Inter-Religious or Multi- Faith Dialogue: Key Issues and

Contribution of Select Asian Theologians

By
Eliazer Petson.A
Christian Responses to the people of other Faiths.
Dr. Vinod John

Department of Mission
Church on the Rock Theological Seminary, Visakhapatnam
24th August 21

1
1. INTRODUCTION:
In the nation we are living in, we are facing plurality on every side. We have the duality of sexes,
plurality of languages, culture, socio-political ideologies and movements, and of religions. Even
within one religious linguistic or cultural community, there are so many divisions and sub-groups. So
our problem is how in this pluralistic India we can live together peacefully with trust and loyalty to
each other. One of the foremost significant factors for the Christian Church in this contemporary
world is that the rapid growth of religious pluralism. It has increased the need for improved relations
and dialogue among people of different faiths. 1 This complex Indian religious scenario motivated
many Christian scholars in the past to define Christianity in the Indian context. After taking this into
consideration the dialogue approach is introduced. This dialogue has brought together different
religions and helped one another to communicate each other with mutual understanding. The
Interfaith dialogue seeks unity and promotes harmonious living ways, with all people regardless of
their religion. The main objective of inter-religious dialogue is Peace.
Thus this paper talks about the inter-religious dialogue and it also brings the key issues and
contribution of some Asian Theologians on inter-religious dialogue. Due to the Limitation of words
this paper just shows the contribution of three prominent Indian theologians who were primarily
concerned with dialogue and harmony with the people of other faiths in the pluralistic context of
Asia.
2. INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE:
“The word Dialogos, derived from the root “Diologein” stands for a literary and philosophical
method, by which truth is sought and expressed. Dialogue is an interpersonal communication, a give
and take, an exchange between two or more persons.” 2
Interreligious dialogue, also referred to as interfaith dialogue, is a conversation between two or more
people with different religious faith or culture inorder to share their views freely and to listen to the
others respectfully. This dialogue is not just words or talk. It includes human interaction and
relationships. Interreligious dialogue can take place between communities and individuals. The main
purpose of such dialogue is for each person to learn from others and to understand why they hold a
particular religious opinion. Interreligious dialogue occurs on four levels: knowledge, action,
spirituality, and morality. Dialogues aim to achieve several goals. It increases mutual understanding,
and good relations and it also helps to identify causes of tension between Christianity and other
religions. These are often social, economic and political rather than religious. It gives confidence to
prevent tensions.3.
3. CONTRIBUTIONS OF INDIAN THEOLOGIANS ON INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE:
3.1 Stanley j Samartha:

1
Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (London:
SCM PressLTD, 1983), ix.
2
Amaldass Anand, Christian contribution to Indian Philosophy (Madras:CLS,1995),129.
3
M. Fethullah Gullen, “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue”.The foundation magazine 31(2000):1-12.

2
Stanley is an advocate of a pluralist position in India and he is also a representative of the inter-faith
dialogue in India. To him plurality belongs to the structure of reality, in theological terms plurality
may even be the will of God for all life. 4
Revised Christology is the theology of Samattha (Theo-centric Christology). In his revised
Christology Samartha portrays Jesus as a Liberator of humanity. Samartha insists that the revised
Christology is a Christology from below over the Christology from above. He rejects two natures of
Jesus and he only emphasis on humanity of Jesus. He even cites Pauline writings as 2Cor.5:19;
1Cor.6:14; etc, to show the inferior status of Jesus before God and Father. 5 He suggests that the
incarnation of Jesus Christ must be understood in term of ‘divinity’ rather than ‘deity’. 6
Samartha rejects exclusivism and inclusivism and he named these as ‘patronizing cousins’. He felts
that this two stand point brings violence against other faiths. 7 Samartha insisted that dialogue is part
of the living relationship between ideologies and people of different faiths, as they share life of the
community.8 His concept of dialogue was based on the concept of Dr. M.M. Thoms and P.D.
Devanandan.
Samartha insists that the relationship between Christian and others should not be based on religious
difference. He says that the Gospel is addressed to human beings and not to the religions. 9
For samartha Dialogue is a living relationship with people of other faiths, it is searching for
community along with our neighbors in love and with love. Samartha believes that spirit is working
even in other religious traditions. Samartha, in his book ‘Courage for Dialogue” he says:
“…..I am convinced that the obstacle to dialogue is not so much the absence of a theology of
dialogue as a lack of courage to meet partners of others faiths and ideological convictions
freely and openly in a climate of openness and freedom… It is the fear of losing one’s
identity, of being shaken in one’s comfortable, traditional beliefs, of being confronted with
and perhaps compelled to acknowledge the truth in another camp ...these are the factors,
often unconscious or hidden, that prevent many Christians and their neighbours from moving
out of a sterile coexistence to a more joyful cooperation with each other” 10
3.1.1.Key issues:
Samartha’s idea in formulating his theology is to elevate the dialogue and mutual understanding
between a Christian and persons of different faith. Though some of his theologies are admirable and
acceptable, the way he chose for implementing his theology is not appreciable. Vinoth
Ramachandra11 in his book Recovery of Missions says,

4
S.J. Samartha, The pilgrim Christ(Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1994), 6.
5
S.J. Samartha, One Christ- Many Religion. Towards a Revised Christology(Banglore:SATHIRI, 1992),
121-122.
S.J. Samartha, One Christ,133.
6

S.J.Samartha ,One Christ,112-114.

7

8
S.J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical issues in Interreligious Dialogue(Geneva:WCC,1981),1
9
S.J. Samartha, Between two culture: Ecumenical Ministry in a Pluralist World .(Geneva: WCC
publication, 1996),40.
10
38 S. J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue..., x-xi.
11
Vinoth Ramachandra was born in Colomo, Srilanka. He currently serves on the IFES Senior Leadership
Team as Secretary for Dialogue & Social Engagement.

3
 “Samartha’s passionate concern for mutual sensitivity, respect, and co-operation between the
adherents of different religious tradition is admirable. However, the programme of religious
pluralism that he rigorously advocates is a different matter altogether” 12
One of the issues in Samartha’s theology is that he disagrees with the Christian affirmation that God
has acted normatively, decisively, and supremely in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. He also disagree
that Jesus is unique and no one comes to the Father except through Him, which is against the claims
of Jesus Christ for himself and Biblical understanding (John 14:6).
3.2 A.J Appasamy
Aiyadurai Jesudasen Appasamy was a forerunner of inter-faith dialogue and he is one of the
prominent theologians who elucidated the Christian Gospel within the Indian religious idea. He saw a
connection between the Hindu Bhakti tradition and the Christian devotion. He made an intensive
research on the Bhakthi tradition from the Christian perspective. 13
When talking about Bhalkti tradition Robin Boyd says, “This tradition probably never been absent
from Indian religion.”14 . The goal of this Bhakthi tradition is to have a clear realisation of the
presence of God.15 A,J. Appasamy identified himself more with the Bhakthi tradition more than any
other Indian theologian. Therefore, Martin Alphonse calls him as a Christian Bhakti Theologian of
India.16
Appasamy interprets the Christian Gospel within the framework of Ramanuja,s philosophy. 17He finds
Indian tradition has close affinities with Christianity and he thinks this could be used as a way
leading to the fuller Indian understanding of the Christian faith therefore he concluded that “ Bhakthi
tradition and its philosophical expression in Ramanuja is the best and most helpful available Indian
instrument for the proclamation and explanation of the Christian message” 18
Bishop Appasamy preferred Bhakthi tradition over several other thought patterns of Hinduism and he
gave three reasons for his choice. First he found the bhakthi tradition in Hinduism has close
resemblance to Christian experience. 19 Secondly, he finds that the metaphysical background of the
bhakthi tradition was also found to be nearer harmony with the theological foundation of
Christianity. Lastly he found that the bhakthi tradition in India has a popular appeal not only among
masses but also among scholars in Hinduism. 20
Appasamy has a distinct understanding on Moksha. He believed that Moksha could be experienced
within this life and to attain moksha Appasamy chooses the Bhakthi Marga which maintains
12
Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission (Delhi:ISPCK, 1996),13.
13
Gideon Ganesh, “The contribution of A.J Appasamy to the Bhakti Tradition in Indian Christian
Theology,”Hindustan Evangelical Review, Vol. 3(2008-2009):88.
14
R.H.S. Boyd, An Introduction To Indian Christian Theology(Delhi:ISPCK,1991),110.
15
R.H.S. Boyd, An Introduction To Indian Christian Theology,111.
16
Martin Alphonse, The Gospel for the Hindus: A Study in ContextualCommunication(Chennai: Mission
Educational Books, 2001),34.
17
Biren Kumar,”A Biblical, Historical and theological Reflection on Christology and its Impact on Indian
Christian Thought,”New life review,Vol. 2(2013):89.
18
A.J Appasamy, The theology of Hindu Bhakti( Madras:CLS,1970),143.
19
Samuel George and P. Mohan Larbeer, ed., Christian Theology: Indian conversation (Bangalore: National
Printing Press,2016),9 &10.
20
AmaldassAnand, Christian contribution to Indian Philosophy,164.

4
harmony and personal communion with God. Consequently for him Christian life is the life of
Moksha(salvation) and could be described as a life of Bhakti(devotion).And he also speaks about the
doctrine of avatara. The word “avatara” has two different meaning.(1) it means the birth of an
individual into the world, (2) God coming down from His Heavenly abode onto the world in various
forms to punish the sinners and reward the suffering. 21Appasamy described Jesus Christ as one and
only avatara, in whom the fullness of Godhead Dwells bodily. For him the incarnation of Christ is
once and for all and is unique.22
3.2.1 Key issues:
In order to get Christian Faith relevant to the Indians we have seen that Appasamy tries to relate
Christian Bhakthi to the Bhakti Tradition of Indian. Appasamy considered Christianityyas a life of
devotion and loving relationship with God. Certainly Christianity is a way of life that emphasizes on
personal and loving relationship a personal God as we have also seen in the Bible, the devotion and
love of God is given much importance. We have to respect Appasamy’s effort to bring mutual
understanding and sharing between Christians and people of other faiths. Nevertheless, the key issue
here is Appasamy’s understanding of Bhakthi as way of salvation should be criticized. As we see in
Ephesians 2;823 the salvation is not by Bhakthi rather its through grace and it is a gift. And the other
issue in his theology is that subordinating Jesus to God by considering his and God’s union a moral
union rather that of metaphysical.
3.3 Raimundo Panikkar:
Raimundo Panikkar is considered to be a pioneer of the inter-faith Dialogue and he still remains as
reputed figure in the field of inter-religious dialogue. His primary concern is about the religion and
culture and the relationship between this two.
Panikkar distinguishes two different types of dialogue; they are dialectic dialogue and dialogical
dialogue. The dialectic dialogue consists of analysis, discussions and methodology. These are
important for mutual understanding between two different people. The dialogical dialogue refers to
the witness of faith and it may have a transformational quality. 24 The ideal aim of inter-faith dialogue
is to improve the relationship and discussion between culture and religion.
For Panikkar religion is the path that leads one to salvation or to the state of fulfilment. Salvation
here is understood as anything making one whole, free and complete, which could also be understood
by different people as nirvana, heaven, nothingness, etc. therefore religion is a set of tradition or
Doctrines which is believed to lead one to the fulfilment of one’s life. For Panikkar religions are like
the different colours of a rainbow, where no colour is superior or has monopoly over the others. 25
Raimundo Panikkar's widely acclaimed book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism is a passionate cry
for dialogue, and challenges the church to take dialogue seriously.

21
AmaldassAnand, Christian contribution to Indian Philosophy,165.
22
A.J. Appasamy, The Gospel and India’s Heritage(London:SPCK,1942),200.
23 
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of
God(ephesians 2;8)Esv.
24
Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue,(USA :Paulist Press,1999),29-31.
25
B.R Ambedkar and Raimundo Panikkar,
https://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/34694/1/Unit-4.pdf(19.08.21).

5
 “If Christianity, on the one hand, aspires to be the universal religion, what is the meaning of
any encounter it may have with Hinduism? Where and how can Hinduism take up the
challenge of the nature and presence of Christianity? If, on the other hand, Hinduism claims
to be the sanathana dharma, the highest 'everlasting religion', how can it start a true dialogue
with Christianity? Is there any way for Christianity to cope with such a claim?” 26
We can see his approach to Indian Theology in his book, The Trinity and world religions. Here
Panikkar tries to link trinity with the deep inner spiritual experience of Hinduism. He rejects the
Saccitananda 27 concept considering it us unhelpful for the understanding of the Trinity, but he builds
up a triple schema of Karma-bhakti- jnanamarga, relating them to the Father, the son, and the Holy
Spirit.Karma marga represents the devotion to the invisible God of the Old Testament and Bhakti
marga represents the devotion to the Son, who is a personal God. Jnanamarga , the way of non-
dualism, advaita, is linked with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, who, can be known only by
realisation.28
According to him Christ is not the historical Jesus of Nazareth who is called Jesus Christ by
Christians, rather he means, the Ishwara, who according to him is the unknown Christ of Hinduism.
Panikkar’s cosmic Christology is wider than the Jesus of Nazareth. He affirms that, “It is in and
through Jesus that Christians have come to believe in the reality that they call Christ, but this Christ
is the decisive reality.” 29He validates his argument that Christ is the living symbol for the totality:
human, divine and cosmic.
3.3.1 Key Issues:
Panikkar’s attempt of bridging the broad field of various religions with Christ is interesting but the
problem lies with its outcome. He winds up by constructing a theoretical model that shows Jesus of
Nazareth as a historical personality only of marginal significance.
Panikkar’s Christology is one of the debatable and controversial elements in his theology. He related
Christ to a wider phenomenon than Jesus and this brought him a considerable criticism from many
Christian Theologians. Eric j Sharpe30 writes,
“An early and controversial work was Raymondo Panikkar’s The Unknown Christ of
Hinduism, an obscure and difficult book which stressed the hidden presence of Christ’- a cosmic
principle terribly difficult to relate to Jesus of Nazareth- somewhere deep within Hinduism, or rather
within the tradition of Advaita Vedanta.. In the end, though what panikkar is saying in his book
appears to be not greatly different from the ‘fulfillment’ idea of the liberal Protestant more than half a
century earlier”31

26
Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism,31.
27
Satcitananda is an epithet and description for the subjective experience of the ultimate unchanging
reality, called Brahman.
28
V.E. Varghese,Review of Literature on Indian Christian Theology Published in India During the Past
twenty-Five Years,https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ijt/25-3-4_133.pdf(19.08.21).
29
Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism,(Banglore:Asian Trading Corporation,1982),29
30
Eric John Sharpe was the Founding professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sydney. He was a
major scholar in the Phenomenology of religion, the history of modern Christian mission and inter-religious
dialogue.

6
4. BIBLICAL UNDERSTANDING OF DIALOGUE:
The Bible is clear about the terms on which we approach other religions. There is finality to the
message of Jesus Christ and we must maintain that. This does not mean, however, that we disregard
dialogue as unbiblical. A dialogical approach could open many more doors for the proclamation of
the gospel. Although we present Christ as the only Saviour, we are biblically justified in using any
possible means to make known the message of the Kingdom.
Paul's proclamation of the gospel, for instance, displays an admirable adaptability to the varying
situations he addresses. With Jewish audiences he drew heavily on their own past and established
points of contact with their own belief. With the Greeks at Athens he appealed to their educated
minds, demonstrating his familiarity with their traditions, which he used in support of his arguments.
He became 'all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some' (1 Cor. 9:22).
All this points to the fact, that there is no biblical justification for a dialogue that will assist the non-
believer to discover salvation in his own traditions and beliefs. The concepts of the ‘hidden Christ' is
an outright betrayal of biblical portrayals of Jesus Christ and his message. The emphasis on dialogue
does, however, remind us that we should indeed approach people of other religions. We need to seek
new direction in the Bible as we face our present-day context. 32
5. CONCLUSION:
In this paper, we saw some Indian theologians who tried to define Christianity and make Christ
relevant to the Indian context. Today dialogue becomes the most appropriate way of witnessing the
gospel in this pluralistic context. It is true that Christians have a message to all people and nations
but we must admit that the people of other faiths also have a message to tell us. TheChurch should
seek ways in which Christian societies can engage in dialogue with the people of various faiths and
ideologies. Though dialogue holds up many advantages for the church especially in the pluralistic
context like India the existence of theological issues like the authority of the scripture, the uniqueness
of Christ, God’s salvific work are denial facts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Alphonse, Martin . The Gospel for the Hindus: A Study in ContextualCommunication. Chennai: Mission
Educational Books, 2001.

Anand, Amaldass. Christian contribution to Indian Philosophy. Madras:CLS,1995.

Appasamy, A.J. The Gospel and India’s Heritage.London:SPCK,1942.
Appasamy, A.J, The theology of Hindu Bhakti. Madras:CLS,1970.
Boyd, Robin., An Introduction To Indian Christian Theology. Delhi:ISPCK,1991.
31
Eric J. Sharpe, Not to destroy But to Fulfill: The contribution of J.N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary
Thought in India before 1914,(Uppsala:Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1965),125.
32
Ken Gnanakan, Kingdom Concerns: A Biblical Theology of Mission Today, (Bangalore: Theological
Book Trust, 1989),42-3.

7
Eric J. Sharpe, Not to destroy But to Fulfill: The contribution of J.N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary
Thought in India before 1914. Uppsala:Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1965.
Ganesh, Gideon. “The contribution of A.J Appasamy to the Bhakti Tradition in Indian Christian
Theology,”Hindustan Evangelical Review, Vol. 3(2008-2009).

George, Samuel and P. Mohan Larbeer, ed., Christian Theology: Indian conversation. Bangalore:
National Printing Press,2016.

Gnanakan, Ken. Kingdom Concerns: A Biblical Theology of Mission Today. Bangalore: Theological
Book Trust, 1989.

Gullen, Fethullah M. “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue”.The foundation magazine Vol.31,2000.

Kumar, Biren . A Biblical, Historical and theological Reflection on Christology and its Impact on Indian
Christian Thought,”New life review,Vol. 2, 2013.
Panikkar, Raimon. The Intra-Religious Dialogue.USA :Paulist Press,1999.
Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. London:
SCM PressLTD, 1983.
Ramachandra, Vinoth. The Recovery of Mission. Delhi:ISPCK, 1996.
Samartha, S .J. Between two culture: Ecumenical Ministry in a Pluralist World. Geneva: WCC
publication, 1996.
Samartha, S .J. One Christ- Many Religion. Towards a Revised Christology.Banglore:SATHIRI, 1992.
Samartha, S .J. The pilgrim Christ.Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1994.
Stott, John. Christian Mission in the Modern World. London: Falcon Books.1975.

WEBLIOGRAPHY:
Ambedkar, B R and Raimundo Panikkar,
https://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/34694/1/Unit-4.pdf(19.08.21).

Varghese, V. E. Review of Literature on Indian Christian Theology Published in India During the Past
twenty-Five Years,https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ijt/25-3-4_133.pdf(19.08.21).