My colleague here at Union Theological Seminary, James Cone, wrote the following way back in 1992:
Although I am a Christian theologian, I contend that a just social order must be accountable to not one but many religious communities. If we are going to create a society that is responsive to the humanity of all, then we must not view one religious faith as absolute. Ultimate reality, to which all things are subject, is too mysterious to be exclusively limited to one people’s view of God. Any creation of a just social order must take into account that God has been known and experienced in many different ways. Because we have an imperfect grasp of divine reality, we must not regard our limited vision as absolute. Solidarity among all human communities is antithetical to religious exclusivism. God’s truth comes in many colors and is revealed in many cultures, histories, and unexpected places. — (James H. Cone, “Black Theology and Solidarity” in Lorine M. Getz and Ruy O. Costa, eds. Struggles for Solidarity: Liberation Theologies in Tension, Minneapolis, M.N.: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 47.)
What a ringing endorsement of the need for inter-religious dialogue and for a more “pluralist” Christian theology of religions! And it’s coming not from a scholar of comparative religions or from a John-Hick-type philosopher of religion — but from the father of Black Liberation Theology. His words are powerful and challenging for any Christian theology: there can be “no just social order” unless many religions are contributing to it…Ultimate Reality is too big for any one religion… liberating solidarity is “antithetical to religious exclusivism” … the Christian vision, like all religious visions, is “limited” and cannot regard itself as “absolute.”
Well, if James Cone has served up this endorsement of a more pluralistic theology and dialogue of religions, I would say that the ball is now in the court of us so-called theologians of religions and inter-religious dialoguers. Cone is basically saying that there cannot be any effective liberation without interreligious dialogue. I believe that those of us given to the dialogue of religions must respond with the admission that there can be no authentic dialogue without liberation. If a truly world-wide struggle for liberation calls for the dialogue of many religious communities, then the dialogue of religions must respond by making sure that when religions get together to talk, they don’t just talk about religion. They have to also talk about the realities of human and environmental suffering due to injustice.
When religious people come together to “dialogue,” the topics must be not only “ultimate reality,” “life after death,” “prayer and meditation;’ the dialogical agenda must also include human rights, poverty, housing, economic disparity, political policies. And as Jim Cone told me in one of our first conversations after I came to join the faculty here at Union Theological Seminary, inter-religious dialogue here in the United States must also talk about White Supremacy.
And of course, when religious people come together to talk about liberation and overcoming injustice, they can’t just talk. They will also have to act — to walk the talk together. James Cone, occupied all his life with the reality of racial and economic injustice, recognizes that he also has to engage in inter-religious dialogue. Christian theologians of religions (also called “comparative theologians”), occupied with the need for dialogue, must recognize that they have to engage in efforts toward liberation.
“Liberation and dialogue” — the two have to go together. James Cone realized that back in the early 90s. I hope that more and more people — theologians or whoever — can share that realization.
I really appreciate this entry, Dr. Knitter, and I would take it one step further, possibly to an even more challenging arena. Many of us progressive seminarians seeking ordination in many denominations recognize and respect the limits of a religious paradigm. The devotional language we are subject to in our particular enclaves, however, is not always compatible or respectful to the religious other, who too seeks ultimate reality. I do not advocate for duplicitous behavior while being a part of both worlds–saying one thing while we are in the open academic forum, then saying another while in the pulpit. The challenge and necessity still remains, nonetheless, to bring the church someday, somehow to a (more than tolerating) recognition of the religious other, while at the same time nourishing people within the traditions in which they have been fostered and find meaning.
I too would like to thank you Dr. Knitter for this entry. It is so important that we seek liberation for all, understanding that the only way we can have true liberation is when we are ready to dialogue truthfully. It is also important to understand that there is a common ground that we all are seeking in our pluralist search for God. If we start from that basis…the common ground…how much farther would we be in inter-religious dialogue? How much more honest would we be about injustice of people if we were able to look at that person in the spirit of Namaste? I believe it would be a more liberating place to be in the world. Thank you again.
Thanks, Preston, for raising an important but delicate issue: how to bring classroom and pulpit into sync. Not easy, but certainly necessary: the theologian in the classroom has to keep connected with, and fed by, his/her church community. And the community needs to be challenged and nurtured by what’s going on in the theological academy.
How to do that on this issue of the other religions? I suspect that the most effective way to open the congregation to some of the more “progressive” attitudes towards other religions is not to try to convince them with all our theological expertise. Better to encourage and enable them to actually meet, get to know, and even make friends with persons of other religious traditions. That’s the best way of transforming theology: it’s hard to make a harsh, exclusive, or better-than-thou judgment on someone you like and just had a beer with.
And the best way to get Christians to make friends with Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims is to join them in shared concerns and shared tasks. That brings us back to Jim Cone’s insistence that we can best dialogue and make friends with each other when we are working together for liberation.
Stephanie, Thank you for your very important suggestion that some kind of common ground is needed for an effective dialogue between religions. the problem, at least for many academics (especially the postmodern kind), is how to find that common ground. Jim Cone and I are suggesting that the most available and the most urgent common ground is the suffering of human beings and the earth due to injustice. And one of the most horrible forms of injustice in this land of ours is racism.
This IS a promising and hopeful example of mutually transformative dialogue between liberation theology and pluralist theology! In order to respond to the dual reality of “many poor” and “many religions” in today’s interconnected world, I firmly believe, liberation theology must be “interreligious,” and pluralist theology “liberative.” I hope the Cone-Knitter exchange at Union will lay a foundation for an “interreligious liberation theology.” Please keep going!!!
Thanks, Kyeongil. The more student awareness and participation in efforts to join “dialogue and liberation,” the more we faculty will be called out to join in. So yes, let’s all keep it going.