The ground rules for viewing other traditions and their adherents
are simple and far-reaching: Compare equal to equal- and allow others to
define themselves.
The first rule is obvious. Yet the apologist in us often makes it
too tempting to compare one’s own tradition in its ideal form with the
actual – or even specially bad- forms of other. For example, Christians
may flatter themselves with being the religion of love and peace over
against Jewish legalism or Muslim belligerence. As if the Christian
history had been so peaceful and loving, or as if Judaism and Islam did
not know of compassionate love and manifestations of Shlom/Salam.
The second rule guards against a more subtle, but equally
self-serving habit of religious folk. I refer to the habit of defining the
other’s religion in a manner enhancing one’s own value and
superiority. Or, when there are attempts at a positive evaluation of the
other, when we are drawn to those elements in the other’s religion which
are most attractive to us since they are similar to our own tradition.
Thus we Christians tend to construct and Christianized form of the
other’s tradition, paying little attention to how the other sees and
experiences, or to what is central and what is peripheral to that
tradition for its adherents.
It is important to recognize that also this latter habit, with its
positive intentions, is distorting in a self-serving manner. For it
suggests that we can only be positive by recognizing in others what we
like in ourselves. The ultimate expression of this attitude is the term
“anonymous Christians” for those of other religions that we approve of
, i.e. we can only express our approval by claiming that they are like us-
although “ anonymously”. For contrast, it nay be significant to
remember that the equivalent term in Judaism is “righteous Gentiles,”
i.e., a clear recognition that the other is not
like oneself - yet can be right and even righteous in the eyes of
God.
But I have not been asked to compare religions, but rather to give
a Christian view of Judaism and Islam. Even so, I do not understand that
assignment to give me dispensation from the above-mentioned laws of
comparative religion. On the contrary, a Christian view of Judaism and
Islam must be continually corrected by the listening, by the dialogue in which we can find out whether we have understood or
misrepresented the other. If we do not observe that law we are in danger
of breaking the precious commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness
against your neighbor.
In such continuous
process it often becomes clear that there is a great deal of symmetry
between religions- and even between “ the three religions of the
book”. For example, it is often said that an understanding of Judaism is
essential for Christianity- but that no such understanding of Christianity
is essential for Judaism. From the historical perspective of development
that may be true, since Christianity grew out of Judaism and Jewish
Scriptures became part of the Christian Bible,
while Judaism had its own integrity of development. When Christians have
difficulties with that symmetry, and with the Jewish desire to be left
alone, they should be reminded of how completely they have neglected the
theological and religious insights and challenges of Islam.
Such a
developmental pattern of Christian thought in its more popular form rests
on the feeling that the later is the better, the New Testament is superior
to the old, etc… without granting Islam the logical status of being even
“ newer”. And on all levels such a pattern leads to one of the
attitudes which have come to have dire results in human history. I have in
mind the habit of having the other play an inferior, negative or even
satanic role in one’s own pattern of salvation. AS to Jewish
–Christian relations, this can bee seen already in the Gospel of John,
where Jews have already become a symbol for satanic unfaith. It could be
said that the ultimate violence against the other is to use them as
negative symbols in one’s own system.
It is actually
against such attitudes of conceit that Paul is warning Gentile Christians
in Rome. 11:11-36- suggesting a mysterious coexistence between Church and
Israel side by side until the eschaton when Israel’s salvation is
assured on her own terms - “for the gifts and the call of God are
irrevocable.”
The Jewish thinker
Maimonides gives another example of “a positive role for the other”
when he sees Christianity and Islam as the positive bearers of Torah to
the Gentile world, i.e. a grateful recognition of the function of the
other.
The historical
perspective out of which the above reflections grow may, however, not be
the only or the most authentic perspective, once we allow the other to
define herself. From a historical perspective Islam “begins” in the
seventh century of the Christian era. But such is a modern historical
perception. If I understand it right, for Islam Muhammad in not the
originator of a religion but a prophet in continuity. Not only is there
the common roots of our three faiths in Abraham, but Islam is grounded in
eternity - as is Christianity in the pr-existent Logos, and Judaism in the
beginning when God created the world on the model of the week with the
Sabbath rest on the Seventh Day.
From such a
theological perspective it is not easy to find the right order for listing
the three. If I say “Judaism - Christianity - Islam”, the implication
is that of developmental history. It may be wise to question that order,
so natural to the academic community and those conditioned by it. Perhaps
the best way of doing that is to use the good old alphabet- which in
English would give us “ Christianity - Islam - Judaism.”
Let me conclude
these reflections with three observations as to the value, perhaps even
imperative of a tri-partite dialogue between the three.
A deepened
reflection of our common bond in Abraham could open up new vistas. As a
student of the Christian Bible, I am , for example, struck by the manner
in which the apostle Paul reaches back just to Abraham as he seeks roots
for his mission to the gentiles. I, for one. Would like to explore this
bond in a deeper tri-partite way, i.e. not only with Israel but also with
Islam.
Secondly, I am
painfully aware of the persistent streak of violence that has plagued
Christianity’s history in the world - beautiful love language
notwithstanding. I feel an urgent need of an open dialogue with Islam and
Judaism where the topic could be: What resources exist in our respective
traditions that can serve as counterbalance to that violence of words and
deeds which may be rooted in a symbol system where salvation is victory -
and hence, there are the vanquished.
Finally, more
attention should perhaps be given to that transcendence of limits of time
and space and labels for which the mystics stand, mystics with which all
our traditions have been blest.
