunately the number of patho-logical bigots appears to be quite small, but itwould be a mistake to think that more thana matter of degree separates them from therest of us. To some extent the personal in-adequacies that prejudices attempt to com-pensate for are to be found in all of us.

Interfaith conflicts which spring frompsychological deficiencies are the most un-fortunate of all, for they have no redeemingfeatures whatsoever. It is difficult to saywhat can be done about them except that wemust learn to recognize when it is they,rather than pretexts for them, that are caus-ing the trouble, and do everything possibleto nurture the healthy personalities that willprevent the development of such deficiencies.

I IWhile the personality factors that aggra-vate interfaith conflict may be perennial,nationalism is more variable. The specificinstance I have in mind is the Afro-Asianversion which has gained prominence onlyin this second half of the twentieth century.Emerging from two centuries of colonialdomination, the Afro-Asian world is aflamewith a nationalism that has undone empires.No less than twenty-two nations have al-ready achieved independence since WorldWar II, and the number is growing by theyear. As an obvious consequence, obstacles

to genuine interfaith communication havegrown more formidable in one importantarea: relations between Christians and non-Christians in these lands. Colonialism alonewould have been able to make these difficul-ties serious, for Christianity is so closely tiedto colonialism in the minds of these peoplethat repudiation of the one has tended au-tomatically toward the repudiation of theother. Actually, however, this tu rns out to beonly part of the picture. Nationalism hasabetted not only the repudiation of foreignreligions but the revival of native ones, someof which had been lying in slumber for cen-turies. The truth is that any revival of tradi-tional and indigenous religion will serve topromote that sense of identity and Volksgeistwhich these young nations very much need.Insofar as these nations claim to incarnatetraditions and ways of life which constituteultimate, trans-political justifications fortheir existence, such people are inevitably ledto emphasize the ways in which these tradi-tions and ways are theirs rather than some-one else's.All this works severely against the kindof cross-cultural communication for whichChristian missions stand. Africans andAsians tend to consider not only missionsbut the local churches they have produced ascenters and agents of Western culture andideology if not of direct political propaganda.The people hardest hit by this suspicion are,of course, Christians on the mainland ofChina. But the problem extends elsewhere.For example, in Burma and Ceylon manyBuddhists argue that Buddhism ought to bethe official state religion.2 In 1960 Ceylonnationalized its sectarianpreponderantlyChristianschools, to the rejoicing of mostof its 7,000,000 Buddhists and the lament ofits 800,000 Roman Catholics. Again, Indiahas imposed formidable barriers against theentrance of additional missionaries, andfanatical Hindu parties are expected to seekfurther action against Christians once the in-


3/5

31 0 HUSTON SMITHfluence making for tolerance due to N ehruand his followers is gone.The progressive closing of Afro-Asianears to the Christian message is epitomizedin a conversation I had three years ago whileflying from Jerusalem to Cairo. I was seatednext to the director of the Seventh DayAdventists' world radio program. He saidthat on his tour the preceding year a con-siderable number of hours would have beenavailable to him on Japanese radio networks,but that he had then lacked the funds tocontract for them. After returning to theUnited States and raising the money, he dis-covered on getting back to Japan that thehours were no longer available. It was notthat they had been contracted for during theinterval; they simply could no longer be pur-chased for missionary purposes. It is not un-fair to add on the other side that the crudeand almost vitriolic approach of certainfundamentalist sects toward the cultures andreligions among which they work has con-tributed measurably to this heightening ofanti-Christian sentiment. Ironically, theseare the groups which have doubled or tripledtheir missionary efforts since World War II,while the more established denominationsare barely maintaining pre-war staffs.

Although I have emphasized the barrierswhich an aroused nationalism has raisedagainst relations between Christians andnon-Christians in Asia, the fact is that thisdevelopment has also widened the gulf be-tween certain Afro-Asian religions them-selves. The partition of India has hardlyimproved relations between H indus and Mus-lims; neither has the establishment of theState of Israel fostered harmony betweenMuslims and Jews.

I l lI turn finally to several theological de-velopments.1. Theocracy reconsidered. The modernworld has been marked by progressive dis-affection with claims to divine sanction for

the state, whatever its political form. TheAmerican Constitution was historic at thispoint in providing that "Congress shall makeno law respecting an establishment of reli-gion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."One of our foremost jurists, David DudleyField, has gone so far as to call this provi-sion "the greatest achievement ever made inthe course of human history."The trend throughout the world's reli-gions has been toward a recognition of atleast the practical validity of this constitu-tional enactment. Pakistan was created in1947 expressly as a Muslim state, but whenthe army took over eleven years later it didso on a wave of mass impatience which wasdirected in part against the inability of po-litical and religious leaders to think theirway through to the meaning of Islam for themodern political situation. "What is thepoint," Charles Adams reports the Paki-stanis as asking, "in demanding an Islamicstate and society if no one, not even the doc-tors of the sacred law themselves, can sayclearly and succinctly what the nature ofsuch a state and society is?"8 The currentregime of President Mohammad Ayub Khanis determinedly secular. And while the na-tion was formerly named "The Islamic Re-public of Pakistan," it is now simply "TheRepublic of Pakistan."

Comparable trends can be noted else-where. The new regime in Turkey is inten-tionally less Muslim than its predecessor.The religious parties in Israel have experi-enced a great loss of prestige in recentmonths. During the years when Israel waspassing from crisis to crisisthe Sinai cam-paign, the infusion of multitudes of pennilessimmigrantsit was felt that the purpose ofnational unity could be best served if thesecular majority were to yield to the reli-gious parties. Now that Israel enjoys relativeprosperity and a reduction of tensions, thesecularists are less disposed to compromise.And in this country Gustave Weigel's de-lineation of the line between the sacral and


4/5

I N T E R F A I T H C O M M U N I C A T I O N : T H E C O N T E M P O R A R Y S C E N E 311secular orders during the last presidentialcampaign served to provide a most impres-sive Roman Catholic defense of the practicalautonomy of both church and state. Thefailure at that t ime of the Puerto Ricanbishops to control the votes of their peopleadded a ring of good sense to FatherWeigel 's theological argument. Everywherethere seems to be a growing recognition ofthe fact that governments and religious in-stitutions alike are too fallible and corrupti-blein a word, too humanto warrant anyclaim of maintaining partnership with thedivine.

2. Salvation reconsidered. My father wentas a missionary to China in a generation thatresponded to Student Volunteer Movementspeakers who held watches in their handsand announced to the students in their au-diences how many Chinese souls were go-ing to hell each second because these stu-dents were not over there saving them. Thatmention of this should bring smiles to ourlips today is as clear an indication as wecould wish of the extent to which atti tudeshave changed. I do not mean to imply thatChristians have adopted the liberal assump-tion, so prevalent in Hinduism, that all re-ligions are merely different paths to the samesummit. Leslie Newbiggin reflects the domi-nant position within the World Council ofChurches w hen he says, "W e mu st claimabsoluteness and finality for Christ and Hisfinished work, but that very claim forbids usto claim absoluteness and finality for ourunderstanding of i t ." Newbiggin's qualifica-tion on the Christian claim is of considerablesignificance. The Roman Catholic Churchhas excommunicated one of i ts priests, Fa-ther Feeney, for insisting that there is nosalvation outside the visible church. In men-tioning this under "salvation reconsidered"I do not mean to imply that Roman Catholicdoctrine has changed in this area but ratherthat it has become clearer to the world com-munity what that doctrine is. My point is

that such clarification helps foster improvedinterfaith relations.3. Conversion reconsidered. I have saidthat Christian acknowledgment of the possi-

bility of salvation outside the visible churchdoes not entail the conclusion that all reli-gions are equally valid. Accordingly, suchacknowledgment has not halted evangelismand the missionary outreach. But here toothere has occurred a noticeable alteration intone. This is epitomized in what has come tobe known as "the confessional approach."From that standpoint, there is validity inman's natural disposition to share withothers the spiritual benefits that come intohis life. It follows that Christians who havegenuinely experienced the power of the HolySpirit will want and, indeed, feel compelledto witness (i.e., confess) to this fact. Buthere is where their obligation ends. To gofurther and say, in effect, "Because my faithmeans the world to me, you must embrace ittoo," is at once to treat other men in a de-personalized way and to pre-empt the placeof God. The confessional approach would ap-pear to be faithful to the New Testamentadmonition that we "judge nothing beforethe t ime unt i l the Lord come" (I Cor. 4:5).

I VDespite the problems that are still obvi-ously with us, I am generally cheerful aboutrecent developments in interfaith relation-ships. The distance we have come can bestbe seen by looking back. Consider, for ex-

ample, the following words from the past,remembering that the man who spoke them,John Chrysostom, was not a rabble-rousingfanatic but a great saint of the Christianchurch whom Cardinal Newman could char-acterize as "a sensitive heart . . . elevated,refined, transformed by a touch of heaven."John wrote: "The synagogue is worse thana brothel . . . i t is the den of scoundrels andthe repair of wild beasts . . . a criminal as-sembly of Jew s . . . a house of il l fame, adwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a


5/5

31 2 HUSTON SMITHgulf and abyss of perdition. . . . As for meI hate the synagogue. . . . I hate the Jewsfor the same reason." And eleven hundredyears later a characterization of the Jews byMartin Luther was still in the same vein:"Their synagogues ought to be razed to theground, their houses destroyed, their books,including the Talmud, and even the OldTestament, taken from them and their Rab-bis compelled to earn their bread by hardlabor."* However, it is difficult to imagineany responsible religious leader today speak-ing of another faith in such tones. We havecome a long way.

There are other encouraging signs. At theforefront of these is the ecumenical move-ment. The World Council of Churches hadjust fifty-two communions in its membershipin 1939; by 1948, the number had grown toninety; and today there are some 178 mem-ber churches. It is anticipated that at theThird Assembly of the World Council ofChurches to be held in New Delhi in No-vember, 1961 , the request of the RussianOrthodox Church for membership will behonored. In Europe, the ecumenical move-ment has already advanced to the point ofsignifying not primarily cooperation amongjust P rotestant and Eastern Orthodox Chris-tians, as it does in the United States, butactual exploratory dialogue between these

groups and Roman Catholics. For a numberof years, E. Stanley Jones has talked withHindus and Muslims in ways both deep andopen, not with the object of converting thembut for the sake of reciprocal sharing. Rich-ard Kitan, a Congregationalist missionary inSouth India, has experimented with commonprayers between Hindus and Christians.Kenneth Cragg is pleading for an opportu-nity in which Christians and Muslims maycome together as human beings "to witnessto one another of their religious commit-ments and their faith," in order that the lim-itations and inadequacies of each side may bebrought to light and discussed honestly. Ev-erywhere there seems to be a new willingnessto "let both grow together until the harvest"(Matt. 13:20). For the first time in overfour hundred years, the Pope and the Arch-bishop of Canterbury have met face to face.And a Protestant majority has elected JohnF . Kennedy president of the United States.REFERENCES

1See Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice,Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.1 Cf. Kenne th W . M organ, ed., The Path of thtBuddha, New Y or k: Ronald P ress, 1956, p. 368.'In Joseph Kitagawa, ed., Modern Trends inWorld Religions, La Salle, 111.: Open Cou rt, 1959,p. 45 .

* As quoted in Edwyn Bevan, Christianity, O x-ford: Oxford University Press, 1932, p. 156.

Huston Smith - Interfaith Communication

Documents

Transcript of Huston Smith - Interfaith Communication