As is well known, the Roman Catholic Church does not represent the whole of Christianity, since the Orthodox, Protestant and Anglicans are also Christian churches. In this chapter, we will examine those churches’ teaching relating to non-Christians by focusing our attention on the World Council of Churches’ dialogue activities which were started by the affiliation of different non-Catholic Churches in 1948.336 

It has been said that in the non-Catholic World interest in entering into dialogue with people of other faiths first arose, and to this day remains largely confined to those churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement that was inspired by the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh in 1910. It is argued that in that time the idea of "interreligious dialogue" came out as part of a new missionary strategy for approaching followers of other faiths in the rapidly changing circumstances of the post-war world, in which the collapse of colonialism made the traditional missionary methods increasingly ineffective.337 

The history of dialogue activities of the "Ecumenical Movement" is divided into three periods namely, (1) Christianity and non-Christian religions from the 1930’s to 1950’s; (2) the word of God and living faiths of men in the 1960’s; (3) the dialogue with people of living faiths from the 1960’s onward.338  Although this classification clearly illustrates the developments of the non-Catholic churches’ dialogue activities, the time limitation of our study does not allow us to pursue them here. Instead, we will begin to examine the dialogue activities of this ecumenical body by starting from Kandy consultation [1967] onwards for two reasons. The first is that in this consultation, for the first time in the history of the WCC, some significant changes became visible concerning the relationship between non-Catholics and those who belong to other faiths. The second is that this consultation reflects some similarities to the statements of Vatican II which we have chosen as a starting point for our research.

The equivalent of the Catholic axiom Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the non-Catholic world was the nineteenth century Protestant missionary statement "outside Christianity, no salvation". This statement became a decisive criterion in non-Catholic Christians’ relations with those who belonged to other religions up to the 1970’s. The reflection of this exclusive statement found its place in the statement of the Congress on World Mission at Chicago [1960] as follows "in the days since the war, more than one billion souls have passed into eternity and more than half of these went to torment of the hell fire without hearing of the Christ, who he was, or why he died on the Cross of the Calvary".339 

Representatives of the non-Catholic missionary bodies from all over the world came together for the first time in the twentieth century in the Edinburgh Meeting[1910] to consider the current position of mission and to discuss missionary issues in relation to the non-Christian world. In this meeting, although a common search was to launch a new missionary policy toward people of other faiths, there were many differences in the evaluation of other religions and the "good elements" which are found in those religions.340  In fact, commission IV, "Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian Religions", dealt with the attitude of Christians towards others within the context of mission. The members of this commission had prepared a questionnaire and sent it to missionaries who had been working in non-Christian countries "to ascertain from the body of missionaries what were the things that were really alive in the other religions and what sort of ideas had the power of keeping men back from Christ".341  W. Ariarajah, in his assessment of this conference points out that although the challenge of religious pluralism was taken up seriously by commission IV on "The Missionary Message in Relation to Other Religions", "missionary confidence at that period was so strong that the pleas of this Commission were set aside; instead, a programme for the evangelisation of the world was emphasised".342 

The relation between Christianity and non-Christian religions continued to be debated at the Jerusalem [1928] and the Tambaram [1938] conferences. Unlike the Edinburgh meeting, in these conferences discussions focused on proclaiming the Christian message to the non-Christian world, and the possible Christian approach to non-Christians and their religions. Also, in the Tambaram conference, Barth’s "God’s revelation is not found in other religions outside Christianity" and Kraemer’s "There was a radical discontinuity between divine revelation and human religiosity, between Christianity and other religions" clashed with the more positive idea that "God’s revealing activity existed everywhere throughout the world in some forms, even in non-Christian religions".343  The other significant point of the Tambaram conference was that from that time onwards the debate on the question of the Christian approach to non-Christians started to be discussed in missionary conferences.344  But none of these International Missionary Conferences succeeded in developing a common approach in the non-Catholic theology of religions. The question was rather how Christian mission should approach non-Christians, rather than how to enter into dialogue with them. Hallencreutz indicates that up to the Tambaram conference and during the third World Missionary Conference "the development of dialogue with men of living faiths and ideologies became somewhat secondary".345 

After the Second World War, too, the debate on the relation between Christianity and non-Christian religions was set aside in non-Catholic theology of religions, since neither in Whitby [1947], nor the subsequent gathering at Willingen [1952] was this issue discussed. Even, during the first meeting of the Assembly of the WCC in Amsterdam [1948], neither the relation to, nor dialogue with, other religions were taken into account by the participants.346  With the second Assembly of the WCC in Evanston [1954], things began to change slightly, since in its session on "Evangelization" there was a reference to non-Christian religions.347  When Christians were called on to participate in the nation-building of many countries in the Third World, the WCC began to consider its attitude towards non-Christian religions. Indeed, a consultation on "Christianity and Non-Christian Religions" was held in Davos [1955], which reopened the earlier debate of the Missionary Council before World War II. One year later, the central committee of the WCC inaugurated a study project on the "Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men". As a parallel to this, a number of Christian study centres were established to play an important role in this project.348 

In short, from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the 1960’s, although there were some debates and discussions concerning the relationship between Christians and non-Christians in the Ecumenical Movement, the word "dialogue" or "inter religious dialogue" were not used to express this relationship.349  The nineteenth century exclusivist Protestant missionary statement "outside Christianity, no salvation" was still the decisive factor for Christianity’s relation with people of other faiths.

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth’s evaluation of other religions is closely connected with his understanding of the status of Jesus Christ. He saw Christ as God’s sovereign act of grace for all humanity. In Jesus Christ, he argued, God revealed the truth about Himself and humanity in a unique and absolute way. So, Christ revealed God as the Lord who became servant, over and against human self-righteous striving to become Lord themselves. Human beings have to accept this offer in faith as the right response open to them through grace.350  This kind of understanding of Jesus led Barth to advocate that there is only one revelation, Jesus Christ, and all religions, including Christianity, are evils because they are human responses to God. Thus, Barth regarded the coming of that revelation as "the abolition of religion".351 

Later on Barth argued that Christianity was the only true and justified religion, thanks to its close connection with Jesus Christ who is the only revelation of God. For that reason Christianity is the only religion in and through which salvation can be possible. Other religions no matter how good or true they might appear, are false and useless, since there can be no salvation in them because of their lack of bearing the name of Jesus Christ.352 

However, in the later volume of his Church Dogmatics Barth mentioned the inclusion of non-Christian people in God’s grace in the section on the relationship of the Christian community to the world. Here, within the context of a discussion of Jesus as the "light of life", Barth raised the possibility of there being "other lights".353  By taking this point, some theologians argue that in his theology of religions Barth "allowed for the possibility that the non-Christian religions participate in the history of God’s salvation, and he seems to have been saying that adherents of other faiths differ from Christians only in that they are unaware of the objective facts of their own salvation".354  Paul Knitter in his Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions [1974] examined the issue to decide whether Barth changed his view on the non-Christian religions. He concluded that his position on those religions remained fundamentally unchanged.355  In this discussion, it seems that Knitter is right, since when we examine the related passage of Barth concerning this issue it is quite clear that according to Barth there is a possibility of availability of other lights in the world. But these lights are genuine only as long as they are compatible with the Christian light namely Christ. For he claims:

Jesus Christ is the light of life. To underline the ‘the’ is to say that He is the one and only light of life. Positively, this means that He is the light of life in all its fullness, in perfect adequacy; and negatively, it means that there is no other light of life outside or alongside His, outside or alongside the light which He is.356 

The Dutch theologian Hendrik Kraemer was strongly impressed by Barth’s dialectic theology in the beginning of his career, while establishing his own theology. His theology of other religions has been very influential on the WCC’s policy towards other religions because he became the first director of the WCC’s Ecumenical Institute from 1948 to 1958, and his work The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World [1938]357  became the agenda of the Tambaram conference in 1938. The main thesis of his work and the Tambaram conference was the argument that there was a radical discontinuity between divine revelation and human religiosity, in other words between Christ and non-Christian religions.358 

Kraemer’s evaluation of other religions was based on his interpretation of the nature of the Christian faith and Christological understanding of other religions, as it was in the theology of Barth. Kraemer, too, accepted Jesus as the unique and absolute revelation of God, in whom God realistically reveals himself in the context of the sinfulness of the human condition. 359  Then he stressed that "God has revealed the Way and the Life and the Truth in Jesus and wills this to be known through all the world".360  He maintained that non-Christian religions are human attempts at self-justification, since they are in error, blindness, sin and death when compared with God’s only revelation in Christ. Contrary to Barth’s Christ-centred understanding, Kraemer attributed to the Church a unique and effective role in God’s plan of salvation.361 

Kraemer, unlike Barth, rejected all aggressive attitudes towards non-Christian religions and urged Christians to obtain a good knowledge about their neighbours and their religions, since, according to him, those religions are found together with Christianity in the domain of God who has created them. On the other hand, on theological grounds he regarded the issue of the Christian attitude towards other religions as "one of the greatest and gravest which the Christian churches all over the world and the missionary cause have to face at the present time".362 

The study project "The Word of God and Living Faiths of Men" which was put on the agenda of the WCC after the Davos meeting became one of the main issues discussed in the Department of Missionary Studies and Department on Studies in Evangelism in the 1960’s. During this period, at the WCC meeting in New Delhi [1961], the idea of dialogue began to be seen as a way of approaching non-Christian religions for the first time in the history of the WCC. It was defined as "a form of evangelism which was often effective" by indicating that through dialogue the Christian missionary is enabled to understand the person to whom he/she is witnessing and thus be more effective in presenting the gospel in a relevant and convincing manner.363  According to the New Delhi statement, the aim of entering into dialogue with people of other faiths is to get to know them better in order to proclaim the Gospel to them. This point was also emphasised in the report of the Mexico meeting [1963] by declaring that in the process of dialogue Christians should have the intention of moving his/her dialogue partner "to listen to what God in Christ reveals to" him/her and "to answer him".364  Further, it was maintained that "true dialogue with a man of another faith required a concern both for the Gospel and for the other man. Without the first, dialogue becomes conversation. Without the second, it becomes irrelevant, unconvincing or arrogant.365 

The New Delhi and Mexico meetings made entering into dialogue with people of other faiths an important issue among the personnel of the WCC. The Faith and Order Consultation on the encounter between Christians and Muslims which was held in Broumana, Lebanon, 1966 can be regarded as an example of these developments. The Broumana meeting brought together thirty Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics to discuss the issue of "Muslim-Christian Encounter". The main purpose of this meeting was to search for the possibilities of mutual co-operation with Muslims, and to urge the Division of World Mission and Evangelism to organise dialogue meetings between Christians and Muslims to promote and assist mutual co-operation with them. The participants of this meeting believed that Christians coming together with Muslims would lead to a deeper mutual understanding between them.366  At the end of the meeting, participants, while agreeing on the necessity for breaking down barriers of prejudice, indifference, suspicion and fear, disagreed on the theological foundation of dialogue. The final statement stated that the basis of Christian-Muslim encounter "should be the Muslims’, as well as the Christians’, self-understanding and belief about man".367 

This consultation organised by the WCC on the theme of "Christian Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths", brought Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic theologians together for a discussion of inter religious dialogue at Kandy in Sri Lanka. Although there were differences among participants, (some of them challenged both the idea that dialogue was a form of evangelism as well as, the exclusivistic theology of religions on which the dialogue was based)368  at the end of the consultation, they agreed on a statement with the title, "Christians in Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths".369  Even though this statement did not gain an official status, it is regarded as an epoch-making breakthrough in the history of the WCC’s dialogue activities, as the Catholic document Nostra Aetate is regarded in the history of the Catholic Church. In it, there was a suggestion to the Central Committee that dialogue should be considered as a new basis for Christian relations with people of other faiths. Because of the significance of this document, its statements deserve to be examined.

God’s love and purpose of salvation extend to all mankind, of every century and creed. He saves the world in and through Jesus Christ. Salvation in Christ has often been too narrowly understood. Through the Spirit, Christ is at work in every man’s heart, though as yet His Kingdom remains a hidden rule.370 

 

This statement like the statements of the conciliar statements of Vatican II, highlights that God’s plan of salvation is universal and is only available in the world in and through Jesus Christ, extending to all people through the universal activity of the Spirit. This implies that salvation is totally a Christian salvation, but it is extended to all people through the Holy Spirit.371 

Contrary to the traditional non-Catholic axiom "outside Christianity, no salvation", this statement makes it quite clear that there is the possibility of salvation for people of other faiths. While acknowledging this, like the Second Vatican Council, it does not say whether non-Christian religions have any value through which their followers attain salvation. Concerning those religions, it says only that during the process of dialogue with people of other faiths Christians "may gain light regarding the place held by other religious traditions in God’s purpose for them and for us".372 

After this theological statement concerning the status of people of other faiths, the report explains the basis of entering into dialogue in a similar way as Nostra Aetate. Firstly, the report stresses human solidarity, since according to it all humankind is being "caught up into one universal history, and made increasingly aware of common tasks and common hopes".373  It stresses, secondly: "the belief that all men are created in the image of God," and thirdly, the "realisation that Christ died for every man," and the "expectation of His coming Kingdom".374 

Dialogue means a positive effort to attain a deeper understanding of the truth through mutual awareness of one another’s convictions and witness. It involves an expectation of something new happening—the opening of a new dimension of which one was not aware before. Dialogue implies a readiness to be changed as well as to influence others.375 

 

Dialogue and proclamation are not identical but related. At any time or place within the course of our living in dialogue, moments for proclamation of the Gospel may be given. For Christians, proclamation is the sharing of the Good news about God’s action in history through Jesus Christ. Proclamation is made in other ways besides dialogue, but should always be made in the spirit of dialogue. On the other hand, dialogue may include proclamation, since it must always be undertaken in the spirit of those who have good news to share.376 

 

Dialogue means a positive effort to attain a deeper understanding of the truth through mutual awareness of one another’s convictions and witness. It involves an expectation of something new happening. Dialogue implies a readiness to be changed as well as to influence others. Good dialogue develops when one partner speaks in a such way that the other feels drawn to listen, and likewise when one listens so that the other is drawn to speak. The outcome of the dialogue is the work of the Spirit.377 

Secondly, as Pranger states methodologically this consultation brought about a great change in the WCC’s theological reflections on other religions. For the participants of this meeting insisted that the Christian theological approach to other religions should be formulated within the context of a dialogical attitude towards followers of other religions. In addition, they underlined that special attention had to be given to the question of the place of those religions in God’s purposes for humanity.378 

the theological basis of dialogue for Christians, the Kandy Consultation applied both the typically Roman-Catholic view of the relationship between non-Christian religions and the Church as between the ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ ways of salvation, and the more familiar emphasis of the World Council on ‘common humanity’ as both a starting point and a basis for a common hope. 379 

In the evaluation of the Kandy Consultation, Pranger indicates that this meeting can be regarded as very important for the development of dialogue between Christianity and non-Christian religions because of its following significant points. The first is its changing attitude towards the relationship between mission, proclamation, and dialogue. Mission and witness were no longer regarded as a one-way communication, and dialogue was considered as the principal Christian form of relationship with people of other faiths. The second is its search for a new theological framework to determine the relation of Christians with non-Christians. The third is the acceptance of dialogue as a basis for a solution of questions concerning non-Christian religions.380 

One year after the Kandy meeting, the Fourth General Assembly of the WCC was held at Uppsala, Sweden,1968. At this meeting the topic of inter religious dialogue was discussed in section II on "Renewal in Mission" and not as a separate issue.381  This meeting was the first assembly that tried to connect inter religious dialogue with the general theological outlook of the WCC. In its final report, a small passage was reserved for dialogue. According to this passage, dialogue is something which occurs inevitably wherever followers of different religions come into contact. The basis of this dialogue should be the "common humanity" shared by all human beings. It was emphasised that dialogue should be carried out in a form of mutual witness. Also, in this passage, as in the Kandy statement, dialogue and proclamation were distinguished from each other by stating that there is an interrelationship between them within the total witness of the church. A significant departure point of the Uppsala report from the Kandy statement is that it did not mention the possibility of salvation outside the boundaries of the Church or Christianity.382 

After the Kandy consultation and the Uppsala Assembly, the desire to enter into dialogue with people of other faiths in the WCC was accelerated. In 1969, the Central Committee at Canterbury noted the necessity of dialogue with other religions and ideologies by recommending a multireligious conference. Under this recommendation the first multilateral inter religious dialogue meeting was held at Ajaltoun, Lebanan, 1970 under the sponsorship of the WCC to provide a basis for further theological reflection.383 

A full and loyal commitment to one’s own faith did not stand in the way of dialogue. On the contrary, it was our faith which was the very basis of, and driving force to intensification of dialogue and a search for common actions between members of different faiths in the various localities and situation in which they find themselves.384 

The Ajaltoun meeting can be regarded as an event of major historical significance in the history of the Ecumenical Movement because of its being the first multilateral dialogue conference. Hallencreutz outlines the significance of this meeting by stating that the goal at Ajaltoun "was not in the first place to have an inter-religious conversation about dialogue" but to attempt "an actual engagement in dialogue".385  Samartha points out that the worship dimension in religions was raised by the Ajaltoun meeting by asking whether this dimension "can be excluded from any dialogue between people of living faiths".386  In our opinion, too, the most significant contribution of this meeting was the emphasis that in the process of dialogue a full and loyal commitment to one’s own faith does not stand in the way of dialogue.387  This principle rejects all kinds of excuses which are expressed or will be expressed by those who claim that entry into dialogue with others means underestimating one’s own faith.

In the aftermath of Ajaltoun, Christian theologians—Protestant, Roman-Catholic and Orthodox—met at Zürich in 1970 to make a theological evaluation of the Ajaltoun meeting and to struggle with the question of the components of a theological basis for dialogue that could be recommended to the member churches of the WCC. The final report of this meeting was published under the title of "Christians in Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths", but more commonly called "The Zürich Aide-Mémoire".388 

In our opinion, the points 3 and 4 can contribute to the development of interreligious dialogue more than any others, since these points maintain that every dialogue participant has the right to tell his/her beliefs to others, and within this context he/she should also be ready to change his/her own beliefs. These two points are also considered among the ground rules of interreligious dialogue by individual scholars.389 

Point 5 deserves more clarification because of its theological dimension and influence on the development of interreligious dialogue. It seems that in this "Zürich Aide Mémorie", the WCC authorities attempted to explain the relationship between mission and dialogue to reduce the objections of those who were worried about the positive developments in the WCC concerning the relationship with people of other faiths and those who regarded this development as a new mission policy of the WCC. Within this context while some Christians were suspicious that dialogue would be a betrayal of mission, people of other faiths considered dialogue as a new missionary tactic. The attempt was made to explain the relationship between mission and dialogue by understanding Jesus in a more inclusivistic way. According to this understanding, Jesus Christ was already present in other religious faiths. Therefore, dialogue had a Christological basis, and the mission of the Church was to discover Christ’s presence in other faiths in and through dialogue.390  As noted in the first and second chapters, similar views were emphasised by the Roman Catholic Church starting prior to Vatican II and continuing until today.

The "Zürich Aide-Mémoire" also stressed that Christians and non-Christians must come together and seek ways of entering into dialogue with each other. It emphasised that dialogue was an opportunity for all partners to witness to their faith and was not a betrayal of mission, nor should it be used as a new tool for mission.391  As we have observed so far, the "Zürich Aide-Mémoire" set out some of the basic principles of inter-religious dialogue. Pranger points out that the participants of the Zurich Consultation made a new beginning in the inter-religious dialogue by regarding it as "the only suitable form of communication between Christians and adherents of other faiths".392 

As Samartha rightly remarks, we may conclude that in the new process which started with the Kandy consultation and continued with the Ajaltoun meeting and the "Zürich Aide-Mémoire" the main issue was not "how to replace other religions by Christianity" as it was at missionary conferences such as Edinburgh, Jerusalem, Tambaram, and the others "but how to relate the living faith of Christians to the living faiths of other people in a pluralistic world".393  In spite of this positive development during this period, there was a reluctance to deal theologically with the reality of the non-Christian religions. Conservative Christians wondered how those who had been considered objects of Christian mission could be regarded as dialogue partners?

As noted above, the dialogue policy of the WCC developed in a more positive way at the Kandy consultation and gained theological dimension at the Ajaltoun meeting. In addition, the appointment of the Indian theologian, Stanley J. Samartha394  as Associate Secretary of the Department of Studies in Mission and Evangelism was a significant step forward for the WCC. By this appointment dialogue activities of the WCC gained a new momentum by moving away from examining the religious traditions of people of other faiths in order to spread the Gospel to encountering non-Christians in order to dialogue with them.395 

The first thing Samartha did after his appointment was to prepare a plan for further dialogue activities and send it to the Directors of Study Research Centres. In this plan, Samartha, firstly, emphasised the necessity of the theological evaluation of the dialogue events between Christians and people of other faiths up to that time. Secondly, he stressed the importance of studying the meaning of "salvation today" in different religious traditions. Thirdly, he wanted Christians to think about how other religious traditions try to understand humanity’s relation to nature and to history in the light of changing conceptions. As Klootwijk rightly remarks, by doing this Samartha wanted to widen the WCC’s theological perspective concerning people of other faiths.396  In other words, he argued for a theological openness towards followers of other faiths. M. Kinnamon suggests that behind this new dialogue policy of the WCC there was "a conviction that other faiths should not be judged in the abstract, on the basis of doctrinal principle, but should be experienced through living encounter".397  Now, we will turn to examine the important meetings and events of this period.

There were two major presentations which became influential on subsequent developments of the WCC’s dialogue activities. The first was the presentation of the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon, George Khodr, under the title of "Christianity in a Pluralist World and the Economy of the Holy Spirit".398  The other was Samartha’s presentation under the title of "Dialogue As a Continuing Christian Concern".399 

After these presentations some conservative Christians criticised them because of their challenge to the traditional understanding of the uniqueness and transcendence of the Christian message and Christ.400  In spite of this situation, at the end two significant decisions were taken by the participants which positively affected dialogue activities of the WCC in subsequent stages. The first was setting up an "Interim Guidelines and Policy Statement" for further dialogue activities of the WCC. The second was the establishment of an official dialogue body within the WCC’s organisational structure to undertake its dialogue activities. By following this decision, "Subunit for Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies," [DFI] was set up immediately, as will be seen below.

is inevitable because everywhere in the world Christians are now living in pluralistic societies. It is urgent because all men are under common pressures in the search for justice, peace and a hopeful future. It is full of opportunity because Christians can now, in new ways, discover new aspects of the servanthood and lordship of Christ and new implications for the witness of the Church in the context of moving towards a common human community.401 

 

As can be seen in the last part of this passage, "Interim Guidelines" finds a Christological basis for interreligious dialogue for Christians by considering the servanthood and the lordship of Jesus Christ together. In so doing, it put a greater stress on his Lordship than on his servanthood. This would imply that Christians should defend the "supremacy, uniqueness and finality of Christ" in the process of dialogue. Naturally, this would affect interreligious dialogue by increasing the anxieties of people of other faiths concerning the nature of Christian dialogue initiatives.402 

Dialogue for the sake of common action in the service of men in pluralistic societies. Dialogue for the sake of better mutual understanding between people of living faiths and ideologies. Dialogue for the sake of indigenization of the Christian faith in different cultures.403 

 

Each partner must be understood as he understands himself, and his freedom to be committed to his faith must be fully respected. Without this freedom to be committed, to be open, to witness, to change and to be changed genuine dialogue is impossible.404 

"Interim Guidelines" also raised a number of significant questions that needed to be studied in the dialogue meetings of the WCC under three major headings. These were, "What are the fundamental and theological implications of dialogue? What is the relationship between dialogue, mission and witness? and How is dialogue to be understood and practised in the context of indigenization".405  As has been observed in the second chapter, the Secretariat of the Catholic Church in its consultors meetings and official documents such as Dialogue and Mission and Dialogue and Proclamation, and Pope John Paul II’ in his encyclicals Redemptor Hominis and ‘Redemptoris Missio raised similar questions within the context of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. But, as has been seen in Chapter Two sections 2.6 and 2.4.1, none of them were able to produce adequate answers to these questions which would satisfy both Christians and non-Christians.

This document finishes by making a number of recommendations to the member churches of the WCC. These recommendations aim at urging those churches to promote a greater understanding of people of other faiths through educational programmes; to sponsor bilateral and multilateral dialogue meetings with Roman Catholic Institutions such as the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions and to eliminate everything in current materials on other religions that promotes insensitivity and lack of respect. In this connection, we can recall that the Secretariat made similar recommendations to Catholic authorities to encourage them to establish local dialogue and study groups.406 

As has been noted, upon the recommendation of the Addis Ababa meeting a Sub-unit on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies [DFI] was instituted in order to undertake the dialogue activities of the WCC.407  By doing this, the DFI had two primary duties. The first was to organise dialogue meetings with people of other faiths and ideologies. The second was to reflect on the theological meaning for Christians entering into dialogue.408  In order to fulfil these tasks, the DFI urged member churches to establish a responsible dialogue with people of living faiths and ideologies; at the same time it sought to determine the theological meaning of this dialogue,409  as the Secretariat had done after the Second Vatican Council. Its first director, Samartha, stressed that the establishment of this sub-unit "gave dialogue a separate presence and visible identity within the ecumenical movement".410 

After the establishment of this special unit, the dialogue activities of the WCC accelerated especially with regard to Muslims. The DFI organised its first meeting with Muslims on the issue of "The Quest for Human Understanding and Co-operation—the Christian and Muslim Contribution" in Broumana, Lebanon [1972].411  Because of its significance for Christian-Muslim relations some important points of the memorandum of this meeting will be considered here.412 

In this memorandum the main purpose of Christian-Muslim dialogue was outlined as an opportunity for people to come together in order to solve common human problems such as peace and justice in the changing contemporary world. It described dialogue as a process through which participants determine their own differences frankly and self-critically together with people of other faiths without overlooking them. For, according to this memorandum, true dialogue should allow the participants to come to a clearer understanding of the real differences that separate one’s own faith from the other faiths, as well as what brings them together.413  Concerning the nature of dialogue, the memorandum asserted that genuine dialogue should be based on the freedom to witness fully to one’s own faith and mutual respect. It also emphasised that dialogue should not be understood as "an attempt to suppress differences but rather to explore them frankly and self-critically".414 

Briefly, we may conclude that what this meeting did was to apply the findings of previous meetings, such as those of Kandy, Addis Ababa, Cartigny and Ajaltoun, to the nature of Christian-Muslim dialogue. It should be noted that the memorandum of this meeting had no official status, since the participants did not have official representative status and the memorandum was not voted on.415  However, it can be regarded as an important step for developing Christian-Muslim relations with regard to its emphasis on the need for frank witness, mutual respect and religious freedom in the process of interreligious dialogue.416 

The next major meeting was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka in 1974. It brought together the representatives of five major religions, namely, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, to discuss the issue "Towards World Community: Resources and Responsibilities for Living Together". In this meeting, the participants mainly discussed the question of how the different religious traditions could contribute to the establishment of a wider community cleansed from the narrow self-interest of each particular community.417  By doing this, the participants tried to explore the imperative for co-operative life and whether the various religious traditions could provide enough resources for building up a more inclusive world community.

The final report of this meeting argued that the "world community" should be composed of different communities in which each person recognises the differences of the other in a spirit of mutual respect and reconciliation.418  It notes that this idea of establishing a "world community" by the participation of followers of various religious traditions did not mean that the members of a particular faith had to give up any claims that their religion was ultimate, final and unique. On the contrary, it meant that any such claims had to be made within their own religion in respect of the similar claims of others.419  In other words, we may say that, the finality or uniqueness of one religious tradition should not be binding for people of other faiths, but only for those who belong to that faith. In fact, by stating this, this report, we may say, represents a shift from an inclusivist Christian attitude towards a pluralist one in the ecumenical movement.

In order to establish this "world community", the final report says that followers of different religious traditions should give priority to entering into dialogue with others, since "dialogue involves the sharing of understanding an experience and as such is a significant method of building community. It is also a means for expanding self-knowledge and self-transcending knowledge. This is more than a process of cognition. Dialogue can be a fundamental transforming process".420  Further, it maintains that through dialogue adherents of different faiths gain mutual tolerance and openness. This, too, leads them to live together peacefully as a single "world community". It says:

Dialogue as a relation and interaction between people could become a means for promoting co-operation, mutual respect and tolerance for members of other communities. Dialogue offers to concerned people a method for working together to achieve practical goals.421 

 

Samartha indicates that the Colombo consultation contributed to the development of dialogue in two ways: First, it showed that there should not be a stable definition of the nature, purpose and basis of dialogue. But it should be defined after the dialogue meeting by taking into account the results of that meeting. Second, it stated that Christians in multi-cultural societies should not only welcome the contributions of people of other faiths, but should consider them necessary.422  As has been observed so far, the most striking point of the Colombo meeting was that participants did not deal with the theological questions but instead preferred to express the practical sides of dialogue. Instead of discussing the theological questions such as the salvific value of other religions, the delegates discussed problems between human beings. This enabled them to come to an agreement at the end of the meeting stressing the benefit of entering into dialogue with others.

These multilateral dialogue meetings, Broumana and Colombo, represent a significant step forward, since they provided the basis for the DFI to determine its policy concerning further bilateral or multilateral dialogue meetings. Here, it is necessary to note that the establishment of the DFI and its organisation of bilateral dialogue meetings did not mean that all the members of the WCC were pleased with these developments, since Conservative Christians held anti-dialogue meetings to protest against the policy of WCC concerning the relationship between Christians and people of other faiths. Undoubtedly, the most important one of these meetings was held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1974.423 

After the Lausanne Covenant, the tensions between conservative evangelicals and liberals within the WCC became obvious at the Nairobi assembly of the WCC in 1975.424  We will, therefore, turn our attention to this assembly, since it is regarded as a negative milestone for the development of interreligious dialogue in the WCC.

This assembly was held in Nairobi, Kenya, 1975. In its section III, the interreligious activities of the WCC from the Kandy Consultation up to that time were evaluated under the title of "Seeking Community: The Common Search of People of Various Faiths, Cultures and Ideologies".425  The discussion of interreligious dialogue in this assembly can be regarded as a very important development, since for the first time in the history of the WCC’s assemblies the issue of interreligious dialogue was discussed at the assembly level. Representatives of five major religions—Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh—had been invited as observers. Unfortunately, when one of them, the Sikh representative, Dr. Gopal Singh, asked to speak in order to thank the authorities of the assembly, he was not permitted because a "non-Christian could not be allowed to address a Christian assembly".426 

Although in the preparatory section attention was focused mainly on the socio-ethical and ecumenical-theological dimensions of seeking a "world community" as laid out in the Colombo meeting, our examination shows that the real intention was not to search how that community could be established, but was to outline the theological implications of entering into dialogue with others for Christians.427 

During the discussion of these questions, conservative evangelicals rejected all such views which advocated that the salvific presence of Christ is at work in other religious traditions by arguing that Christ is salvifically present only in the preaching and sacraments of the Christian church. Further, they claimed that dialogue had already led to a decline of missionary commitment in the ecumenical movement and had also exposed the church to the danger of syncretism in that the Christian understanding of the uniqueness of Christ was being downplayed by some advocates of dialogue in order to facilitate dialogue with people of other faiths.428 

Pranger points out that in the Nairobi assembly there was an obvious disagreement between European and Asian participants.429  European delegates were concerned that interreligious dialogue would lead to syncretism, by threatening the Christian message and the identity of the church. Asian delegates objected to the preamble by maintaining that it was based on the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ for all people and on the evangelisation to make all people His disciples.430  One of the Asian delegates, Russhell Chandran, outlines this disagreement more concretely by stating that the disagreement between European and Asian delegates "was essentially a controversy between ‘the Kraemerian approach’ and ‘the dialogical approach of the Kandy consultation’".431  As has been observed so far, the conservative evangelical Christians regarded dialogue as a part of evangelisation as was claimed in the Lausanne Covenant. The following comment by the Catholic Church’s observer, Samuel Rayan, supports this. He says that from the objections of evangelical Christians one can draw the conclusion that "any dialogue with people of other faiths can have only one purpose: to know them in order to evangelise them".432 

Against these conservative evangelicals’ objections, the most important statement came from the Sri Lankan theologian, Lynn de Silva. By undertaking dialogue, he maintained that there should not be any dispute concerning the necessity of dialogue any more because that age is over, and the age of dialogue had already begun.433 

agreed that the Great Commission of Jesus Christ asks [them] to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations, and to baptise them in the Triune name, should not be abandon or betrayed, disobeyed or compromised, neither should it be misused. Dialogue is both a matter of hearing and understanding the faith of others, and also witnessing to the gospel of Christ.434 

 

As can be seen here, one of the most important rules of dialogue, learning from others, was omitted, and dialogue was regarded as knowing others in order to witness. For that reason we may conclude that instead of developing a more positive understanding about people of other faiths, the Nairobi assembly reaffirmed the traditional understanding which was based on an exclusive Christology.435 

After the Nairobi assembly it was evident to all who were involved in that debate that dialogue had only served to polarise further the liberal and conservative elements within the WCC, and that this polarisation would continue to evoke controversy, unless an understanding could be reached in regard to some of the unresolved theological issues that surrounded the topic of dialogue with people of other faiths. The task of dealing with these unresolved issues and of producing a set of guidelines on dialogue which would end this situation within the WCC naturally was the duty of the DFI. The staff of the DFI, therefore, established a working group to evaluate the results of the Nairobi Assembly and to prepare a plan for further studies of the DFI. Samartha considered the Nairobi report as a clash of attitudes between those for whom dialogue become a matter of daily experience and others who did not live religious plurality in any significant way.436  This working group held two small meetings at Chambesy [1976] and at Gilon [1977] to discuss and determine the position of the WCC in the process of dialogue with people of other faiths. Because of the importance for Christian-Muslim dialogue, the significant points of the Chambesy meeting will be considered.

This was organised by the Commission on World Mission and Evangelisation of the WCC, and planned together with the Selly Oak Colleges in Birmingham and the Islamic Foundation in Leicester to discuss one of the most important theological issues of Christian Muslim dialogue, namely, "The nature of Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah within the context of Christian-Muslim Dialogue".437 

Two significant points of the final statement of this meeting should be noted. The first is the need of religious freedom for everyone. It was pointed out that "each religious community should be entitled to live its religious life in accordance with its religion in perfect freedom".438  The second is that Christian participants conceded that the diakonia was misused by some Christians in order to convert Muslims in Islamic countries:

The conference, being painfully aware that Muslim attitudes to Christian mission have been so adversely affected by the abuse of diakonia, strongly urges Christian churches and religious organisations to suspend their misused diakonia activities in the world of Islam. Such a radical measure is necessary to cleanse the atmosphere of Muslim-Christian relations and orientates towards mutual recognition and co-operation worthy of the two great religions.439 

Understanding of common and distinctive elements in each other’s faith, history and civilisation; respect for each other’s religious and cultural integrity; common commitment to strive for social justice and for responsible development of the earth’s resources; a mutually challenging enrichment of spirituality which may also be a challenge to secular neighbours.440 

 

It was also emphasized that in the dialogue process each partner should avoid "unfair comparison or caricature (of the other); any attempt to impose a syncretistic solution; defensive and hostile attitudes to secular neighbours".441 

This meeting did not deal with the theological issues, but the practical questions such as, education, family life, worship, prayer, and ways to establish dialogue as a life style for multi-religious communities. In this respect, two significant points were developed. The first was the necessity of multi-faith education to give every student a sympathetic understanding toward other faiths. The second was to urge families to come together with families of other faiths by organising study groups and social activities.442 

At the end of the above dialogue meetings, the personnel of the WCC realised that the crucial issues were the nature of the ‘world community’ which was discussed at the Colombo Meeting [1974]; the relationship between mission and dialogue; whether dialogue led to a kind of religious syncretism or not; and what was the theological significance of non-Christian religions, since that had not been sufficiently clarified. In this connection, the personnel of the DFI were urged to sponsor an intra-Christian meeting to discuss and clarify those issues in order to salvage the inter-religious dialogue from the ambiguities of the previous meetings.443  In the light of this recommendation, the DFI organised the Chiang Mai consultation in Thailand, [1977] on the theme of "Dialogue in Community.444  Some significant points of this consultation will be highlighted.

The main issues of this meeting were to evaluate the dialogue activities of the WCC since the establishment of the DFI and to determine the meaning and relevance of interreligious dialogue with regard to the question of the theological significance of entering into dialogue with people of other faiths.445  Samartha outlined the main objectives of this consultation as follows: to determine the basis of "world Community" for the Christians; to define the role of the Christian community within the human community in a pluralistic world; and to prepare guidelines to help Christians in the process of dialogue with people of other faiths.446  In the light of these aims, the following questions were discussed by the participants:

How do Christians understand and practice dialogue—its nature, its purpose, its variations in different contexts? Is dialogue part of the Christian ministry in a pluralistic world? What is the theological significance of people of other faiths and cultures in the Christian perspective? Is God at work among people of other faiths and ideologies?447 

Contrary to the Colombo meeting’s suggestion of "world community", the Chiang Mai consultation suggests "worldwide community" in order to express the interdependent and pluralistic character of the global society.448  In doing so, different religions have been considered as elements of the cultural identity of this worldwide community.449  Because of this, the Chiang Mai Consultation regarded cultural or religious superiority of one religion as a challenge to the creation and God’s overall purpose,450  and calls Christians to co-operate with others for world peace, justice, and liberation. It states:

As workers for peace, liberation and justice, the way to which often makes conflict necessary and reconciliation costly, they feel themselves called to share with others in the community of humankind in the search for new experiences in the evolution of communities, where people may affirm their interdependence as much as respect for their distinctive identities.451 

As has been seen so far, what this consultation implies is that the Christian community is one community among others in the worldwide community. It also indicates that the cultural and religious diversity of the world had often been abused in situations where one was "tempted to regard one’s own community as the best; to attribute one’s own religion and cultural reality an absolute authority".452  Parallel to this pluralistic understanding, the Chiang Mai statement seems to limit the superiority of the Christian faith to Christians by stating:

As Christians, we are conscious of a tension between the Christian community as we experience it to be in the world of human communities, and as we believe it in essence to be in the promise of God. In the heart of this tension we discover the character of the Christian church as a sign at once of peoples’ need for fuller and deeper community, and of God’s promise a restored human community in Christ.453 

This statement further indicates that there are two significant bases, religious and social, of Christian dialogue with people of other faiths. The former takes its inspiration from the second commandment of the Decalogue, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour", and underlines that Christians should respond to this commandment by entering into dialogue with others. The latter, too, shows how it is necessary to cooperate with others on common social, political and ecological problems in order to bring about a "fuller and deeper community".454  Here, like the Catholic Church documents Dialogue and Mission, Dialogue and Proclamation and Redemtoris Missio, 455  this statement urges Christians to adopt the principle "dialogue in life" in everyday human affairs, because this type of dialogue urges dialogue partners to common action against common problems by focussing on life in community.456 

Concerning the relationship between mission and dialogue, the Chiang Mai report tries to calm the fears of conservative Christians by arguing that witness and dialogue should not be seen as contradictory to each other, and in the process of interreligious dialogue Christians can find many opportunities for "authentic witness" to their faith in Jesus Christ.457  The report also attempts to remove the anxieties of dialogue partners who think that dialogue is "a secret weapon in the armour of an aggressive Christian militancy" by stating that Christians want to enter into dialogue with them not "as manipulators but as genuine fellow pilgrims".458 

In response to conservative evangelicals’ objection that dialogue may lead to syncretism, the report maintains that syncretism should not be seen as a threat to interreligious dialogue in spite of the inherent danger. However, it states that the good results of dialogue, such as fostering the sense that all human beings are part of a single world community, may have such a risk. To avoid this risk, the idea of "world community" was replaced with the idea of "worldwide community". This statement, further, reminds conservative evangelicals that the gospel has already been syncretised in its encounter with Western ideologies, as well as through contact with other world religions.459 

As Ariarajah points out, the issue of theological significance of other faiths in the process of dialogue can be regarded as the most significant contribution of the Chiang Mai report, since the other points have already been on the agenda of the dialogue meetings of the WCC since the Kandy consultation.460  On this issue, the Chiang Mai report, like "Interim Guidelines", raises a number of theological questions concerning the relationship between Christianity and other religions and then recommends them to later dialogue meetings for further discussion.461  These questions were not discussed, according to Samartha, because it was impossible to do more than raise them at that time, since the controversy of the Nairobi meeting was still fresh in the memories of the participants. Samartha further stresses that the main objective of the Chiang Mai was to avoid making "theological affirmations on people of other faiths".462  Moreover, the Chiang Mai report asks Christians not to judge other people by using the phrases "anonymous Christian" or "unknown Christ," which have been employed by theologians and Church authorities to evaluate the theological position of people of other faith.463 

Samartha regarded the Chiang Mai Consultation as a step forward in the process of dialogue, since by this consultation some difficulties and tensions of the previous discussions, especially the negative results of the Nairobi Assembly, were overcome and removed. He further indicated that in this meeting the meaning of dialogue in the context of the community was defined. Building up relationships, expressing mutual care and mutual understanding were ideas contrary to those expressed in previous meetings which defined dialogue as a separate issue from the community. According to Samartha the connection between dialogue and community can lead to a dialogue between different communities for the sake of a wider community of peace and justice, and then to a worldwide community.464 

As Pranger rightly maintains, the most significant contribution of the Chiang Mai statement on the development of interreligious dialogue in the WCC can easily be seen when it is compared with the negative implication of the Nairobi assembly. For only two years after this controversy, this statement made real progress in clarifying the relationship between dialogue and mission, syncretism, and cultural and religious diversity.465  In our opinion, the report of this meeting "Dialogue in Community" can be regarded a significant step forward for the WCC. Contrary to the negative implications of the Nairobi Assembly, it demonstrated that Christians from various parts of the theological spectrum could agree on fundamental issues in order to establish better relations with others.

Following the Chiang Mai consultation, the Central Committee of the WCC at its meeting in Kingston, Jamaica, 1979 promulgated a set of guidelines taking its final statement as a base. The title was Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies.466  It consisted of three parts. The first and second parts were taken from the final statement of the Chiang Mai consultation. These parts will not be considered here because already examined above. The third part offers a number of specific guidelines to the member churches of the WCC and individual congregations to help them in their relations with people of other faiths under the title of "Guidelines Recommended to the Churches for Study and Action". We will elucidate this part.

It consists of three main sections. In the first one, "Learning and Understanding in Dialogue", the member churches of the WCC are urged to enter into dialogue with people of other faiths, to prepare dialogue meetings together with them, to allow the participants of those dialogue meetings to express themselves in their own terms in order to avoid prejudice, stereotyping and condescension, and to prepare educational programmes in order to restore the possible distorted image of people of other faiths in the Christian community.467 

In the second, "Living Together in Dialogue", the Guidelines encourages Christians to share common cultural and religious activities such as celebrations, rituals, worship, and meditation with their dialogue partners to make dialogue a whole life activity and a style of living-in-relationship-with others, as the Catholic Church often stressed in its documents.468 

In the third part, "Planning for Dialogue", the member churches of the WCC are encouraged to organise interim dialogue meetings in co-operation with one another, and then to prepare world-wide dialogue meetings with people of other faiths to discuss the issues such as world peace and justice, and the various social and practical issues, as the Secretariat of the Catholic Church has done in the period of Cardinal Arinze.469 

In the light of this overview of the WCC Guidelines, we can draw the following significant guidelines: (1) Dialogue becomes possible when people from different faiths meet with each other, (2) Dialogue should be established on the practical issues of living, not on belief systems. (3) Dialogue should be based on common humanity, (4) Mutual understanding is necessary between dialogue partners, (5) Dialogue partners should trust each other’s sincerity, (6) In the dialogue process, equal opportunities should be given each partner to express and describe his/her faith in his/her own terms, (7) Dialogue participants should cooperate with each other to work for a better human community, (8) Dialogue partners should listen to their dialogue partners while they are speaking, (9) Dialogue partners should open themselves to others in order to learn from them. Similar guidelines were also proposed by some individual thinkers such as Raimundo Panikkar, Leonard Swidler and Paul Mojzez.470 

With the promulgation of Guidelines on Dialogue, the DFI gained an official policy for its dialogue activities and related issues with people of other faiths, as did the Catholic Church with its document Nostra Aetate. Its publication brought to an end the discussions about the WCC’s policy of interreligious dialogue between conservative evangelical and liberal members of the WCC, since in further dialogue meetings and discussions both sides always refer to these Guidelines to support their views. This has also been the case in the Catholic Church since the promulgation of Nostra Aetate. We may say that Guidelines on Dialogue of the WCC and Nostra Aetate of the Roman Catholic Church are very similar with regard to their effect on the Christian dialogue initiatives. However, unlike Nostra Aetate, Guidelines is not a theological statement which provides a theology of religion, but rather a practical statement which offers "suggestions and recommendations meant to change attitudes".471 

The WCC Guidelines can be regarded as a significant shift in the relation between dialogue, mission, and witness when compared with the "Interim Guidelines" of the Addis Ababa Meeting[1971], since in this Guidelines the intention of establishing a ‘world community’ within cultural and religious diversity is to be understood not as theoretical concepts, but rather in terms of living relationships. For, it states that the definition of dialogue is not enough. It has to be described, experienced and developed as a life style.472  In our opinion, the point which will most affect interreligious dialogue positively is its urging the participants of dialogue to try to understand other faiths or religions within the terms of those beliefs, not in the terms of their own beliefs.473  This point is very much emphasised by individual scholars such as W. Cantwell Smith who states that no statement about other faiths can be true unless their followers acknowledge it as true.474 

Besides the positive contributions of the Chiang Mai report and Guidelines on Dialogue, there are, also, some weak points in these Guidelines which affect interreligious dialogue negatively. Unlike the Catholic document Nostra Aetate, there is no specific reference to world religions in these Guidelines. This gives the impression that the religious traditions of people of other faiths are not important for the personnel of the WCC. In other words, it implies that other religions apart from Christianity are not acknowledged as religious systems through which their followers can attain salvation. As has been observed, although the Chiang Mai statement and Guidelines on Dialogue deal with theological questions, neither of them tries to correct the traditional belief that salvation comes only through Christianity. Both the Catholic documents Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium dealt with this issue.475  In other words, Guidelines on Dialogue does not answer how people of other faiths should be understood in a Christian theological perspective.

Eighth, these Guidelines formed a basis and starting point for many other guidelines on the bilateral, regional and national level. For example, in 1981 the British Council of Churches [BCC], later converted to Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland [CCBI], prepared its own guidelines under the title of Relations with People of Other Faiths: Guidelines in Dialogue in Britain.476 

After the publication of Guidelines on Dialogue, the first international dialogue meeting planned and sponsored by DFI and the Muslim establishment the World Muslim Congress[WMC] met jointly to discuss the ethical and practical side of the humanitarian and development aid programmes for the Third World. There was a consensus of opinion between both sides on the necessity of this kind of discussion in a world threatened by materialism, loss of faith, injustice, and violation of human rights of majorities and minorities.477  Both sides conceded that humanitarian aid programmes had been abused by being used for conversion and proselytism, and strongly urged their followers to avoid abusing humanitarian aid programmes in this way.478 

In the first recommendation, the WCC and the WMC were encouraged to establish a Joint Standing Committee to determine the objectives, forms and modalities of dialogue, identify obstacles and difficulties in dialogue, promote a form of education through which "faith and knowledge give each other mutual reinforcement and seek inspiration from divine revelation", spread dialogue in a wider context through practical activities, and set up joint study groups and seminars to discuss major common issues such as " The role of the State", "Law and Life", and "Human and Religious Rights".479 

After the Colombo meeting, the WCC had moved away from dialogue at the international level to dialogue at a regional level. In this connection, its authorities started to organise colloquia together with Muslims at regional levels to discuss inter-communal relations.480 

Another shift in this period was that the theological dimension and the meaning of entering into dialogue with people of other faiths began to be discussed in the assemblies of the WCC more seriously and openly than before. The first issue, discussed very widely in the Vancouver Assembly, 1983, was the relationship between dialogue, mission and evangelisation. During this discussion the question of the status of people of other faiths came on the agenda. It was proposed that while Christians affirmed the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, they also acknowledged "God’s creative work in the religious experience of people of other faiths". Most of the participants objected to this statement by arguing that God is not creatively present in the religious experience of people of other faiths. Thereupon, it was proposed to change the wording to Christians "recognize God’s creative work in the seeking for religious truth among people of other faiths".481  In fact, this revision implied that the majority members of the WCC still did not believe that God is at work in non-Christian religions. For, what the revised statement indicates is that God’s creative work is not available in the religious traditions of people of other faiths, but in their seeking of religious truth. In this sense, the Vancouver assembly’s attitude towards the other is similar to the Nairobi assembly’s attitude, since in this assembly, too, some members had objected to dialogue by claming it undermined mission.

In this conference dialogue was referred to in the context of mission and witness in Section I on "Turning to the Living God" where it declared that "dialogue had its own place and integrity and is neither opposed to nor incompatible with witness or proclamation".482  In this conference, statements such as "God is at work among non-Christians religions, there is no limit of the saving power of God, and God who Christians know through Jesus Christ can be available in the lives of people of other faiths which can be regarded as "open windows" for more positive relations to people of other faiths.483 

In preparation for the seventh assembly of the WCC which was held in Canberra, Australia in 1991, the DFI organised a consultation to discuss the issue of "Religious Plurality, Theological Perspective and Affirmations" in Barr, Switzerland, in 1990. Diana Eck outlines the significance of this consultation as follows: "Never before had there been a discussion on the theology of religions that involved such an equally weighted encounter of Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant thinkers".484 

At the end of the meeting a statement was prepared in the light of the discussions. We would like to highlight the many points of this statement because for the first time in the history of the WCC the necessity of the development of an adequate non-Catholic theology of religions came out. The statement maintained that "There is a need for such a theology, for without it Christians remains ill-equipped to understand the profound religious experiences which they witness in the lives of people of other faiths or to articulate their own experience in a way that will be understood by people of other faiths".485 

In the section on "A Theological Understanding of Religious Plurality", this statement acknowledged the plurality of religious traditions "as both the result of the manifold ways in which God has related to peoples and nations as well as a manifestation of the richness and diversity of humankind," and then, for the first time in the history of the WCC, openly and explicitly declared that God’s saving presence is available in all religious traditions. As has been seen previously in the Vancouver statement, it was stated that God’s creative work can only be available in the non-Christians’ seeking of religious truth. In the Baar statement, too, is emphasised that God’s creative work is also available in the religious traditions of non-Christians by indicating that "God has been present in their seeking and finding, that where there is truth and wisdom in their teaching, and love and holiness in their living . . . "486  In our opinion, by affirming the availability of God’s saving activity in non-Christian religions apart from Jesus Christ, the Baar statement represents a shift from Christ-centred understanding of other religions to God-centred understanding in the WCC.

states lucidly what previous WCC statements either shied away from or would only suggest: that because of God’s presence within other religious ways, Christians can expect to discover in them expressions of authentic revelation and salvation. Repeatedly this section of the statement affirms the "saving presence", the "saving power", the "saving activity" of God within other religions, not just within individual religious believers. Therefore, taking up a controversial issue within past WCC deliberations, the Baar statement makes bold to declare that God has been present within other traditions, not just in their seeking but also in their finding. 487 

 

On the other hand, the statement tries to develop a theology which can rescue salvation from "the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ". To do this, it benefits from Pneumatology namely, the universal activity of the Holy Spirit. In this connection, it points out that Christians "affirm unequivocally that God the Holy Spirit has been at work in the life and traditions of people of living faiths". It further clarifies that the truth and goodness of other religions which come out under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can differ from the Word in Jesus Christ. This point is significant in the Baar statement, for, it implies that other religions can have truth and goodness or holiness independently from the Christian truth, namely, Jesus Christ, since this statement maintains that the activity of the Holy Spirit is beyond the Christian perception of his activities.488  In this sense, it may be argued that WCC went beyond the Roman Catholic Church in which the value and religious truth of non-Christian religions were seen to be dependent on Jesus Christ.489  However, this should not be understood that the Baar statement indicates that the Spirit does not act in conjunction with Jesus Christ. While, on the one hand, its section four stresses the real difference between the activity of the Holy Spirit in creation and that of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, in section five it emphasises the essential relatedness between the two.

Interreligious dialogue is therefore a ‘two way street’. Christians must enter into it in a spirit of openness, prepared to receive from others, while on their part, they give witness of their own faith. Authentic dialogue opens both partners to a deeper conversion to the God who speaks to each through the other. Through the witness of others, we Christians can truly discover facets of the divine mystery which we have not yet seen or responded to. The practice of dialogue will thus result in the deepening of our own life of faith. We believe that walking together with people of other living faiths will bring us to a fuller understanding and experience of truth.490 

 

In September 1991 the WCC changed its structure. It is very curious that in the new structure the term "dialogue" was dropped. Within the new frame, the DFI was abolished by the creation of an Office on Inter-Religious Relations within the General Secretariat.491  In this new structure, the mandate of discussing theological issues, such as the theological response to religious plurality, dialogue and mission was given to Unit II on "Mission, Education & Witness" by taking from the Office on Inter-Religious Relations.

In 1992 the WCC produced a brief and concise document, Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations,492  to provide information to Christians who are interested in Christian-Muslim dialogue, similar to the Catholic Church’s Guidelines for Dialogue as has been observed in chapter two. This brief document highlights four main issues namely, Christian-Muslim Encounter, On Understanding Islam and Muslims, Some Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations, and Living and Working Together.

Dialogue is not only conversation [dialogue of ideas] but is also an encounter between people [dialogue of life]. It depends on mutual trust, demands respect for the identity and integrity of the other, and requires a willingness to question one’s own self-understanding as well as openness to understand the others on their own terms.493 

Also, this section remarks that although some Muslims and Christians’ objections to dialogue as "Christian neo-imperialism", "intellectual colonialism", and "naive romanticism" can be right for particular situations, they should not be generalised for all dialogue activities.494 

In the second section, the document tries to highlight common points between Christian and Islamic beliefs to create convergence like the Catholic document Nostra Aetate and various speeches of Pope John Paul II. These common points are the doctrine of God, the centrality of worship, "common values such as the search for Justice in society, providing for people in need, love for one’s neighbour and living together in peace". It seems to us that the most significant point of this section is its reminding us that in the past "both Muslims and Christians often failed to recognise these points of convergence because they tend to see themselves in terms of the ideal and the other terms of the actual".495 

This section also underlines the "real and substantial differences" between Christian and Islamic teachings. These differences are the doctrine of Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion and resurrection. Further, it expresses the Christians’ problem in understanding the Muslim belief that the Qur’an, the Holy Book of Muslims, is the divinely revealed book, since it came after the Gospel.496 

In the third section, the document urges both Christians and Muslims to organise dialogue meetings to discuss the following issues which prevent them from living together peacefully in modern pluralistic societies. These issues are: human rights, ethnicity, citizenship, the application of Islamic Law, religion and politics, interreligious marriages, the situation of women, and the nature of Christian mission and Islamic da’wah.497  In our opinion, the discussion of these issues objectively (by leaving aside all kinds of prejudices) can definitely help the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue and create a better society based on social justice, human rights, and religious freedoms.498  In fact, after this recommendation both Christians and Muslims came together in Geneva (1992) and Nyon (1993) to discuss the issue of "Religion, Law and Society" and later on these discussions were published as a book in 1995.499 

The second stage, started by the establishment of DFI and appointment of Stanley Samartha as its first director [1971], continued up to the promulgation of Guidelines on Dialogue [1979]. During this period Samartha’s openness towards others affected the WCC’s dialogue policy by shifting it from sponsoring intra-Christian meetings concerning the relationship between Christians and others to stimulating and supporting bilateral and multilateral dialogue meetings with people of other faiths in order to promote its relationship with them, as Ariarajah pointed out.500  Also in this period, there was a controversy between Christian exclusivists who maintained that only the Christian faith was salvific [Nairobi Assembly] and inclusivists who stressed that other religions had some salvific value for their followers while maintaining that Jesus Christ was the only unique way for salvation [Chiang Mai consultation and Guidelines on Dialogue]. In fact, both groups agree that Jesus Christ was essential for the salvation of all, but they disagreed on how this can happen.