The Dialogical Imperative

[Guest guest]

The Dialogical Imperative

By Michael S. Bos on February 28, 1997

 

In North America we are on the brink of interfaith living. This fact we cannot

deny or avoid. The only uncertainty lies in whether it will be helpful or

hurtful. Only those living in a Christian ghetto will be able to retreat from

this issue--but the retreat is only temporary. Even small town, rural America is

being challenged by religious pluralism. On a recent trip through rural Texas I

drove through a town of 1500 and noticed that next to Christ's Haven for

Children, there looms in the distance a distinctly different structure, a

Buddhist Temple. That this is occurring near " the Buckle of the Bible Belt "

demonstrates the pervasiveness of this new religious reality.

 

Global living has elevated dialogue as the means by which we engage other

cultures and religions. I celebrate the increase in exchange and learning, but

there is a fundamental supposition that causes me concern. Dialogue is viewed as

an open invitation to engage the other, the different. But is dialogue optional?

I believe that a biblical theology of dialogue would have to answer resolutely,

" No! " We, the Christian community, carry with us a dialogical imperative.

 

David Tracy has concluded that " Dialogue among the religions is no longer a

luxury but a theological necessity (95). Though his final conclusion is valid,

the assumption that dialogue was ever a luxury is deficient. Dialogue has never

been an optional activity for theology. At the center of all proper theological

thinking and praxis is dialogue; or one could say, there is no theology or

missiology without dialogue. The basis for this flows from an incarnational

theology reminding us that " The knowledge of Christ never comes to us apart from

culture, or devoid of any cultural baggage. Christ comes to us in the garb of

Christianity; and Christianity, in all its various forms, already involves an

inculturation of the faith.... A Christ without culture is a docetic,

non-incarnate Christ " (Gonzalez, 30).

 

The richness of this supposition is that the very thing that separates and often

divides us, namely culture (and religion), becomes the basis from which the

gospel is unfolded to us. This should lead us to seek out, dialogue with, and

learn from other cultures because it gives us continuing opportunity to discover

the fullness of the gospel. The potential distortion of the gospel always looms

close if cultural and religious monologue prevail. Therefore we must ever hold

as primary the unfolding of the gospel as dialogue between cultures, including

their religious dimension. Just as " the Word became flesh, " so too the gospel is

" in the flesh " we call the Gospels. Therefore, minimally, dialogue represents

the engagement between the culture in which the story of Christ is found and the

culture from within which we seek to receive it.

 

This has special import for those who view dialogue of the interfaith variety as

a betrayal of christological orthodoxy. Dialogue emanating from an incarnational

theology upholds the Chalcedonian formula of Jesus Christ being " very God and

very man. " Unfortunately, many have sensed a forced choice between interfaith

dialogue and faithfulness to Christ. Taking incarnational theology seriously

compels us to engage in dialogue knowing that by doing so we are not abandoning

our orthodoxy, rather we are living it out.

 

Having said this, I know that many will still feel reticent to embrace dialogue,

especially if labeled " interfaith. " Dialogue in a postmodern world implies that

one must accept other faiths uncritically. It seems to carry an implicit mandate

to embrace whatever one encounters. Because of this, people become uneasy with

interfaith dialogue--and they should if this presupposition is true! However in

searching Scripture to exemplify the dialogical imperative at work, we discover

a prototype of interfaith dialogue that demonstrates how the Israelites engaged

people of other living faiths.

 

In Hebrew Scripture we find an existing interreligious penetration that is often

overlooked or under-applied. It is easily missed by those who rely on a

synchronical approach to interpretation because only texts condemning the

idolatry of foreign gods are found. David Lochhead says:

 

The very logic of Hebrew faith, as we know it through the Hebrew scriptures,

relied on a sharp distinction between the God of the Patriarchs and the Exodus

on the one hand, and on the other, the 'other gods' which were worshiped by the

'nations' in general and the Canaanites in particular. Faithfulness, in the

apostolic writings as well as in the Hebrew scriptures, involved faithfulness to

the God who is known through the Prophets and Gospels as opposed to the many

gods and lords of surrounding communities. Openness to other traditions, in this

light, would seem to be openness to idolatry (40-41).

 

Even though Lochhead advocates the dialogical imperative, without using a

diachronical interpretative approach he overlooks the riches of the

interreligious dimension of Scripture. As we shall see, Israel's contact with

surrounding religions was not wholesale rejection but one of assimilation. All

too often even those who do uncover the similarities between Israel's faith and

religion miss the significance. The parallels are too casually attributed to the

cultural or literary influences in which the lsraelite's faith originated, but

it is more than this. It is a religious influence. We discover that interfaith

dialogue is not a recent phenomenon in the history of our faith, for it stands

at the heart of Israel's unfolding of the message of Yahweh in Canaan. There is

an intentionality in their encounter with other faiths whose fruits we see in

our Scripture. As we shall see, lsrael's contact with surrounding religions was

not wholesale rejection but one of assimilation. All too often even those who do

uncover the similarities between Israel's faith and religion miss the

significance. The parallels are too casually attributed to the cultural or

literary influences in which the lsraelite's faith originated, but it is more

than this. It is a religious influence. We discover that interfaith dialogue is

not a recent phenomenon in the history of our faith, for it stands at the heart

of Israel's unfolding of the message of Yahweh in Canaan. There is an

intentionality in their encounter with other faiths whose fruits we see in our

Scripture.

 

Dialogue implies encounter, openness, and learning, which leads to assimilation.

It is not incorporation carte blanche, but a process of discernment leading to

acceptance and/or rejection. In the Hebrew nomads' encounter with Canaanite

religion we see this process, demonstrating that it is more than literary

dependence: the content of the Canaanite faith is also being adapted and

adopted.

 

Let us briefly consider how El, the kind and compassionate high god of the

Canaanite pantheon, and Baal, the god of fertility and vegetation, were

encountered and assimilated into lsrael's understanding of Yahweh.

 

It is interesting to discover that nowhere in Hebrew Scripture do we find

antagonism between El and Yahweh. In El the Hebrews were able to assimilate and

articulate a broader understanding of Yahweh. Mention of " the stars of El "

(Isaiah 14:13) and " the assembly of El " (Psalm 82:1) are overt references to

Canaanite mythology. We also find the combination with El to form proper names

arising from the patriarchal worship of God, e.g., Gen. 14:22 (El Elyon), 16:13

(El Roi), 17:1 (El Shaddai), 21:33 (El Olam), and 31:13 (El Bethel). It is in

Genesis 33:20 that we find the clearest example of their conscious

identification of El with Yahweh: " There he erected an altar and called it 'El

is the God of Israel' " (El Elohe Israel). " One could say that El has been fused

with Yahweh in one way or another " (Wessels, 56). It may be an overstatement to

say that they equated El with Yahweh, but the absorption of El into their

understanding of Yahweh is clearly evident.

 

The encounter with Baal was quite different. Here Israel had to say " No " to

assimilation. Though they used some of Baal's characteristics to express their

understanding of Yahweh, the Israelites came to see the fertility cult of Canaan

as evil and adulterous to Yahweh. The climax is the contest on Mount Carmel (1

Kings 18), which is the familiar story of Elijah defeating the prophets of Baal.

 

The purview of this piece does not allow us to expand on the process of

assimilation, but it is sufficient to show that Israel said both " Yes " and " No "

to Canaanite religion, which implies an intentionality to the encounter. We

catch a glimpse of how the dialogical process works at unfolding the message of

God, for Israel did not adopt a position of total rejection (monologue) or total

acceptance (situationalism). It was only through dialogue that true

contextualization and communication of their faith was possible. From this we

learn that though an openness to discover and learn is critical in dialogue, so

too is it for the community to use its faith as a foundation from which to

discern whether incorporation or adaptation of another's ideologies and

practices are possible. A proper theology of dialogue casts fear of dialogue

aside because we realize that we do not set our faith aside when engaging

others.

 

As we stand on the brink of interfaith living, our scriptural and theological

roots remind us not to evade that which is culturally or religiously different.

Instead our faith calls us to seek out the opportunity to have the gospel

unfolded through dialogue. Though the dialogical process has not always been

named or officially recognized, it is clear that it stands as an imperative in

fulfilling the calling of the Church.

 

Works Cited

 

Gonzalez, Justo L. Out of Every Tribe & Nation: Christian Theology at the Ethnic

Roundtable. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992.

 

Lochhead, David. The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith

Encounter. Faith Meets Faith Series: An Orbis Series in Interreligious Dialogue,

ed. Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988.

 

Tracy, David. Dialogue with the Other: The Inter-Religious Dialogue. Grand

Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990.

 

Wessels, Anton. " Biblical Presuppositions For and Against Syncretism. " In Jerald

D. Gort, Hendrik M. Vroom, Rein Fernhout, & Anton Wessels, eds. Dialogue and

Syncretism: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Currents of Encounter: Studies on the

Contact between Christianity and Other Religions, Beliefs, and Cultures. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans & Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 1989, pp. 52-65.

 

http://www.gocn.org/resources/articles/dialogical-imperative