|
Wim
Holderbeke, CICM In Confucianism one does not worship God. Therefore, it is not a religion. That is, in short, the criticism I often faced when I told the Vietnamese priests I was living with at the Vincentian House in Paris that I was preparing a dissertation on inter-religious dialogue between Confucianism and Christianity. Put like that, it sounds of course overtly simplistic but I have to admit that it took me a long time to sort out the problem. It also reminded me of a difficulty we easily overlook when it comes to ID. We use the term 'religion' frequently, but what exactly is a religion? How is it to be defined? Don't we run the risk of comparing apples with lemons? Even the Catholic Magisterium at times seem to struggle with the concept, since it failed twice already to include Buddhism among the world religions. God is absent from Buddhism. Hence the problem. Probably. At this point, it would be very helpful if one could come up with a definition, which would allow us to include who is to be included and to exclude all the others. Such definitions, however, proposed by a multitude of different scholars from different scientific and theological back grounds, are never value-free and therefore often fail to convince. It might be more useful to recognize elements that are commonly present in all religions. By pointing out and accepting these similarities between the different religious systems, we already take a first step on the way toward ID. The moment non-Christian religions are no longer viewed either as exotic forms of superstition, or imperfect predecessors of the one true religion (ours, of course), the need to engage on the path of ID may become more evident. All religions start out from experience. People, small and vulnerable, is prone to experiences of transcendence, grandeur and eternity. The sacred reveals itself, be it in nature (natural religions) or as an auto-communication of the Numinous, the Divine, God (in revealed religions). People's first reaction to this hierophany is either faith or rejection. The religious people acknowledge that beyond the immediate perceptible world, still another reality looms, a reality that surpasses all inner-worldly experience. Whether or not this reality is perceived as personal is of little importance. The belief in a personal god is rather a modality of religious belief, than a condition of it. There is no such thing as immediate experience of God. At all times, symbols and myths will be needed to help people grasp the mystery that is in itself unspeakable. The word `God' is a symbol, as is 'Tian' or 'Nirvana'. Through these symbols the reality that transcends us all is made conceivable. 'God' is not necessarily a better, worse, truer term to indicate the unnamable than the impersonal 'Heaven' of Confucius, for symbols in themselves are neither true nor false. Only the reality behind them can be true. Religion does not only provide us with symbolic language, it still influences us in a different way. Our praxis, both religious arid ethical, changes. People who have experienced the Divine, pray, sacrifice, worship and celebrate. Through rituals the faithful express their dependence on the Absolute Reality that gives meaning to their life. Rites are faith made perceptible. But what you believe in also change your behavior. Religion creates meaning and answers to the fundamental questions that have tantalized humankind since the dawn of time: 'Where do I come from; why am I here; what is the final goal of my being here?' Religions propose answers to these questions, and as such offer a concrete pattern of behavior. Often it is the Divine itself that communicates its will. It bestows moral laws on humankind, thus providing the path toward true happiness. ID could prove its worth if it would succeed in preparing a system of global ethics, which would find its origin in the different religions' search for true humanity. Finally, faith materializes into an institution or an institute, wherein the difference between religious specialists and the common believers becomes something of a class distinction. A powerful magisterium of sages, prophets or priests defines orthodoxy and orthopraxis. The secular and the sacred get intertwined and the risk of straying away from the original ideals becomes more pertinent. Faith is no longer the result of experience, but rather the free response (to a certain extent) to an all-inclusive and rigid instruction transmitted from one generation to another. Constant conversion is needed to remain faithful to the original experience that is at the base of any particular religion. God created man and woman. Man and woman in return created the religions. They created plenty of them because of differences in their religious experiences, personal and social backgrounds, cultural and historical settings. Still, all might contain sparkles of the truth that transcend them. But not one has spoken the last word on the issue. And never will. As Christians we may consider ourselves lucky to be privileged witnesses of the Sacred showing itself in something as 'unholy' as a human person. Yet, that should not stop us from opening our minds and hearts for the Holy at work in other religious traditions. It will undoubtedly be an enriching experience. (Pedicab, SIN, December 2000)
Bringing the Word of God to different places in MISSION UPDATE, Winter 2000)
|