(Image – Yin Yang by Hildegard)

Introductory note by HealthWrights staff

This interview is included to encourage a bit of reflection on the meaning of “liberaton” in the Christian and Hindu traditions. Obviously generalizations about traditions that are as broad and complex as Christianity and Hinduism can only be approximations of the truth at best. Still, one can discern a different focus in the two traditions that leads to a different understanding of the meaning of “liberation.” In the Hindu tradition liberation generally refers to an escape from the realm of duality and time – an escape, in other words, from history itself. The Christian tradition emerged out of Judaism – a form of spirituality that saw God as concerned with, and involved in, history. The new Testament story begins with Jesus teaching that the “Kingdom of Heaven” (or as it could be translated, “the Reign of Love”) is “at hand” or is “very near.” I would understand this proclamation to mean that A new way of ordering our lives, based on love, is entering history. This understanding of a God who is concerned with history helps define “liberation” as it is understood in Christianity. Liberation according to this reading has to do with freeing people from the oppressive and dehumanizing power of historical institutions. It is, in short, not about escaping history, but about transforming it. Are these two ways of understanding “liberation” contradictory or complementary? In the interview below Michael Amaldoss suggests that they are complementary. Is it possible that it is precisely from the point of union with the absolute beyond history that we derive the energy, the freedom, and the fearlessness to transform history? In “The Synthesis of Yoga” Sri Aurobindo says “love is not inconsistent with, but rather throws itself with joy into divine works; for it loves God and is one with Him in all His being, and therefore in all beings, and to work for the world is then to feel and fulfill multitudinously one’s love for God.” (pg. 523)

---

Asian Focus

NEW DELHI (UCAN) - Jesuit Father Michael Amaladoss, 60, is secretary of the Jesuit Secretariat for Theology and coordinator for new formation policy for South Asian Jesuits.

Father Amaladoss has written many books and articles on spirituality, interreligious dialogue, and inculturation and has been a consultant to the Pontifical Councils for Inter-religious Dialogue and for Christian Unity.

He spoke on an Asian perspective of Christian theology in an interview that appeared in the March 28 issue of ASIA FOCUS.

ASIA FOCUS: What is your experience as an Asian doing theology, which has been dominated by Western concepts?

FATHER MICHAEL AMALADOSS: For 10 years or so the West has been taking more interest in Asian theology. In Europe one can study about Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, but in Asia we live with these religions. My ancestors were Hindus, and Hinduism is my tradition as much as it is for any Hindu. (Indian Christians) have double traditions - Hindu and Christian - and we integrate both. It gives a newness to Asian theology which is not found in the West.

Asia is not as secularized as Europe. Despite advancement in science and technology, people largely believe in God and are religious.

Then, values of family and community are still strong in Asia, despite trends of consumerism and modernism. Asia is a privileged place to explore interreligious dialogue. Taken seriously, many traditional doctrines of the Church are being questioned anew by Asian theologians. For some Europeans, this is threatening.

Why is the West interested in Asia?

Two trends exist. First, the West’s disillusionment with itself due to its materialistic, consumeristic culture and the subsequent search for meaning in the East. Secondly, the Western missioners found positive aspects in Oriental religions and tried to show Christianity as their fulfillment.

Though we in Asia also began to perceive things in the latter way, we do not see Asian religions as appropriations for Christianity. They are, in their own right, God’s way of reaching out to people. For instance, I don’t see Hinduism as somebody else’s tradition but as mine, with which I am dialoguing internally.

Asian theology is not merely an Asian translation of what is interpreted in the West, but rather an Asian response to the Word of God.

How have Western missioners seen it?

There was the sense that the Westerners considered themselves superior, even though some appreciated the riches of Asian traditions. It is unfortunate that the period of missionary expansion coincided with colonial expansion.

Secondly, there is a wrong idea of safeguarding tradition. Not only in Asia, but also in Europe, the Church is unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances. Inculturation, therefore, is a need as much in Europe as in Asia or Africa.

Is the Asian Church too dependent on Western Churches?

To some extent, the dependence is imposed from outside. Finance from abroad has led to a state in which it is said the Church as people is poor but it is rich with institutions, which is a counter-witness. We should live within our means. This will change the life of the clergy. This will be the first sign to show people that we are an Indian Church.

Culturally, the Church in India is foreign. Despite our trying to become Indian, somehow the foreign stigma remains, and our mission suffers. In spite of Asian voices in theology, we keep repeating Western interpretations and are hesitant to express ourselves.

If the Asian Churches were less dependent on the Western Churches financially and culturally, they would be free.

You said the Church in Asia is foreign. How can this be rectified?

Traditional missioners in Asia not only preached the word of God but also prescribed the way to respond to it, telling us how to pray and what prayers to use. In liturgy, except for a few adaptations, we are not free to pray as Indians or Asians. Our prayers are translations. I don’t see any theological or spiritual principle for this. On the other hand, we have the popular religiosity that most people live. We must adapt this.

In India, most Christians live the popular religion and live as Indians in their ordinary way of life. But when it comes to official liturgy, we suddenly become non-Indian or non-Asian.

What are your expectations of the Synod for Asia, expected next year? Why shouldn’t it be held somewhere in Asia?

First of all, the Asian Synod is not a synod where only Asians come together to discuss Asian problems. For Asia, the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) has been actively functioning for the past 25 years. What is new in the forthcoming synod is that Asia is understood geographically (from the Middle East to the Far East and even part of the former Soviet Union).

I don’t expect much to happen except that some of the FABC orientations will be strengthened by the presence of the Middle East Churches. The place of the synod, for me, is secondary.

What are the contributions of the Asian Church to the universal Church?

Much of the contemporary rethinking in the Church on interreligious dialogue, pluralism and inculturation are part of the Asian contribution. When the Asian Church speaks of pluralism, it is born out of lived experience. The Asian Church has contributed to a whole new view of spirituality with the usage of Asian methods of prayer such as yoga and zen.

We are also proposing a new way of mission: Church should not be seen, as in the past, as an extension of but as service for God’s kingdom. This is a new view of evangelization.

What are the weaknesses of the Asian Church?

Asia tends to over-spiritualize and to not sufficiently attend to social and cultural problems, for instance the caste system.

The official Indian Church has thrown its weight behind getting justice for the dalit (low-caste) Christians. But what happens in the Church itself, I don’t know. I don’t see any concrete efforts to promote equality and abolish the caste system.