LIVING IN A RELIGIOUSLY PLURAL WORLD -

PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES FOR DOING MISSION IN

ASIA

K.C. Abraham

I. In the late sixties and early seventies I was a student in Princeton, USA.
Princeton in those days was a quiet university town, predominantly Anglo-Saxon.
Worship places were exclusively Christian; apart from the Chapel in the centre of the
University, a gothic structure, there were Presbyterian and Episcopal churches in the
main street. In 1994 I went there to teach and on the street that leads to the university
there was an imposing building a mosque for Muslims. I was told that there was a
Hindu temple also.
Perhaps the same phenomenon is seen in all the cities in USA as well as in other
cities all over the world. Religious pluralism is a reality of modern life. Even in Arab
countries, minorities belonging to faiths other than Islam are allowed to have their own
worship places. A couple of weeks ago I visited Beirut, Lebanon where Christians and
Muslims lived in equal proportion. It was striking to see mosques and churches existing
side by side in many parts of the city. Religious pluralism provides an opportunity for
many people for greater exchange between different traditions and to some extent
appreciation of faiths and traditions that are different from ones own.
It is an undeniable fact that the multi-religious situation enriches our life and its
relationships. Therefore it is affirmed that the future lies not in shedding or suppressing
the particularities of our diverse cultural/religious heritage, but in finding non-hegemonic
ways to celebrate them.
1
Samartha writes, To reject exclusivism and to accept
plurality, to be committed to ones faith and to be open to the faith commitments of our
neighbours, to choose to live in a global community of communities, sharing the
ambiguities of history and the mystery of life- these are the imperatives of our age.
2
In
other words, Religious Pluralism is not only a fact of life but a value to be cherished and
nurtured. That is perhaps the fundamental challenge. And this value orientation comes
as a critique of the present civilisation that is built on the emphasis on privatisation.
The capitalist value of privatising ones own space and property and zealously
guarding it is at the root of modern development. Pluralism give an alternate vision. You
receive the other in your private space. It is this publicness that is difficult for us to
accept. In our religious consciousness we jealously guard our own God and religion in
our private space. We do not want other gods and religions to intrude into our space. But
pluralism comes as a demand of the other to come into our space. This requires a new
orientation altogether.

Dr. K.C. Abraham is the former Director of South Asia Theological Research Institute (SATHRI) and now
serves as Visiting Professor at United Theological College, Bangalore, South India.
1
J ames Athius: Towards an Ethics of Community, p.200. Canada Cooperation for Studies, Ontario, Canada.
2
Samartha, Globalisation and its Cultural Consequences in Ethical Issues in the Struggle for J ustice, eds.,
M.P.J oseph and Daniel D. Chetti, Tiruvalla, CSS/BTTBPSA, 1998, p.193.
2
Contemporary western societies have become acutely aware of the emerging
plurality as a new situation; but in many parts of Asia people have lived with plural
situations with opportunities and ambiguities that posed by them. Therefore some
lessons from those situations are important for building a common future.
Raimondo Panikkar has once said that people who write about global village have
hardly been to a village or lived in one. They tend to assume that it can be a monolithic
structure, that suppresses all differences and be centrally managed by bureaucratic
control. But those who still live in villages know that there are different units within it
maintaining their distinct style and shape but inter-connected, it is a mosaic of diverse
kinds.

II. Religious pluralism, however laudable and necessary, is also a problem. The
horror of September 11 is still weighing down on us. As someone said, you asked for
religious pluralism, and this is what you get. Yes, conflict arising out of religious
differences is a horror story. Demonic forces masquerading as religious loyalty is
destroying the fabric of civil society in many countries. In India the clash between
Hindus and Muslims centred on the construction of a worship place cost many lives. The
terrorist attack of a prestigious institution, Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore has
rudly shaken all of us. There are other troubled spots for e.g., Sri Lanka. Ethnic conflict is
raging in many parts of Africa, and even Europe is not spared by such conflicts.
While we need to analyse the factors leading to these conflicts, one thing seems
clear, religions are sometimes co-opted by forces that are non-religious political,
economic and even geopolitical forces. It is a mistake to link terrorism with a particular
religion. In Ireland terrorists are not Muslims, in Sri Lanka and in India we have Hindu
and Buddhist terrorists. Terrorism is born out of discontent and frustration produced by
extreme marginalisation and poverty. The increasing gap between the poor and the rich
will continue to be the breeding ground for conflicts and religion will be co-opted by the
forces that fight for their survival. No amount of arms and ammunitions will root out
terrorism; global justice is the only path to reduce the conflicts.
Terrorism has opened our eyes to look afresh at the social and political dynamics
of religious pluralism. My thesis is simple. Our discussion on religious pluralism
centred on inter-faith dialogue and co-operation on a formal level does not take into
consideration the ground realities. They tend to be abstract and theoretical. There is
enormous literature on it. For example, we have developed some typologies: Inclusivism,
Exclusivism and Pluralism. All these are helpful, especially if we consider religions as
systems of beliefs and doctrines. Certainly doctrines and beliefs constitute an important
part of religion. However, attitudes towards other religions do not neatly follow the
typologies identified. There are many mixed types!. One can be an exclusivist and
inclusivist at the same time. In fact both these attitudes are found within the same
religion. For this reason these typologies have limited usefulness.
A comparative approach to the study of religions mostly based on their belief
system does not address the realities of relationships between faith communities. Power
that is embedded in relationships and specially in the relationships between religious
communities is seldom reflected upon. Religious conflicts are not about doctrines and
beliefs; they are triggered by social and economic factors. The control of resources,
political power and the fear of losing one groups hegemony all these contribute a great
3
deal to the conflicts. Theology, the language for articulating ones faith experience should
emerge form this live in situations. We cannot move with a pre-fabricated scheme or a
typology emerged from a detached study. In fact people especially those who live in Asia
has a fund of knowledge that comes out of their experience of living together with people
of other faiths. But when they reflect theologically they tend to resort to a language that
has been arisen in another context. Without a measure of deconstruction they cannot
evolve any thing that is relevant to their experience and significant for their struggle to
build a just and peaceable future. It is sad that the churches in Asia are living on
borrowed theology, which provides little or no basis for reflecting the interfaith concerns.
Some of the attempts by theologians who wrote about inter-faith have made very little
impact on the life of our congregations. We need to pose the question of interfaith not
only as theological questions but as questions relating to power, justice and
community. It is in the area of human relationships some of the sharpest questions of
theology and faith should be raised. I am not proposing a comprehensive framework for
dealing with the phenomenon religious pluralism but I want to lift up at least three factors
that help us in our deliberations.
a) Religion under the impact of Modernity
All religions come under the pressure of modernism or modernity .It consists of
the impact of Western technology, and its value system and life-style. They are spread
all over the world by the process of globalisation. The media projects a new culture.
Often it is perceived as a threat to the traditional culture and religion. Three kinds of
responses are discernible. One, revivalism or fundamentalism. It is argued that
modernism/westernisation is destroying our culture, our identity and our religion. We
need to preserve the pristine purity of the traditional faith by resorting even to military
strength. The extreme form of this is evident in the Taliban regime. The movement has
not died down. In fact, the nurturing-grounds are madarasas schools run by their
religious teachers. They insulate their students from all forms of secular education of
science and critical knowledge. Behind this is the suspicion that the western
epistemology based on scientific and secular ideology is harmful. God is the sovereign
source of knowledge and therefore secular education is contrary to faith.
Two, the secular option. Some of the intellectuals within these faiths, although a
minority who are educated in the western liberal tradition adhere to a secular option,
embrace almost uncritically the western/modern science and secular education. Secular
option in the midst of multi-religious conflict seems to be an attractive option. In fact,
modern politics and education, regardless of any situation is secular. The secular values
are spread widely and to a large extent our life is secular. But any attempt to displace
traditional culture by western/secular culture i.e., the rejection of religion by secular is
not a realistic option. Shah of Iran and his experiment will be one example. The
difficulty is, no people can forget their past. The emergence of consciousness of their
cultural identity is one of the potent factors necessary for peoples development. Some
of the Indian thinkers make a distinction between closed secularism and open
secularism.
A third option is the synthetic model or re-interpretation model. It is agreed that
the traditional faith cannot remain frozen. Tradition is dynamic and it should be re-
interpreted in terms of challenges of modernity. It is said, Tradition is the living faith of
the dead and traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Gandhi is a good
4
representative of this view. He maintained his identity as a Hindu but absorbed liberal
ideas of the West and reinterpreted Hindu culture. He was also sensitive to the common
elements in all religions. The story is told that during the Hindu-Muslim clash a Hindu
who had killed a Muslim couple out of fury approached him. He was repentant and
asked Gandhi how to attain atonement. Gandhi told him to adopt a child of the parents
whom he had killed and bring the child up in Muslim faith.
There is another stream of re-interpretation in the liberation tradition. According
to it, the hermeneutical key is provided by the experience of the poor and the
marginalised. In a multi-religious context this option will provide the necessary
grounding and a direction that would integrate the mystical with the concrete prophetic
concern. In his response to Pankikars proposal for a cosmic confidence that sustains
an inter-religious response and cooperation, Paul Knitter points out that it needs to be
grounded and inspired by a preferential option for the suffering and the victims of this
world. He further elaborates this point,
But if our criterion for judging what is true or false, good or bad, is no longer
Is it in the Bible or the Upanishads or the Koran? but rather Does it remove
human suffering and promote life? if this be our criterion, then we cannot
apply it without listening to the poor and the victims. The oppressed, the
marginalised, those who in the past didnt count must also have a voice in a
soteriocentric dialogue; they must speak with and to the so-called experts. It is
their voice and their experience much more than exegetes, theologians,
popes, or even mystics that will tell us what in our religious beliefs and
practices promotes human well-being and thus what is faithful to our
scriptures.
3


Three trends outlined earlier fundamentalist, secular and reinterpretation/liberational
are found in all religions in varying degree of intensity. They often exist in tension
between each other. It is important to note these divergences of positions when we
discuss inter-faith cooperation. The fundamentalist strand in every religion aggressively
rejects any attempt to cooperate with different faiths. In fact they clash with each other,
especially in situations where they are a majority. But during the past decades we have
seen a broad alliance across different faiths by the second and third groups (i.e.,
secularists and reformers), which we have identified. All who are committed to inter-
faith cooperation should commit themselves to strengthen the alliance between these
groups across religions. They can also join hands with secular groups for common
struggles on justice. Together they will set the stage for a new political culture and for a
sustainable society. This alliance of progressive forces in religions will be a counter
weight against the obscurantist tendencies.

b) Religion and Identity
For many people religion provides a source for their identity as people, especially
when they face a crisis situation. After the holocaust it was important for J ewish people
to realise in a heightened way their identity. For poor and marginalized groups in Asia,
religion provides the rallying point for their struggle for human rights and justice.

3
Paul Knitter, Cosmic Confidence or Preferential Option, in Bangalore Theological Forum, Vol.XXIII, No.4, December
1991, p.23.
5
Religion and culture are the sustaining power of social and political movements. Some
points need to be noted.
i) Identity is always defined over against the other. Muslim identity is asserted over
against Christianity. People in Asia and Africa affirm their national identity over
against western dominance. Their culture and religion have been suppressed by
colonial rule in the past and the process of globalisation and economic domination
in the present.
ii) Identity is perpetuated by primordial symbols and sentiments like land, language
and historical memories. For the Palestinians the struggle for their land is so crucial
that consider occupation as an assault of their spirit. The tribals in the Narmada
valley are prepared to commit suicide when their forests are submerged in water.
Religious symbols are powerful in sensitising them to the realities around them.
New symbols of globalisation: T.V., KFC, McDonalds etc., are all considered an
assault on the traditional symbols and therefore on traditional identity. The
imposition of alien symbols hurt their pride a wounded psyche is created
iii) There is an awakening of marginal identities in many parts of Asia the tribals,
dalits and others. They naturally clash with a revival of nationalist ideology that
bears the stamp of religion. The pressure for maintaining a national identity and the
necessity for suppressed identities to organise are two forces that influence the body
politics. One should not be set against the other. Felixs observation
The challenge posed by the identities is cushioned by attempting to integrate
them within a national framework or common project. In the process, the
weaker power position in which the identities find themselves finally result in
their being effectively discriminated against. In sum, the ideology of
bourgeois liberal nationalism followed by the post-colonial states proves to
be quite detrimental to the cause of identities. Not very different is the cause
of religious nationalism which tends to suppress the difficult identities
through a hegemonic ideology.
4


In any situation of a healthy religious pluralism identities of different religions
should be preserved. However, we need to reject all absolutising claims in the name of
identity, all ethno-centric programmes distort the web of human relationships. We
envisage a pluriform community of communities. This comes as a challenge to the
homogenising tendency to globalisation.

c) The Crisis of Institutionalised Religion and the Search for Spirituality
Organised religions have lost their authority over people but people seek a life
beyond the religions a spirituality that is non-religious. The picture is complex. In the
East, in Asia and other non-European contexts we witness a revival of religions. But
often they are being co-opted by fundamentalist and militant forces providing little hope
for people in their strivings for a just world. There is a liberative strain often preserved
and articulated by the poor and marginalized.
In the West there is conflict and rejection of organised religion. Life is organised
by modernists, technological culture. But there is a crisis of modernism effectively
articulated by post-modern critic. People are seeking meaning and community beyond

4
Felix Wilfred, op.cit., p. 10.
6
the material affluence and consumerist ideology. The discussion on sexuality and
ecology are indications of a search for spirituality that goes beyond the patterns of
relationships legitimised by organised religion. Perhaps the meeting point between East
& West should be spirituality relevant for our times. The focus of religious pluralism is
not in constructing a grandiose new religion, but this emerging spiritual question. The
spiritual core of the different faiths and the spiritualities of the poor and marginalized will
participate in ushering a new world.
- a world in which persons matter over systems and traditions. (The Sabbath
was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath. Mk.2:27).
- a world of harmony and cooperation. (The wolf and the lamb shall feed
together Isa. 65:25).
- a world where there is equality and justice (with righteousness he shall judge
the poor; and decide with equity for the meek of the earth Isa. 11:4.
- a world in which earth has not lost its sustaining power (a land where you
may eat bread without scarcity Deut. 8:9).
Spirituality is Liberational
The existing vacuum in secularism and modernity should be filled with a new
awareness of a spirituality that is dynamic, liberative and life affirming.
.
Power is the key element in the understanding of spirituality. The capitalist
concept of power expressed in having, consuming and dominating is accepted without
question by the modern society. The spirituality of all religious traditi9ons envision a
different view of power. Power in giving and sharing is celebrated by the Christian
faith and Buddhist tradition. J esus washed the disciples feet, the symbol of an
alternate model of power. Buddha taught that even the morsel in beggars bowl
should be shared. Sharing and not accumulation is the criterion for a liberated life.
Power which isnt shared which in other words, isnt transformed into love is pure
domination and oppression.
5
Unfortunately the institutionalised religion has lost this
emphasis and becomes a tool of the ruling classes. Aligning with the politics of
vested interest, it has distorted its spiritual core. How can we recover this spiritual
core?
Communication and community are other elements of spirituality. The coming of
the Spirit in the Acts marks the beginning of a new community, the Church. We are also
told that people of diverse languages understood each other (Acts 2:1-3). A new
language was born with the birth of the community a language of love. This was
further expressed as mutual responsibility (Acts 3:32-37). They became a caring
community. The fruit of spirituality is the community of love.
Today we are in the age of communication. Technologies shortened the physical
distance between people; but they have failed to bring about a community of mutual
respect and love. Conflicts based on religions and ethnic loyalties are on the rise.
Technology is power; the dominant groups tend to usurp this power to their advantage.
The divide between the haves and have-nots has widened. A spirituality that addresses
this distorted relationship is justice oriented.
The above three factors the response of religions to modernism, their link

5
Dorothee Solle, Choosing Life, SCM Press, London 1981, p.55.
7
with identity struggle, and spirituality as a way of moving beyond institutionalised
religion are important for evolving an adequate framework for understanding religious
pluralism. They help us to forge an approach to religions transcending their narrow
limits. Having discussed the question of religious pluralism in general terms, we need to
look specifically at Christian concerns.

Trinitarian model of Unity
A theological framework for plurality is provided in recent discussions on Trinity
(J urgen Moltmann: The Trinity and the Kingdom of God; Leonardo Boff, Trinity and
Society. Undifferentiated monotheism, it is observed, leads to legitimising monarchical
order a unity under dictatorship. Trinity, is unity in community. Using a concept
borrowed from early teachers, perichoresi: interpentartation, the unity-in-relation of three
persons of trinity is made clear. According to it, each divine person penetrates the other
and allows himself to be penetrated, each maintaining identity but sharing community
(J n.14:11,17). Unity of equal partners bound by mutual love is a model that expresses
divine reality. Our relationships in the church and society should follow this model.
Boff points out the church should be a true communion rather than hierarchy, more
service than power; more loving embrace than bending the knee in homage. The order
that promotes the domination of the centre is far from this ideal. Plurality expresses this
reality. It maintains different identities, but strives for a unity in dialogue. Each
assimilates the other, without destroying the identity of the other. Pluriform unity is the
glorious celebration of the Triune God.
Any system or ideology that is used to protect ones own vested interest at the
exclusion of the other distorts Gods purposes for humanity. On the other hand the
relationship based on plurality, unity that allows different identities to co-exist can be a
humble expression of the mystery of Trinity.

Mission as Sharing
If we accept a pluralistic framework in our relationships with other faith our
mission practice ought to undergo a change. A conviction that is growing in many circles
of theologians is that we need to move away from a triumphal model of mission to a
solidarity model. I want to develop this view suggesting a framework on mission as Life
Giving.
In a situation where Gods gift of life is continuously threatened, vitiated and
destroyed by many forces of death like war, religious fanaticism, economic exploitation
and others, we need to reflect on Gods life giving mission. Mission is Gods mission of
life giving. Our mission is to discern Gods act and testify to it in our lives. The clue to
our discernment is the Biblical witness, especially the life and death and resurrection of
J esus Christ. But we have a task in interpreting it by our words and action. In an attempt
to evolve a theological framework for Christian Mission, let us look at some of the
Biblical insights about Gods life giving presence in our midst.

One, God is a God of life and to believe in God is to participate in the life giving
activity of God.
Mission is an endeavour of the Christian community to celebrate and to enhance
Gods gift of life. The essential character of life, which the community shares with other
8
human beings and nature, is inter-relatedness. In responsibility to one another and to
nature life is preserved and Gods purpose for it is fulfilled. The question the mission
should pose is How can the structures of relationships family, community, economics
and politics- be life enhancing. They have reduced persons into non-persons. We are all
consumers and not life givers.
To believe in God of life is to affirm the supremacy of life over death. This also
means any assault on life- hunger, destitution, squalor, oppression, injustice is an attack
on God, on Gods will for the life of humankind. A denial of life therefore is a rejection
of the God of life.
6
The demand of the God of life in Christ, the rationale for mission, is a
demand for life abundant. Where J esus is, there is abundant life, vigorous life, loved life
and eternal life
7
J esus said I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly (J n.
10:10).
We live in a situation where life is violated. From religious conflicts to nuclear
disasters, one could draw up a long list of violence we commit to one another and to
nature. Our tendency to reduce all these to sin and selfishness is often an abstraction. In
the modern world sin and selfishness assume corporate and structural character; greed is
a personal sin, but is operative in organised form in our economic system. Caste and
Racist structure cannot be reduced to personal categories. They have logic of their own.
That is why our faith in a God of life and witness to God be expressed as a commitment
to values, practices and institutions that enhance life and as rejection of systems and
structures that diminish and extinguish lives of many. Mission of salvation and the task
of humanization are integrally related to each other even if they cannot be considered
identical
8

Two, The God of the Bible is a liberator God and faith in the liberator God calls
for struggle against all forces of oppression.
Liberation is not the invention of theologians of Latin America or of Marxists. It is a
central affirmation of the Bible. The living God in the Bible is a liberator God.
Only in solidarity with the victims of the system and the broken people can we witness to
the liberating power of God in Christ. The cross is the sign of solidarity. J esus washes the
disciples feet- another sign of solidarity. Admiring Christ in the church does not
necessarily mean following him. The worship of Christ without participating in his life,
his sufferings and his death has become the peculiar form of piety today. As someone
said there is kind of Christo fascism prevails in the church. The flag is waved to
impress and even to conquer.
The liberation thrust helps us to enter into a dialogue and cooperation with people
of other faiths.
Three, the God of the Bible is also a God of justice. The goel, the defender of the
widows, aliens and others who have no rights is the God of the O.T. J ustice in the Bible
is not about balancing rights and duties and rewards. It is not even about an absolute
equality. It is about just relationships. Necessarily it involves the administration and
distribution of powers. Exclusion and marginalization are two forms of injustice that turn
distorts our relationships. It is a mission imperative that we struggle against them. Life

6
Quoted in Araya, God of the Poor, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 1987.
7
Moltmann, The Passion for Life, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1978, p.19.
8
M.M.Thomas, Salvation and Humanisation, Madras, CLS, 1971, p.8
9

cannot be lived in full without justice- without the inclusion of the powerless. Power
that is not shared or transformed into love is pure domination and oppression.
9

One of the unique insights of the Bible about justice is that it is inseparable from
compassion. Listen to the words of Micah. To do justice, love compassion and walk
humbly before God. (6:8). This is mission. We are so used to passages that ring a
triumphant note as the basis of our mission. Seldom we pay any attention to those
testimonies of compassion, like Pauls words in II Cor. 1:3-7 Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord J esus Christ, the father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who
consoles us in all our affliction so that we may be able to console those who are in any
affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. The
underlying logic of mission changes. It is solidarity not the self-assured conquest.

Life is what we share with others, Life in all its fullness is given to us in J esus
Christ; It is life for others. We witness to that life, enhancing by love, liberation and
justice.
In conclusion I want to suggest that Mission is

a) A commitment to values and structures that enhance life;
b) A critical rejection of forces and practices that destroy life, even if they are
legitimised by religions;
c) Solidarity with the victims, suffering of the world for their liberation;
d) A lifestyle that rejects patterns of domination and excessive use of resources, natural
and human;
e) Build communities, even small, local that live out life-giving mission.

Commitment, critical involvement, solidarity, life style and building community: these
are the essential characteristics of mission. This life-affirming mission gives a basis for
the cooperation of all religious traditions and secular ideologies with the Church. We are
in the threshold of a new era of religious cooperation. It can be usurped by forces that
exploit religions for selfish aggrandizement. God has created one world with diverse
peoples living in harmony and in loving and caring relationship with one another is an
urgent task committed to each and everyone.

Religious pluralism is theologically as well as missionally important. This brief
exploration may be concluded with the words of Samartha who has given us valuable
insights into the phenomenon of religious pluralism. The plurality of religions and
cultures, of languages, ethnic identities and social systems, is the best defence against the
forces of domination and the push towards uniformity.
10








9
Dorothee Solle, Chossing Life, p.96.
10
op.cit., p.193.