Liberation Theology Advanced as Helping Interfaith Dialogues : ‘ . . . The struggle for justice can become the arena where Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists and Christians and Jews can sense and begin to speak about that which unites them.’

Lofty dialogues between scholars of various world religions might make greater progress if the premise of liberation theology were adopted, according to a notion gaining favor among academicians probing the interfaith frontiers.

The idea is that rather than searching for a common religious core, which some think is nonexistent, the discussions should begin with the plight of the poor and examine how each religion addresses those problems.

“Many a scholarly debate has spun its wheels over the ‘conditions for the possibility’ of dialogue,” said Paul F. Knitter of Xavier University in Cincinnati, one proponent of adopting liberation theology’s techniques.

Too much time is spent, he said, trying to define the “common essence” that historian Arnold Toynbee claimed was in all traditions, or the “mystical center” perceived by Trappist monk Thomas Merton, whose study of Buddhist piety and meditation before his death has fascinated a generation of young religionists.

The difficulty is that each major faith has its own history and cultural background with the differences most pronounced between Eastern and Western religions, according to theologians concerned with interfaith dialogue.

Can Unite Religions

“Perhaps better than the monastery or the mystic’s mountain,” Knitter observed, “the struggle for justice can become the arena where Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists and Christians and Jews can sense and begin to speak about that which unites them.”

Knitter outlined his reasons for backing liberation theology’s approach in a symposium this month at Claremont Graduate School.

The meeting brought together several leading Christian theologians who consider themselves open-minded about the spiritual value of other faiths. Some spoke of granting a “rough parity” to the great religions rather than insisting, as Christians, on the ultimate superiority of Christianity.

That is the view, for instance, of British-born religious philosopher John Hick of Claremont Graduate School. Hick said interfaith exchanges have contributed to a “pluralistic vision” in which Christianity is perceived as “not the one and only way of salvation but one among several.”

Yet, as open-minded as they profess to be, some theologians at the conference indicated that the quest for religious “truth” cannot be abandoned entirely. But instead of evaluating revelations, writings or rituals for their own intrinsic worth, the criteria for “judging” religions might lie in how their practice affects humanity, they say.

“We must assert some sort of ultimate values,” said Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago Divinity School. Gilkey said the “shadow side” of religion has shown up this century in virulently nationalistic Shinto in World War II Japan, in the quasi-religious aspects of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism, and in Iran’s present revolutionary Islamic government.

Dialogue Not an End

In specifically recommending liberation theology’s premise for interreligious discussions, Knitter said Harvard theologian Harvey Cox put it well in saying that a shift occurs when interfaith dialogue is not an end in itself. “Similarities and differences which once seemed important fade away as the real differences--between those whose sacred stories are used to perpetuate domination and those whose religion strengthens them for the fight against domination--emerge more clearly,” Cox wrote in “Religion in the Secular City.”

Liberation theology was developed over the last two decades primarily by Latin American Roman Catholic theologians, who say that authentic Christian reflection should begin with the actual lives of poor people.

Liberation theology has often provided the religious rationale for priests and sisters organizing the poor in Latin America in so-called “base communities” and agricultural cooperatives.

Pope John Paul II recently told Brazilian bishops that liberation theology is a necessary part of the Roman Catholic Church’s social thought as long as it is “purified of elements which can water it down.” He has decried liberation theology when proponents also adopt Marxist socioeconomic theory or advocate violent solutions.

The Pope himself has proposed a form of liberation theology for use in interfaith affairs.

Earlier this year, during his 10-day journey through spiritually diverse India, the Pope urged collaboration by the world’s religions in order to eliminate suffering. One goal would be to “eliminate hunger, poverty, ignorance, persecution, discrimination and every form of enslavement of the human spirit.” Such a step, which would include defending the right to worship and profess faith openly, would be done “from the viewpoint of the spiritual nature of man.”

Mixed Audience

The Pope’s appeal Feb. 2 in New Delhi came before a stadium crowd that included Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsees and Christians. The pontiff had conferred briefly that same day with the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s Buddhist holy man in exile.

Two weeks before, the leader of the world’s 800 million Roman Catholics revealed that he had extended invitations to world religious leaders to meet in Assisi, Italy, for a retreat to meditate and pray for world peace.

Whether such a spiritual summit will take place has not been announced, nor was it indicated if such a gathering was considered a prelude to interfaith discussions about human suffering.

The possible pitfalls in expecting each religion to contribute equally in “liberating” the poor and oppressed were raised by a participant in the Claremont conference, theologian Margaret Hewitt Suchocki of Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C.

While suggesting that “justice” is the norm that each religion should live up to, starting with the level of physical well-being, Suchocki cautioned against introducing a new “religious imperialism” from the West.

Some religions explain poverty as “a way to live out the necessary consequences justly incurred through a previous existence.”

Can Perpetuate Systems

Also, she said, “when the conditions understood as evil--perhaps hunger, illness, death--are considered overwhelming, or not subject to removal, it is religion’s task to deal with those conditions in a way which makes them bearable.” Unfortunately, in helping people to cope with problems, religion can also perpetuate the systems that produce suffering, she said.

“Isn’t any norm of justice inextricably bound up with the religion which gave it birth?” Suchocki asked.

Unwilling to say, however, that all is relative when talking about justice, Suchocki suggested that the remedy might lie in asking each religion what it envisions that life should be in a “perfect” world, and how to move in that direction. Christianity speaks in spiritualizing terms of a future Kingdom of God, and yet the church also believes that it has a mandate to seek adversity’s end, Suchocki said.

She suggested that “there may be no single standard” among world religions for respecting human dignity, a second level of justice. “The situation may be even more culturally specific in the third level, or openness to self-development and self-determination within the context of community,” she said.

An emphasis on self-determination may smack of Western individualism, but that cultural bias might be mitigated if community norms--more important in eastern cultures--are taken into consideration, Suchocki said.