|
Interfaith co-operation is possible through inter-religious dialogue as a rigorous discipline away from empty rhetoric on brotherhood and tolerance.
The purpose of the dialogue is not to convert the other, nor to prove that one religion is false. It is not even a question of preference or of free choice. Any dialogue is based on norms and common values. One
partner cannot be taken as matrix to the other partner. Any religion has an essence or a substance away from historical accidents. A reformist movement is essentially a turning back to this essence after it was
confused with its historical accidents including human passions and social interests. Any religion begins by its own enlightenment called revelation identical to human understanding and natural perfection, namely
the identity between revelation, reason and nature. This identity can be considered as the essential concept while all other religious components such as dogmas, rituals, institutions, law, history and symbols are
peripheral concepts.
Any religion has two tendencies. The first is traditionalist, dogmatic, ritualistic, institutional and legal, the outcome of history, of human and
social interactions. Bergson called it the static religion. It is the version studied by sociologists of religion, anthropologists and historians, especially if they adopt a positivistic approach to religion,
religion as social phenomena as Durkheim did.(1) It is the version which makes mystics and free thinkers revolt against religion. It is the version of the scribes, the elders, sects like the Phariseer, whom Christ
criticised in the Sermon on the Mount, which Luther criticised in his reformation against Roman Catholicism, which Buddha went beyond against Hinduism, which Confucius also left behind in the old Chinese religions
included in the I Ching, which all mystics rejected as the religion of law, not of love, a Halaka not Hagada, a Shari’a not a Haqika. It is the version which made some free
thinkers look for a natural religion like Lessing, Roussseau and Tolstoy or become completely atheist such as Feuerbach. This version represents the peripheral concepts of religion.
The second tendency is liberal, spiritual, modernist, moral, internal, individual and human, the outcome of deep religious experience coming from the
depth of the human heart. Bergson (2) called it the Dynamic Religion. It is the version analysed by psychologists of religion, phenomenologists, mystics and poets, such as W. James (3) and Van Der Leuw.(4) It is the
version which makes the elites and free thinkers attached to religion, defending rational religion like Kant, natural religion like Lessing. It is the version of the prophets not of the scribes or rabbis, of the
mystics not of the jurists, Hagada against Halaka, Ta’wil against Tanzil, esoterism versus exoterism, Confucius against ancient Chinese religion, Buddha against Hinduism, Socrates against
Greek polytheism, Christ against the merchants in the temple, Mohammed against idolatry. It is the version of each reformist movement, Luther against Roman Catholicism, Spinoza and liberal and reformed Judaism
against the Synagogue. It is the religion of the prophets, of Abraham against the Sabeans who worshiped the stars, of Moses against the Pharoahs, of the Essenians against the Phariseers. This version represents the
essential concept of religion.
The Credo is a peripheral concept in religion. A Credo was in the beginning a Worldview, an idea or a motivation for action. Then it was transformed into a thing. Christ is not only the unity between the ideal and the real, between spirit and nature but as he is a real historical event, a literal incarnation in flesh similar to the concept of reality in positivism. While in phenomenology, facts are between brackets, only essences can be perceived intuitively, and meanings can be understood rationally. The Credo is considered sometimes beyond human reason as a mystery, a matter of belief not of understanding. Doctrines of original sin, of salvation, the authority of the church, the papal infallibility in Christianity, of covenant and election in Judaism, of polytheism in Hinduism or ancient Chinese religions incite human reason to revolt in the name of human understanding. A dogma is not truth per se,
a theory having its criteria of validity in itself, but a simple means for action, a motivation for human behaviour. Therefore, a peripheral concept of a belief if it is conceived as a thing, as a mystery, or as a
theory per se, an inter-religious dialogue based on such a belief-system would be impossible since there is no room for common understanding.
Rituals are also a peripheral concept. Rituals are simple, external and symbolic gestures for something else. They do not express the essence of
religion. They can be performed as pure forms without content. They can be even used as a cover-up for other hidden motivations as is the case in hypocrisy. Rituals are external, piety is internal. All reformist
movements were anti-ritualistic and pro-pietistic. Confucius rejected the ritualistic aspect in ancient Chinese religion, making religion ethical, and determine social relations between the individual and others.
Socrates criticised the immoral concept of gods, competing and cheating, and defended a moral standard for religious life. Buddha also changed religion as gesticulation by the body to religion as internal
enlightenment. Christ rejected the external rituals like the Sabbath. The presence of God in the heart does not need external appearances. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic sacraments. The believer can live in the
moment his act of belief in direct relation with God without the intercession of the confession. Tolstoy conceived the kingdom of heaven as within us not outside. Rituals are a peripheral concept. It cannot be taken
as a norm in an inter-religious dialogue.
Since each religion has a belief-system and a legal system, a creed and a law, and since the creed is a simple motivation for good action, not a value per-se,
a thing or a theory, the law is also a peripheral aspect in religion. Religious law is neither proscription nor prescription, imposed by the Will of God on man. It is a simple moral law expressing human nature
tending towards its perfection. The penal code harsh or lenient in inconceivable since the purpose of religion is not to punish. Religious law is a natural law, based on the affirmation of universal human values
such as life, reason, truth and honour. The law binds while nature frees. In each religion there is an external quarrel between the literal and the spiritual meaning of the scriptures. The literal meaning is usually
the legal one. In Christianity it is the opposition between law and love, in Judaism between the Halaka and the Hagada, in Islam between jurists and mystics, between Tenzil and Ta’wil. Kant made the
external canonic and religious law a simple moral law. So did Fichte in his Axiomatics of All revelations. Spinoza conceived the Jewish law anchored in the heart of man as a natural law, not that of the
Sanhedrin. Religion as law is a peripheral concept while religion as social content is more linked to the essential concept which permits an open dialogue.
Each religion is based on the concept of the holy: the holy book, the holy church, the holy father, the holy land, the holy city, the holy history, the
holy place, etc, as if the holy is a thing in space separate from the profane. These things are simply symbols, indicators, eschatological signs for something else, the significance. The person of the prophet is not
holy. He is a simple means to communicate the word of God. A fortiori the Pope or the priest as any human being are not holy. The Book is a simple bunch of inked papers bound together. The holiness does not come from the papers but from the Word written in them after being heard and understood. The holiness comes from the self, projecting its own admiration on the thing admired, a person, a thing, a place or an institution. The church has nothing holy. It is a pure human institution inherited from history. The land has nothing holy. It is only the remembrance of certain events which occurred in the land which makes it holy. The city has nothing holy except by nostalgia of the past. History has nothing holy. It is only a field of occurring events. The believer projects in it his own hopes and wishes for future salvation. While life is holy, no one can exterminate it. Nature is holy. No one can destroy or waste it. The holy is a peripheral concept in each religion, and cannot serve as a basis for inter-religious dialogue.
The institution belongs also to the peripheral concepts of religion. It is a man-made construction in a special socio-historical context. It has
nothing to do with the essence of religion. On the contrary, it betrays that essence all the time. An institution after all is a man-made one. God does not come in person to build a church, to establish a synagogue
or to construct a temple. The church is the Roman temple having a new function. The synagogue is the Jewish place to celebrate in community. The mosque is a new spatial form of Arab pre-Islamic gatherings. The Hindu
temple is a place for the poor to meet, an occasion for festivities and folklore. The institution has a power function to administer the community of believers, to have control on the lives of the people. That is
why it is challenged by the political institution, generating a power struggle between church and state. All reformist movements were against religious institutions. Their ideal was to establish a religion of the
spirit without the authority of the institution as Luther wanted. The institution was always a source of oppression to reformers and free thinkers. The inquisition was a religious institution. The institution is an
usurpation of the power of God as well as of man to empower itself against both God and man. The institution is also a peripheral concept which cannot serve in inter-religious dialogue.
Finally, history is a peripheral concept in religion. Religion is different from its manifestations in history. There is a distinction in level between De jure and De facto, between Sein and Seinsollen,
between facts and norms. The history of salvation is something, and salvation is something else. Saint Augustine already made a distinction between the City of Earth and the City of God in De Civitate Deii. All that
occurred in history is a part of human history. The distinction between Christianism and Christianity is made on that norm. Luther’s protest movement was just to consider the church as a part of history, not
belonging to the essence of religion. Otherwise, religion will be responsible for all that happened in history in its name, under its pretext or under its cover-up. Killing, persecuting, burning, excommunicating,
condemning, expelling and anathemising, apostatising, etc, all these exclusive actions belong to history not to religion. If history was religion, no religious man would have existed. The implementation of religion
in history is a religious target but what version of religion and to whom? History, even if it was the history of salvation, is a peripheral concept, not an essential one. It cannot serve as matrix in any
inter-religious dialogue.
In return, there are essential concepts which can serve as good matrices for inter-religious dialogue. Instead of Dogma, there is Transcendence, which
means etymologically going always beyond, looking always for the summit, tending always towards the infinite. Transcendence frees human minds from dogmatism, fixation, deification and materialism. It is based on the
distinction between the finite and the infinite, the visible and the invisible, the seen and the unseen, the material and the formal, …etc, Solvitur in Excelsis. That is why Leibniz was able to make his
Oecumenism. On the top of the mountain, all sides meet. Transcendence as a metaphysical concept appears as a universal code of ethics, a norm of behavior, a value to cope with. It is equal to rational evidence, to
an inclination in the human being to look always for the beyond. In the universal, all the particulars meet. Transcendence protects the equality of all peoples, cultures and religions. They are all equal de Jure. It is a motivation for struggle against all forms of inequality which may exist de
facto. With Transcendence a dialogue becomes possible because all partners are equal. They share a common purpose. They tend towards a common target. Without the spirit of Transcendence, the partners will
struggle with each other, every one would pretend to be holders of the truth. Or, they may stay apart form each other under the pretext of pluralism which makes room for co-existence, not interchange.
The concept Transcendence leads to another essential concept, that of Unity. Since Transcendence motivates human consciousness to go always beyond, the
highest point is only one, the Vanculum Substantiale of Leibniz. Less than one, dualism, triadism or pluralism give more possibility for moving, going always beyond to an original unity. Most philosophical systems were in search for unity, the unity of origin is one material element, like the Eleates or in one rational principle, the Idea of Plato or the pure separated form. Mystics were also looking for unity, unity with the Cosmos or unity with God, Panentheism or Pantheism. All romantic philosophers and poets felt this unity in their philosophical systems, Schelling, Fichte and Hegel or in their poetic visions, like Goethe and Schiller. The unity of origin, the unity of destiny, the unity in life, in human personality, between thinking, feeling, saying and doing, in society between social classes and of mankind against all forms of distinctions based on colour, race or religion are all different forms of unity. Unity is the essential concept behind all experiences of love, respect, friendship, dedication and sacrifice. In inter-religious dialogue, the unity of the partners is presupposed. The whole dialogue is meant to lift up the differences, to discover the divergences in order to be reoriented towards the convergences.
Instead of rituals which are peripheral there is the good deed which is essential. Prayers may differ in form, but they are alike in piety. Fasting may
differ in quantity but all forms of fasting are alike in quality. The good deed is this one which is agreed upon by all national beings, feeding the hungry, helping the needy, protecting the fragile, greening a
desert, bringing water to arid areas. The good deed is the expression of bounty in nature, since nature is good, created by the bounty of God. It is not only the individual deed but also the communitarian one,
realising the maximum common good for all. To serve is a high form of a good deed. To give without return, to initiate without even waiting to be reciprocated, to sacrifice one’s self for the sake of the whole, as
in martyrdom, is a highest form of the good deed. The good deed is the only criteria of redemption on the last day when every individual will be judged according to his merit. The good deed is the essential concept
which makes any inter-religious dialogue possible.
If dogmas were mysteries beyond human reason, if symbols and images are taken literally, then human reason comes, as an essential concept which makes
interfaith dialogue possible. Human reason after all is what makes human beings able to communicate with each other. It is a natural given, a natural light in every human being, a Lumen Naturalis. The
argument of reason is more communicative than the argument of authority, authority of the text of authority of the tradition. Human reason is common while text and tradition are subject to interpretation. Nothing is
mysterious in religion. Reason is capable of understanding all that is given to him as object of reflection. Even God is an act of cognition. Revelation and reason are identical, from the same order. In case of
apparent opposition between reason and the scriptures, reason is maintained and scriptures are interpreted in conformity with reason. Scriptures being subjected to different interpretations give only conjecture
while reason based on evidence gives certitude. Reason does not admit any tutorship above it, otherwise it will be a justification of oppression and dictatorship. Reason does not justify a pre-given but it poses its
own given. It is an essential concept in all possible inter-religious dialogue.
Against the institution as a peripheral concept to religion, human freedom comes as an essential concept. The individual is a whole institution, free
and autonomous. In Islam, the freedom of the will is the principle of individuation which makes it possible to understand that something else exists different from god and outside him. Human reason can prove that
God exists by all possible known demonstrations of the existence of God, ontological, cosmological, teleological, etc, while free will is the only way to prove that the individual exists. I am free, then I am.
Islamic Cogito is a practical one based on human freedom, not on human cognition. That is why Western approach is theoretical. while the Islamic one is practical. The first is epistemological, the second is axiomatic. Human freedom is the prerequisite of individual responsibility, the pre-condition of a just evaluation on the last day according to the law of merit. Man is born free, individually responsible for his own deeds, not carrying any wrong doing, an original sin which he did not commit. He can save himself by himself by his power of cognition to distinguish between right and wrong and by his freedom to chose the right not the wrong, without any need of an external saviour. Human freedom is an essential concept for any inter-religious dialogue.
Finally, if history is a peripheral concept, the community is an essential one. The individual is not a nomad living alone but is a member of a
community. This communitarian dimension in the individual requires the implementation of social justice through social solidarity and social cohesion, through individual initiative or through social commitment. The
public welfare precedes the individual private interest. Human solidarity is a positive value, undeniable by all rational beings. God created all mankind equal. The only difference is in virtue and excellence in
performance. Poverty is a man-made phenomena. It can be dealt with through human solidarity. Ownership is more public than private. Man comes and leaves this world having only his good deeds with him, not his
wealth. An interfaith co-operation is not only a matter of mutual understanding, respect and recognition but a matter of common projects for human survival and public welfare, strugglers against drought hunger,
disease, ignorance, illiteracy and under-development. These are essential concepts for inter-religious dialogue, and efficient and productive, away from brotherly mutual embraces and diplomatic exchanges.
References:
(1) E. Durkheim: Les formes élémentaire de la vie religieuse, PUF, Paris
(2) Bergson: Les Deux Sources de la Morak et de la Religion, PUF, Paris, 1955
(3) W. James: The Varieties of Religious Experience, Collier, N.Y. 1972;
(4) Van der Leuw: Religion, its Essence and Manifestation, Payot, Paris, 1955.
top
|
