Prof.dr. Simon Schoon

Towards a Christian theology for a ‘trilateral dialogue’

Along with the words spoken at conferences on religious dialogue, ‘trilateral dialogue’ and inter-religious encounter – whether they are scientific or not – one often hears the same static noise; “tolerance, peace, respect, human dignity, human rights”, etcetera. Many enthusiastic speakers will often stress these themes. Sometimes it sounds like carrying coals to Newcastle. Myself, I will be the last to underestimate or even make light of the meaning behind these words.
Evidently there is a necessity to stress these concepts in inter-religious and multicultural encounter. In a world of ethnic violence and religious tensions the aim for communication and meetings should have top priority. For the stranger, the Other is unpopular. And as long as a talk, a discussion is going on there will be less victims of violence.
Because of the high urgency in striving for tolerance and religious pluralism, theological questions within each religion will be underexposed.

Because of the high urgency in striving for tolerance and religious pluralism the theological questions that arise within each separate religion often hardly surface at all. The theological challenge is not being met often enough. Especially the following question is not thoroughly reflected upon: Is there a true theological space for the Other, for the one with a different religion, within one’s own religious identity?
Apart from the undeniable task to enter into a bilateral Jewish-Christian dialogue (which I think has a certain priority for Christians) and the general need for a multi-religious encounter, there is  the necessary and unavoidable task of trilateral dialogue of the three monotheistic religions, between Jews, Christians and Muslims. With some shame I must admit that especially those people who actively support the Church & Israel dialogue, do at times show their aversion of Islam, trying to up-grade their religious J-C dialogue against that with Muslims. I do hope today’s conference may contribute to a new beginning.

In the Netherlands many organisations are active in the struggle against prejudice between separate ethnic groups and religions. Most often the language which is used is the vocabulary from the Age of Enlightenment, derived from anthropology, psychology and sociology.
Again, this is a 'Gebot der Stunde', driven by necessity of time. I am thinking of the important work of the Anne Frank Foundation and many other anti-racist organisations. But within churches the theological agenda that should flow from these activities is often neglected. For anti-judaism has not been banished at all from church and theology. Islamophobia is a ubiquitous phenomenon in Christian circles. I would remark that Jews and Muslims have the task to note and counter similar phenomena in their own circles.

But it is my foremost task to look at my own Christian environment. And then I note that the vocabulary of Enlightenment is often restricted to an elite group, often within an academical context. It does not strike at the heart of  religious language within the Christian religious identity.
This theological challenge is still before us. Can a theological language be found in which one does justice to the Other? Is there true theological space for the Other? That means: as the Other as he/she understands himself – thus not how he or she is modelled by us. The Other on his of her own terms, not ours. For Christians this is an almost insurmountable task. The ballast of the past is too heavy. Rightly it has been noted that within the three monotheistic religious it has been Christianity, which has always been most intolerant.[1]

Addressing one’s own theological agenda is preparing for dialogue. After that and next to that one has the task of looking for a common language of dialogue and most of all for a potential of symbiosis.
One may ask whether the past will provide positive examples (next to the many negative ones) of a symbiosis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In the Sevilla meeting in July 2000 of the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) proponents of the three religions spoke about the model of Convivencia, the co-existence of Jews, Christians and Muslims in 12-th century Spain. The question is: Could this model provide inspiration for our time? Or has that specific situation in the 12th century been mainly determined by economic and political constraints if those days? Should we actually speak – with many historians  – of a myth of the so called ‘Golden Age’ in Spain? For that ‘golden’ age ended in a catastrophe of unheard up proportions for Jews and Muslims.

Contexts, agenda’s and perspectives of the three monotheistic religions are quite distinct these days. Their collective memories block an uninhibited dialogue. Jews and Muslims are able to speak to Buddhists rather more easily than with Christians. With regards to Christianity most Jews think of suffering and persecution. Jews are distrusting the present-day need for dialogue on the part of Christians. And sometimes with reason – as we notice in recurrent incidents. But yet, I think, distrust is not always justified. The burden of proof is on the Christian side. Which makes me stress over and over again that the ‘theological homework’ of Christians should not be put aside and taken too easily.
I do hope Jews and Muslims are also intensively involved wit their ‘homework’ and we could then meet around these themes and look for a language of dialogue. In the past we have too often focused on the homework to be done by others. .[2] On my table there is foremost my Christian homework. It should be noted first that on this subject-matter there is no such thing as the Christian vision. A multitude of opinions abound.[3] Thus I cannot speak for the Christian tradition, but I pretend to move within the boundaries of Christians tradition.

How do we attain in dialogue and trilateral dialogue the stage of an authentic meeting instead of polemic and apology? This is far from simple. To give an example, I attended a conference for Jews, Christians and Muslims a few years ago on the theme of Fundamentalism. All the three keynote speakers apologetically indicated that fundamentalism did not exist within their particular religion. The expression “If the shoe fits, wear it!” did not apply there.
Islamophobia in fundamentalist Christian circles was not al all discussed. It should be noted here that the very pioneers of Jewish-Christian dialogue have also exhibited their lack of understanding with regards to Islam. I am thinking of great names such as those of Franz Rosenzweig and K.H. Miskotte. A short quotation from the English translation of  Stern der Erlösung by Franz Rosenweig should suffice as an illustration. He imagines Islam as the utter negation of Judaism and Christianity. Mohammed is supposed to have borrowed terms without appreciating their depths. A quote: "Mohammed was proud of having made religion easy for his followers. He has made it too easy. He thought he could save them en himself the need for inner conversion. He did not know that all revelation begins with a great Nay."[4]

True acquaintance and sincere encounters are the best antidotes against all forms of distortion and misunderstanding. 'Dialogue' has become its most accepted international term. But what is ‘dialogue’? It seems to be an amalgamate of several kinds of activities. One distinguishes between dialogue of life being the spontaneous talk between religious groups living close to each other, and discursive dialogue being the intellectual exchange of information and discussion, and the dialogue of needs being the practical cooperation between religions on the platform of peace and justice, and finally spiritual dialogue being the meeting of hearts between believers, up and including praying together.[5] All of these forms seem important and necessary to me.

For all of these forms theological preparations and reflections remain necessary. Amongst Christians this will have to lead in the first place to recognizing gross failures in the past against Jews and Muslims. This culpability will have to be publicly acknowledged, not only the sins perpetrated by individuals but also by churches as collective. And this not only as a kind of fashion during the Jubilee Year 2000.    

During the meeting in Seville in July 2000 the workshop on ‘theology of the trilateral dialogue’ was the one best visited. Being this meeting’s moderator I attempted to phrase a number of essential questions after the end of the meeting.

1. What have we  – Jews, Christians, and Muslims – learnt from mistakes made in the past. And what effect does this acknowledgment of mistakes have on the way in which we understand ourselves?
2. What do we mean with ‘revelation’? Is it theologically possible to discuss revelation within our own religion in terms other than  ‘eschatological’ and ‘final’?
3. Are we capable of avoiding the road towards universalizing and harmonizing our three religions, so that we not only admit but celebrate our differences?  Can we even see these differences as coming from the Supreme Being, which we call ‘God’?
4. In preaching and teaching, how do we deal with negative images about the Other in our Holy Scriptures and separate traditions?
5. Are we convinced that people of the other monotheistic faiths pray to the one and only God, to the Holy One Blessed be He, to the Merciful, To the Father and Creator of all peoples?
6. How has trilateral dialogue influenced and even changed our own religious identity? Can we accept inter-religious meeting as a divine assignment, in which we can receive a deepened insight into God’s mystery and reality?

This cluster of questions may be pointed towards the more specific Christian homework. Just a few relevant points can be made at this moment.
 1. In a too easy way there is often spoken about ‘the family of Abrahamic religions’. This common origin in Abraham should make it possible to unite Jews, Christians and Muslims.[6] Kuschel has rightly made the point that each of the three religions maintains its own Abraham-myth and aspires to a full and exclusive annexation of the figure of Abraham.[7] He presents three remarkable paradoxes: the process within Judaism of halachisation and judification of the non-Jew Abraham; the process within Christianity toward a christianising and ecclesiastic framework of the non-Christian Abraham; and the process within Islam of Islamizing the non-Muslim Abraham into a paragon within Islam. A dialogue about Abraham between the three religions seems out of the question if each of the three separate religions maintain their absolute claim on Abraham.
But universalising Abraham seems historically and theologically an impossible road, which would lead to a kind of syncretism, which would not be acceptable to any of the three religions. Kuschel wants to call the three religions to acknowledge the presence of Abraham in the other religion.[8] This minimum of what one could agree on in dialogue would also encompass the maximum of what is theologically attainable.

2. Dialogue does not mean looking for the largest common denominator. The integrity and particularity of the other is untouchable. The philosopher David Hartman (Jerusalem) is of the opinion, that God has entered into a series of covenants with different peoples and communities. From that perspective He may call his fellow Jews "to celebrate the dignity of the stranger in our midst"[9]. It is dangerous to universalise love for the Other who is a stranger. "Love is always particularized; those who seek to universalise it make it empty and meaningless", Hartman writes.[10] In dialogue the particularity of the Other may be celebrated and one may look for the theological fruitfulness yielding from differences between religions.[11]
The core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam cannot be harmonized into a common denominator. The place that Torah takes for Jews is taken by Jesus Christ for Christians and by the Quran for Muslims. If in trilateral dialogue the incomparable would be compared and discussed, the subject should be the Jewish vision on Torah, the Christian view on Christology and the Muslim view on ‘Quranology’.

3. A Christian fundamentalism and absolutism mark an end to each dialogue. Within Christian identity theologians should look for space for believers of other faiths.
The World Council of Churches seems to find this space mainly in a theology of religious pluralism.[12]  But one could question: is it not impossible to maintain a standpoint above and beyond the religions? We do not have an kind of divine overview above our particular experiences. The universal model of the Enlightenment, which was defended by Lessing in ‘Nathan der Weise’, gives the impression of attempting to rise above particularistic religions by means of education and progress, yielding a new humanitarian religion.
Several attempts have been made to find room for the otherness of the Other within Christian tradition. One may refer to the person and history of Abraham, who is considered as founder by all three monotheistic religions.[13]  This view should however be supplemented by a dynamic covenant theology and by reflections on pneumatology.[14] Speaking of the covenant of God that is everytime renewed and widened, offers points of contacts for a dialogical theology.[15] And if  Christians are convinced that Abraham’s promise has been directed to all peoples by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, then they cannot escape the question - in dialogue with Muslims - how they view Mohammed as a special envoy of God. Then a pneumatological meaning has to be found in the fact that the Name of the God of the Bible has been brought on the lips of Arabs and many other peoples by means of Mohammed.[16]

4. Could Christian tradition create space for others, not only in a practical and existential sense as human beings, but also on an eschatological and soteriological level?  Christians most of all have excluded others from the ultimate salvation. Jews can regard Muslims and Christians as ‘Sons of Noah’, Muslims can regard Jews and Christians as ‘Peoples of the Book’. But for many centuries Christians have adhered to Cyprianus’ tenet Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And the Reformation turned it into “Outside Christ no Salvation”. In 1965 the Second Vatican Council broke new ground with the Council document Nostra Aetate. For many Protestants it seems to be a difficult road to leave to God the ultimate judgment over others. They like to judge themselves.

5. Are Christians prepared to enter into an open dialogue by means of questions posed by the Other? Can questions of Jews and Muslims about for Christians central themes such as incarnation and trinity spark theological reflection that goes beyond polemic and apologetics? Or is it a foregone conclusion that these themes will remain unchanged the Christian identity forever?[17] Or can other monotheistic believers help us frame our minds about ourselves and God in ways, which we could not have reached without their help? In other words: are we in dialogue principally open to change? There are many testimonies of people, which have been shaped or even changed by entering into a dialogue with others.[18]

6. Should Christians perhaps postpone questions about truth and give precedence to acts, to ethics?  Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt is one who proposes to postpone questions around trinity to the Eschaton, in which God will at last speak and justify Himself.[19]
Jews often ask for priority for ethical questions within dialogue. Norman Solomon has posed a sharp question for Christians in this regard: “They must not be surprised if others regard ethics, law, technology, economics en other ‘natural’ subjects as more relevant to improving the human situation than their metaphysics.”[20] A quotation of the Quoran could be supplemented by many quotations from the holy books of Jews and Christians: “Have you observed him who denies religion? That is the one who repelles the orphan and urges not the feeding of the needy.” (Soera 107)

7. But: the emphasis on ethics does not need to preclude a spiritual dialogue. No action without prayer and mysticism.[21] Including forms of shared inter-religious prayer[22].