Minding Scripture, Part 11: Religious Pluralism

Episode Topic: Religious Pluralism (https://go.nd.edu/1c89af)

Under the conditions of globalization, more religious people than ever find themselves in close contact with members of other religious traditions. Our hosts convene in this episode for a scriptural conversation on religious pluralism. How is the religious “other” discussed in the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? How do each of these traditions interpret the fact of multiple religions? Is the multiplicity of religions positively willed by God—or just permitted by God as a result of human failings? They explore the question at the heart of our podcast: Can we disagree religiously and still be friends?

Featured Speakers:

•  Mun’im Sirry, University of Notre Dame
• Tzvi Novick, University of Notre Dame
• Gabriel Said Reynolds, University of Notre Dame
• Francesca Murphy, University of Notre Dame

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/349e0f.

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled Minding Scripture. (https://go.nd.edu/dee1b4)

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Speaker 0:19

Scripture shapes the lives of billions of people around the world. Yet scriptures, both the Bible and the Quran, only gain meaning when they are interpreted by the human mind. Minding Scripture, a podcast from the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, explores the meeting of reason with the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I am Gabriel Said Reynolds, professor of Islamic studies and theology in the World Religions, World Church program at Notre Dame. Joining me today are the co-founders of the podcast, professors Francesca Murphy-

Speaker 2 0:51

Hello

Speaker 0:52

Zvi

Speaker 2 0:53

Novick- Hello

Speaker 0:54

and Munim Sirry.

Speaker 2 0:55

Hi

Speaker 0:56

In an increasingly globalized world, religions and religious people are increasingly in contact. Today more than ever, we find ourselves living next to, working with, and meeting up with believers of other traditions. How are believers to make sense of this religious pluralism? What do the Bible and the Quran say about the religious other? Is the other an infidel or a friend in faith? These are some of the questions we will address today in Mining Scripture. And in addressing these, we're gonna begin by looking at one tradition after another, starting with Judaism, continuing to Christianity, then Islam, and then we're gonna engage with all of them together with some questions that will ask for perspectives from these three different traditions on the same matter. So we start then with Zvi and Judaism, and the question of religious pluralism, of course, involves the question of the election of Israel in the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament, the notion that Israel, of all of the peoples on Earth, has been elected as God's son or God's chosen people. So could you introduce us a bit to where this notion is found in the scripture in the Hebrew Bible?

Speaker 3 2:05

Sure. Uh, yes, and, and that is certainly the, the starting point for this question within Judaism, and the, the starting point for it within the Bible really is with the beginning of the Jewish people, with Abraham. So in Genesis 12, God appears without any sort of preface or backstory to Abraham and commands him to leave behind his family and promises to make him a great nation and to bless him. Uh, and there you have this kind of departure from his family, so him s- sort of setting himself apart, and this pledge, uh, this promise of blessing him, which then later becomes spelled out as a promise of a nation and a land. So there at the very beginning of the Israelites, of the Jewish people, uh, you have Abraham being set apart and being asked to depart from his home. And then this notion is expressed in different ways in different, uh, biblical books. You mentioned the idea of Israel as God's son, and so that comes up in the next book of the Bible, in the Exodus story, where God reveals himself to Moses and characterizes, uh, his relationship to Israel as one of fatherhood, right? He says, "Israel," uh, "My firstborn son. Israel is my firstborn son." And there it's situated within the Egypt story in contrast with the famous plague of the firstborn, uh, which is the culmination of this process through which God draws Israel out of Egypt and declares Israel his firstborn, in contrast with this culminating plague of the Egyptian firstborn. Uh, so that's another different sort of characterization of Israel as elect than the one that you find in the Book of Genesis. And then you find many others. I mean, just to give, uh, perhaps one other, at Sinai When some 16 chapters or so later in the Book of Exodus, when God appears to the Israelites at Sinai or j- just, uh, prior to it, in speaking to Moses of his relationship with Israel, he characterizes them as a, uh, a mamlechet kohanim, a, um, a kingdom of priests. Vegoy kadosh and a holy people, uh, where holiness is, uh, probably, uh, correctly associated with sort of separation. So those are some expressions of this idea of election.

Speaker 4:18

So then the, the first question that occurs to me in response to that is whether either Abraham, following through some of the bits from Genesis, or later Israel deserves it. Did, did they merit it? Did they do something to earn this, um, status?

Speaker 3 4:33

Right. Well, that's, that's an, that's a really interesting question and a kind of, uh, fundamentally important one for the Jewish tradition. There is no backstory on, on Abraham. Uh, I mean, we know his father, Terah, and brothers, but seems like he doesn't do anything prior to God's, uh, talking to him and commissioning him. Now, one might say that- This is

Speaker 4:53

filled in. I mean, details of this- Of course, right are

Speaker 3 4:54

filled in a later tradition, right? Details are filled in a later tradition. But, but not in the Bible. And you have, for example, right, the, the, the tradition of Abraham being, uh, discovering God on his own or discovering the one true God, uh, monotheism, and then being challenged about this and being cast into a furnace, right? So the later tradition develops precisely in order to fill this gap and to suggest that, that there is a kind of deservedness here, and it's not God choosing Abraham out of the blue. And I guess the root of that question lies in the problem that this seems unfair. There's a, a, a question of theodicy, justifying God's ways. How can it be that God chooses one people? Doesn't that seem fundamentally unfair? There's something fundamentally scandalous about it. And so one way of responding to that question is, is to locate some notion of merit, uh, right? So a backstory for Abraham, or even in the Biblical story itself, as you have it, Abraham is this hero capable of challenging God and insisting that God should be just in his confrontation with God over the Sodomites in Genesis 18. But then also the, the, another kind of response might be, it's not necessarily one that one finds prominently in the Jewish tradition, but it could be teased out of it, which would be that any gesture of love is arguably sort of fundamentally unfair, uh, right? Fairness is the kind of mode of relationship that governs between strangers. So it's a way of relating, uh, that does not involve a personal commitment, but that any kind of movement of love is going to be unfair. Love is unfair. Grace is unfair. Forgiveness is unfair, right? Forgiveness is, comes at the cost of justice. And so then the notion of God choosing or electing is arguably a, a corollary of the, of God being love. So that's another kind of a direction to go that-

Speaker 6:31

The almost, yeah, um, beautiful that, and He- it's out of divine election. It, it redounds to, yeah- Right the loving nature,

Speaker 3 6:39

merciful nature of God. Right. So, so, yeah, so it wouldn't be to kind of, uh, it would be to challenge the premise of the question of, uh, right, is this unfair? Uh, say, yes, indeed it is, but if we s- think about God in a certain way, then this sort of unfairness, as unfair as it is, uh, kind of might follow.

Speaker 4 6:54

Mm-hmm. I, I have a question about, um, the, the nature of chosenness. I mean, in, in Islam, for instance, the Quran describe Muhammad as the seal of the prophet. Mm-hmm. Is there any reference in the Bible or Rabbinic tradition concerning whether Israelites are the last chosen people?

Speaker 3 7:09

Well, that, that is an interesting question, right? And you do have this rabbinic reflection on what is the nature of this chosenness, right? Is, is, is it a done deal? Is it forever, or can Israel be replaced? And you have in rabbinic kind of rewritings of biblical narratives, uh, you have that explicitly voiced, where a biblical character will say, "Well, maybe just as you covenanted with Noah, but then covenanted more narrowly with Abraham, so too that will happen in the future." You do even have God proposing to Moses at the incident of the Golden Calf that He will- Mm do away with Israel and establish Moses as the patriarch. So that concern is entertained. It's, it seems clear from the Bible that exile was a great challenge, was the destruction of the temple in the 6th century. Does this, is this the end of the story of Israel's election? Has God left Israel? And so whi- while the consensus develops that, uh, that this c- sort of commitment is one that God has made forever, that's by no means, uh, yeah, a given withi- wi- within the history of, within the early history in any case, of this, of this doctrine. Mm-hmm.

Speaker 8:08

So here's a big, a big question. We're asking, um, major questions that could each have their own episode on mining scripture. But so there's a problem then of if Israel is elected and separated and chosen, what about the Gentiles? What about the non-Israelites? Are, they're, they're not, they're not chosen, at least not in the same way. So, uh, how does that question sort of manifest itself in the Hebrew Bible?

Speaker 3 8:33

Well, it's especially the big question for, uh, modern Jews who are kind of integrated into a larger culture and want to think of Judaism as having a, a, a role to play vis-a-vis, uh, the modern world as a whole, need to confront this question and have confronted this question. And in doing so, they have looked back to biblical resources. I'd say, and one of the major frameworks for Jewish thinking on this question is to say that election has a missionary element in it. And so the point of election is not to wall Israel off from, uh, the nations of the world, but to enable a relationship between God and the rest of the world. The missionary element here is not a, a matter of conversion to Judaism, but of bringing some essential teaching, uh, sometimes characterized, say, as ethical monotheism to the world. And th- there is a, a basis for this in the Hebrew Bible itself in Isaiah, or, or scholars refer to this particular part of Isaiah, Second Isaiah's theology of the exile, uh, where it seems that, though it's not altogether clear, Sec- uh, Isaiah is characterizing Israel in exile as having a mission to the nations to bring the teaching of the, of the one God to the nations, uh, that Israel's suffering is suffering on behalf of the nations. These are these passages in Second Isaiah that come to be understood in Christianity with reference to Christ. Uh, so there is that foundation. But just taking the Bible by itself, uh, I mean, it is notable that I- in these moments of election, in the way kind of election is characterized, uh, there is room for others. Uh, so just to take the example of Abraham, right? So Abraham, as I said, is, um, God comes to him and promises to make him a great nation and to bless him, but then i- in that very context, a verse later, "And all of the," um, uh, "And all of the families of the earth, uh, shall be blessed through you." And so in this movement of electing Abraham, uh, there is a notion that this blessing will redound to the nations of the world. And then in Christianity, this verse becomes, for Paul, part of the way of understanding, uh, what Christ is doing and how Gentiles become integrated into this story. So there are a lot of biblical, uh, reflections on this question, and hints of it gestures toward a theology of the Gentiles within Judaism that has then become developed further by modern Jews in particular.

Speaker 10:52

And you just skillfully and elegantly direct us also to thinking about the New Testament- Oh, right. Fair enough. and, um, how this echoes this question of the chosenness of Israel in the New Testament, in, in the Gospels. It, it seems at times that we have, in the words of Christ, a plurality of perspectives on the election of Israel. Francesca, I just have two passages that I sort of noted in this regard sort of next to each other. One is in Matthew 10, where, uh, Jesus is, um, sending his followers out, and he says, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" But then just earlier in Matthew, two chapters earlier, you have this affirmation of the faith of a Gentile, you know, the bit with the centurion and his servant who manifests this great faith, and, um, it ends with Jesus marveling and saying, "Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." So, um, is there a contrast here? H- how would you respond to that?

Speaker 2 11:58

I think there is a paradox in Jesus' thought, certainly. I think he does not want to say that Christianity is simply for everybody, and that's it. It just, it's a universal religion. It seems to be that it is through being Jewish that Christianity is a universal religion. And he wants to say, "I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Not simply I was sent to the house of Israel, by the way, but I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Okay? And through that sending, he is going to be brought to everyone through his Jewishness, through his confinement of his mission to the lost sheep of the house of, of Israel, through that very particularity, Christianity is a universal religion. So it is for everyone. It's for the many through the few, if I may put it like that.

Speaker 12:59

Yeah, that's, that's eloquent, and there's the whole problem question of supersessionism- Yeah of course, in the history of Jewish interpretations of the relationship of the church to the Jews, and maybe we'll have future episodes on that. That would be worth discussing. But it makes me think of just another sort of image symbol within the Gospels, which is the temple.

Speaker 2 13:22

Yeah.

Speaker 13:23

And Jesus cleanses the temple. The evangelists tell us that the veil of the temple is torn at his death. Um, he curses the fig tree, which may be symbolic in some ways of the temple. But you wouldn't see that as a turning one's back on Judaism and Israel, but i- it's more complicated.

Speaker 2 13:40

No, I think that it is through his Jewishness that Jesus is for everyone, and it isn't simply, "Oh, I came for everyone." He came to be a Jewish man. No, as Matthew says, not a jot or a tittle of the law is going to pass away, and it is through his Jewishness that he is for all people. So it's very much, I think it's trying to carry out Isaiah's idea that all the nations will come. But they're gonna come through Israel, and so it's very Isaianic. And so Israel never loses its central place a- as the gate through which the message passes.

Speaker 14:20

I think of the, the words of Paul when he speaks of no Jew, no, there is no Jew, no Greek in Christ. And so is this a break then with what you're expressing, the, um, to the many through the few, or however you put it? Is, does Paul represent a break? Is he suddenly saying, "Now I'm coming to clarify, uh, the Christian message to make it, um, no longer-

Speaker 2 14:42

Well, he has a series of contrasts. Neither male nor female, neither slave nor free, neither Jew nor Gentile. And so he's saying all these divisions are breaking down. The nationality So nationality isn't going to matter, freedom or slavery isn't gonna matter. But also, we're still going to be slaves and free, right? Um- Male or female poor, male and female. It's not, I mean, we don't, we don't all become androgynous, cosmopolitan metrosexuals in the in Christ. All the differences are differences, but in Christ in some bigger thing.

Speaker 15:25

But the difference is preserved. It's still- The

Speaker 2 15:26

difference

Speaker 15:27

is preserved still

Speaker 2 15:28

preserved. Yes. Yeah.

Speaker 15:28

Yeah.

Speaker 2 15:29

So it is in and through the differences that we are in Christ

Speaker 15:35

So Munim, I've heard Muslims present Islam in contrasting terms, especially to, to Judaism. I think of the 20th century Jewish convert to Islam, Muhammad Asad, who, you know, spoke of the beauty of Islam's universalism. But he didn't mean pluralism in the sense- Right that other religions are also valid. He meant that Islam welcomes everyone and treats everyone equally, um, once you're a Muslim. It's faith that determines your status with God, faith rather in virtue. But the Quran has some hints actually also towards pluralism, right? Mm-hmm. There's the famous verse in the second surah or chapter of the Quran-

Speaker 2 16:17

Right

Speaker 16:18

which seems to say that the believers and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabaeans, which we can maybe set that aside for now who they are, um, they all have their reward with God. Other passages seem to be more exclusivist. Mm-hmm. Um, in Quran chapter five, there's a passage which is sometimes read as, "Take not the Jews and Christians for friends."

Speaker 4 16:39

Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Speaker 16:40

So it seems to impose a division.

Speaker 4 16:42

Yeah.

Speaker 16:42

So when we're speaking about different messages in the Gospels in regard to Israel and Gentiles, this is another sort of contrast, right, between inclusivism, pluralism, and exclusivism, and we seem to find both in the Quran.

Speaker 4 16:57

Right. So yes, you are right that, um, at least the two verses that you just, uh, cited seem to be contradictory in nature in the sense that Al-Baqarah 62 seem to extend salvific promise- Al-Baqarah being s-

Speaker 17:11

the name

Speaker 4 17:11

for the second chapter of the Quran the, the, the second chapter of the Quran, uh, verse 62 seem to extend salvific promise to others, including Jews, Christian, and Sabaean, and, you know, emphasize that whoever believe in God and the last day, among those people, they will be re-rewarded. So and then the second, the second verse that you cited from chapter five verse, uh, 51 seem to be exclusivist in the sense that Jews and Christian should not be included or taken as a friend. Um, so the word friend in Arabic here is awliya-

Speaker 17:47

Awliya

Speaker 4 17:47

which can be rendered differently, friends, of course- So plural of wali one of the meaning. Yes, uh, leader could be another meaning, protectors, guardians. Scholars from quite early on have, you know, struggle and, and, and wrestle with this seemingly contradictory statement in the Quran. Which of these conflicting statement should be the ethical position for Muslim in dealing with other, with Jews and Christians? Some scholars even go as far as saying that the latter verse, I mean, chapter five verse 51- The more

Speaker 18:18

exclusivist

Speaker 4 18:19

verse should abrogate the early one Although this theory known as an-nasikh wal-mansukh, meaning abrogating an abrogated verse, is quite complicated because even those who develop this theory, you know, they don't agree with one another which verse abrogated

Speaker 18:35

which. So can-- just to clarify, so abrogation is the idea that later verses might, in their legal and ethical authority, replace the legal and ethical authority of an earlier one. Of the earlier one. They both remain in

Speaker 4 18:49

the Quran, but- They more remain in the Quran. Yeah. Yes. They both remain in the Quran as a text, but the legal injunction could be abrogated by the later revelation, so and therefore, the early one become inactive

Speaker 3 19:01

Can I, can I ask- Sure, yes I mean, it, it, it seems to me like a, um, a lot of the, the foundation for a kind of a qualification o- of universalism in Judaism and then in a non-supersessionist Christianity comes from a kind of an understanding of a, a significance for a salvation history, that kind of God's interaction with the world kind of takes a specific form, works through a specific people, and then through Christ. Is there, in I- I- Islam, is there perhaps a more radical universalism, uh, say, kind of that, that's bound up with an absence of a sense of a salvation history? I mean, there's a history, say, um, tell me if I'm wrong, but a history of prophets coming and warning. But does that sum up to a coherent history and narrative that takes place within a particular people? Uh, or, or to put the point differently, or to suggest another way in which one might have a salvation history within Islam, is there a significance to Muhammad, say, being, uh, Arab, and then, so then that kind of pr- ends up privileging then, uh, this people? Uh, so I don't know to, to what extent those, uh, those kind of concepts exists in, exist in Islam.

Speaker 4 20:13

Perhaps not in the sense of ethnicity- Mm-hmm that Muhammad being an Arab, but, um, there are some discussion, uh, among Muslims concerning the, you know, relationship between Islam and other religion in the sense that all pre-Islamic religions are historical and specific in term of location. Like, you know, Jesus is a prophet in Islam. He was sent to a certain, uh, people in certain time. Uh, Moses as well. And they believe that Muhammad, as the last prophet, should be the prophet of all people and all, all time. This idea about universalism is quite strong, although it is not explicitly stated in the Quran, except that the Quran, you know, say that Muhammad is the seal of the prophet, and he was sent to the whole of the world. That, you know, “Wa ma arsalnaka illa rahmatan lil'alamin.” This is the phrase in the Quran, "We have not sent you except for, as a blessing for all." As a mercy, as a mercy. A mercy for all, for all communities.

Speaker 21:16

So, you know, Mun'im, Isvi was speaking about the current context and Jews living in a social Context in which they're, um, contributing to a pluralistic society.

Speaker 4 21:30

Right.

Speaker 21:30

Right? And so Muslims, of course, the world, as we mentioned in the introduction- Mm-hmm um, is increasingly pluralistic. Right. People are from different traditions are living side by side. So there must be strategies to deal with some of the universalistic, which is also exclusivistic- Sure. Right verses in the Quran. I'm thinking in particular, let's say, you know, the verse which says, "Don't take Jews and Christians for friends or allies or maybe rulers." Um, uh, I mean, uh, can we just say that that reflected its time? That Muhammad in Medina in the year, I don't know, 629 or something, whenever the verse was proclaimed- Right,

Speaker 4 22:07

right. Yeah

Speaker 22:08

you know, things were bad between the small Muslim community and the non-Muslims who were around, and there was fighting going on. Yeah. And so the verse reflects that context and doesn't have the same meaning today. Can, can we say something like that or-

Speaker 4 22:18

Yeah, I mean, there, there is a, you know, a comment among, uh, Muslim themself to associate certain verses in the Quran within specific contexts in Muhammad life. So, um, Muslim, uh, uh, develop, uh, as I mentioned, um, earlier, a theory which is called asbab al-nuzul, meaning the occasion of revelation, uh, to provide the historical context of certain verse in the Quran. So, uh, the, the verse on awliya, you know, take, do not take Jews and Christian as, uh, friends-

Speaker 22:45

5:51

Speaker 4 22:45

um, 5:51, according to, uh, Islamic tradition, it was revealed to Muhammad within certain particular context. It's concerned with a Jew who conspired with, uh, Meccan politics to fight against Muhammad. So within that hostile environment that the verse was revealed. So, and therefore, this kind of verse can be reinterpreted differently in different contexts. Even the, the first verse that we just discussed, which seemed to-

Speaker 23:14

2:62

Speaker 4 23:15

yes, 2:62, seemed to be, uh, quite, uh, inclusive, according to tradition that this verse was also revealed within certain particular context. So it relate with a, a companion of the prophet named Salman al-Farisi, Salman from Persia, who came to the prophet and embraced Islam. And he mentioned to the prophet about the situation of his friends that he made, including Christian monk, who was, who was very sincere in the religion, uh, fasting and, and praying. And he asked Muhammad What would be the fate of those people? And then this verse was revealed: “Whoever among them believe in God and the Last Day and do righteousness, they will be rewarded.” So yes, it is possible to read, you know, this conflicting approach of the Quran to the other within certain particular context, and therefore it can be reinterpreted differently in the modern context.

Speaker 24:11

Why don't we take a brief break? When we come back, we'll discuss some questions through the lens of all three traditions, and we'll have some back and forth about religious pluralism. This is Minding Scripture. This is a good moment to rate our podcast. Take a moment to do that, and we'll be back soon Welcome back to Minding Scripture, where we are discussing the plurality of religions and the positions of the Quran and the Bible on religious pluralism. And of course, we're doing so in a context where there's a resurgence of religious dialogue, a response in some ways to the conflict between religious groups, and the goodwill to address that in a productive manner, advancing peace in the world, but also understanding between believers of different traditions. I mean, one case that might present an example of the efforts towards dialogue was a visit of Pope Francis in early 2019 to the United Arab Emirates, where he met with the Egyptian Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, this institution in Cairo, Egypt, which sort of represents Sunni Islam, at least. I think from Al-Azhar's perspective, they would like to see themselves representing Sunni Islam generally, although that might be contested by others. So Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb, they signed the so-called Document on Human Fraternity, and some controversy, though, unfolded afterwards because of a line in that document which reads as follows: "The pluralism and diversity of religions, color, sex, race, and language are willed by God in his wisdom through which he created human beings." Now, it's interesting to think of the articulation of God creating through his wisdom, whether that is a Christian turn of phrase that found its way into this document, something I've asked myself, but that's not what caused the controversy. What caused the controversy was the idea that God would will a diversity of religions. What would, um, Jews, Muslims, Christians comment, add, explain? There were some efforts at the time, I know, in Catholic circles to explain the Pope's signature on such a document. So what did the tradition say about this?

Speaker 2 26:44

It makes me think of Dignitatis Humanae, you know, which is the Vatican II document about religious freedom And Catholics have a very ambiguous history about religious freedom. And because C- Catholic documents can't ever say, "Well, we were wrong and we changed our minds, so this is what we say now." So it's got to find a way of integrating the past into the future and, and new ideas. And so it says that a diversity of views and opinions and arguments has often been necessary as a means through which to reach the truth. And everyone has to be able to express their opinions so that they can converse and dialogue about them, and through that dialogue, reach truth.

Speaker 27:30

I've heard someone say that if only the Pope signed a document that had God permitted instead of willed a diversity of religions- Yeah then it would've been okay. But the will suggests something active. Does it, or?

Speaker 2 27:45

I, I don't know about

Speaker 27:47

that. Like, like God wanted there to be- Right. Yeah more than one religion.

Speaker 2 27:49

Well, the thing is that if there had been only one religion, we would be less able to find out the truth of this religion than if there were disagreements. Because without conversation and dialogue, we can't reach the truth. So there has to be diversity in order for us to reach unity. And I think there is only one truth, only one wisdom, but we really have to talk to each other a lot before we can get to it.

Speaker 3 28:23

Well, that's interesting. Yeah, I, I think, I think that, uh, kind of conception of interreligious dialogue seems to be different from the one, say, that you find, uh, in, in say, Nostra aetate. So Nostra aetate, the, which is the, uh, the foundation of, as a contemporary ch- teaching in the Catholic Church on its relationship to other religions. And th- there also you g- you get a support for interreligious dialogue and the importance of it, but there the foundation, uh, of it seems to be a, a matter of finding in other religions points of commonality. Islam, too, recognizes the one God. Uh, Buddhism, too, uh, recognizes the radicalis- insufficiency of our, uh, existence in this material world. But there's less of a matter on, on, on the crucial question of do we, the Church in this case, have something to learn? That seems to be the sticking point. And the, or the way you're describing it, it seems, uh, you, you, you are kind of willing to go that far and to say that, that there is something to actually be learned or for, for that something for-

Speaker 2 29:19

From, from difference, yes.

Speaker 3 29:20

Right. Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 29:20

I mean, I was simply thinking about it this morning when Munim was talking about the m- Islamic conception of the Quran, and I just thought about how much Christians could learn simply from arguing and talking and conversing with Muslims about the nature of the Quran. And that actually all of these divergent views sharpen one's own view and sharpen everybody's view until ultimately we can get together, and finding the truth is a communal, um, adventure. It's not somebody, something anybody does by themselves. So we have to talk to each other to find the truth.

Speaker 3 29:58

And it's not, that's interesting 'cause that formulation also doesn't necessarily imply then, um, that- the, as it were, kind of the, the treasure of tradition within your, within, uh, within one's own tradition is wrong, but it might imply a certain f- kind of failure properly to understand it, uh, and then the dialogue

Speaker 2 30:14

kind of enables one- The fullness can always become fuller. The fullness just gets fuller and fuller. But, um, so- We could do all kinds of things with this word plenitude,

Speaker 3 30:26

couldn't we? Absolutely.

Speaker 2 30:27

It

Speaker 3 30:27

just-

Speaker 30:27

Now- It's very helpful, yes. I'm very interested, Munim- Yeah in the Islamic responses, but I, may I ask one more thing to Francesco? Sure, sure. Of course. Mm-hmm. Because of course this was signed by Ahmed el-Tayeb also. Right, right. Yeah. Not by, only by the Pope. But, I mean, just-

Speaker 2 30:35

You, you've got your turn in a minute. You're coming up to the hot

Speaker 30:39

seat. Well, I mean, I was just thinking, there are, there's also scripture, right? And some elements of Christian scripture, um, seem to make it clear that you're saved through Christ and through the gospel,

Speaker 2 30:54

and-

Speaker 30:54

I haven't

Speaker 2 30:54

denied that, actually.

Speaker 30:56

Yeah. So, I, but how can you, I mean, there's no way to the Father but the Son. So God, God willed, God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that all who-

Speaker 2 31:05

That's what I think. Yeah. So I absolutely do think that. Okay. And I just absolutely think that if all of us talk together about God's revelation and the Son and the Word and what this means, and the more we talk to each other, the deeper our understanding of this is going to be. And it may be that, that God wants us to talk like this until we understand. It must be if that's what the Pope says.

Speaker 4 31:29

Yeah. But, but I think the document, you know, go beyond just, uh, how one can learn from one another. So if pluralism and, and diversity of religions are willed by God, so it is more than just learning from one another. It's, it's, it's, it talk something about legitimacy and the validity of other religious tradition. Because I think there is something that we should distinguish between whether God wanted the plurality of religion or God allowed the plurality to happen.

Speaker 3 32:05

Right. Yeah.

Speaker 4 32:06

I think the former, in my view, seem to have more th- you know, theological weight in the sense that religious trad- religious diversity should be viewed as legitimate because this is what God himself want, the diversity of religion. And interestingly that, you know, this, this phrase in particular about pluralism and plurality of religion echoes a certain verse in the Quran, especially, uh, chapter four verse 48, which says that if God so will, he would have made you sing- It's 45, right? Yeah. Isn't it 45? 4 5. No, it's 45. 45 verse

Speaker 32:46

48. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 32:46

If God so will, he would have made you single people, but his plan is to test you in what he has given you. So and therefore, some Muslim scholars, you know, argue that, um, that plurality of religion is God design for humanity So, and therefore this verse- As a, as

Speaker 33:06

a test,

Speaker 4 33:06

right? A test Leave r- the, the, yes, of course, yes. It is-

Speaker 2 33:10

But I think that's close to what I'm saying, that we test our minds against each other and we sharpen our theories against one another.

Speaker 3 33:17

That's

Speaker 33:17

very Scottish of you. That's

Speaker 2 33:18

very Scottish of you. But there is only one name by which men can be saved.

Speaker 3 33:22

Mm-hmm. Right, so not test as temptation, but test as a way of- Yeah as experimentation and testing. All right.

Speaker 33:27

Right. So I mean, uh, uh, so from a Jewish perspective, uh, does this, this question must seem different. I mean, it must be a totally different perspective on thinking about plurality of religions. It's, I would think it's, it's less of a problem because of some of the things of divine election that we were speaking about earlier.

Speaker 3 33:44

Right. There, there is this, I suppose, this tendency that, that follows, that, that is enshrined in and follows from the Hebrew Bible, uh, where the, the, the chief distinction is between, uh, the Jewish people and the Gentiles. This is the, these are the categories that Paul is working with as a, as a legacy of the, uh, of the Hebrew Bible. And this, it is an interesting, uh, question. There's some, been some very interesting, uh, research recently on this question, to what extent does the Hebrew Bible, uh, conceive of it as a dichotomy, Jewish or Israelite and non-Israelite, Jewish and non-Jewish, and to what extent does that, that, does that dichotomy actually emerge only, uh, among the rabbis and among Christians? But I think it's fair to say, though, that that distinction exists in the Hebrew Bible itself. And then from that perspective, uh, right, I mean, diversity is to be expected among the non-Israelites. Right? One of these passages that describes the election of Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy, uh, speaks of God, this is the Song of Moses, speaks of God giving an inheritance to each of the peoples, separating each of the peoples and establishing a boundary for each of the peoples according to the number of, in the traditional Hebrew text, the number of, uh, of Israelites or according to probably the original Hebrew text, according to the number of angels. Uh, where the idea would be that God assigns a kind of an angelic, uh, officer as it were, to each of the nations. Uh, and then it follows, "Whereas Israel is the portion of God." Uh, so God takes Israel as his portion and then assigns, uh, and then also divides the nations and assigns an angelic, uh, authority over others. So right, that, that, uh, certainly suggests a kind of, uh, a kind of diversity and a legitimacy to diversity. In Judaism, there is this expectation or hope in any case of, uh, universal worship of the one God, right? The same God who is the God of Israel. And in that sense, there is a certain delegitimization of diversity outside of those bounds of the worship of the, of, of the one God. Um, but it is less fraught in Judaism, I suppose it's fair to say, because there isn't an, uh, a strong notion of mission or conversion, uh, beyond this conception of the idea of a one God who, who unifies all and, uh, and this

Speaker 35:50

ideal of all worshiping that one God. So I, uh, I wanna ask about the coherence of the proposition that we sort of started with, with this episode, which is that we're concerned about Pluralism because we live now in a diverse world where different people are in the same place. Because that could suggest that the reason why we're inclusivist or maybe plural- pluralist and not exclusivist is because we wanna be friends. Mm-hmm. And we're sort of, we'd wanna get along, and that affects our theology. For example, the four of us, we're in the same department, and we wanna be f- We wanna get along- have pleasant, a pleasant time at work. So, um, it just makes more sense to be inclusivist, you know? To what extent does that play out, or can you be exclusivist or, um, yeah, have an idea that y- only my religion is true, you're only saved if you're part of my community, and still be friends? H- How, how would you explain that, that question?

Speaker 4 36:47

I, I think you don't have to be pluralist to, to be friends. Uh, friendship is about, uh, you know, mutual affection or intermingle, interaction, conversation. And sometime differences could lead to a fruitful conversation, right? So it is good to have commonalities to share, uh, something in common, but friendship is also about how to respect legitimate differences. And certainly there are differences in the three religious tradition in, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which I don't think that we need to reconcile this, these legitimate differences. So the problem is not how to impose- So if you

Speaker 37:27

met a Christian who believed the, that, you know, if you do not accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior-

Speaker 2 37:33

You're going to

Speaker 37:33

hell you're going to hell, um, you can still get along with that person and-

Speaker 4 37:37

I think so. I think so. The, the pro- the, the issue is not that those who differ from you, that who condemn you to hell should also not be your friend, right? So friendship is one thing- You know, I used to do

Speaker 2 37:49

a Jewish Christian Bible study years ago. I used to g- go on this Jewish Ch- Christian Bible study week in Germany once a year. And this Jewish lady said to me, "Well, what would it matter to me if somebody didn't like me? Well, they would just not like me."

Speaker 3 38:03

Yes.

Speaker 2 38:04

I mean, would it... So this person is sitting there and they're thinking, "I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as my personal savior," for example. Well, w- why should I care? I mean, you know, how, how do I have to, how much do I have to be affected by what this person's worldview is? I mean, if I'm confident in my worldview as a Catholic, can I be their friend if I don't accept their worldview? I have to respect them as a person I mean, if I think they're really dumb and they have an idiotic worldview, I guess it gets hard. But so far as I- I respect their worldview.

Speaker 3 38:46

Right. And I think also part of that notion of respect maybe, uh, involves, uh, kind of a recognition or awareness, maybe even a cultivation of the awareness that one's own religious tradition is non-obvious. I think, I mean, the more- the more it seems kind of blatantly obvious that you should be like me, the harder it is. Uh, then, then the idea of difference means also disrespecting the other. And I think of a tradition, say, of a Christian accusation of Jewish blindness, where Jews should be the first ones to accept Jesus, and so they're blind not to see that the Old Testament prophecies all lead towards Jesus. But the more one can, uh, kind of appreciate the way in which one's religious tradition, the, the, one's religious commitments are, are non- not native, not obvious, don't emerge obviously from a particular reading of scripture, uh, the more it becomes possible to say, "I think mine is correct. Uh, on the other hand, you're not absurd or blind, uh, for failing to recognize that." Uh, so I think in, in that sense, there is a certain compatibility.

Speaker 2 39:43

There's a lot of medieval depictions of the synagogue as blind.

Speaker 3 39:47

Right.

Speaker 2 39:48

Mm-hmm. And I have to say, I think that Christianity has kind of improved since then. I think it's developed. Uh, I'm glad I don't live with that idea.

Speaker 40:02

So I have one final question, friends. And, um, it's, I suppose, a different aspect of this same matter, which is, how are we affected by our theology? And I'm interested also in the relationship between dialogue, openness to plurality, and evangelism or proclamation. Muslims speak of Dawah. Um, Vatican II, for example, speaking from the Catholic tradition, it did have Nostra aetate, it did have Dignitatis humanae, but it also had Ad gentes, the sort of the mission, the call to mission. And the, you know, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has debated a lot how to integrate both dialogue and, and proclamation. So I mean, I guess the two can both happen, but I'm wondering about the dynamics of how they go together. Because if you're pluralist or even inclusivist, if you believe the other can go to heaven anyway, then, um, do you have any motivation left for evangelism or proclamation?

Speaker 2 41:05

Well, isn't there a difference between evangelization and proselytizing? Mm. Isn't that the distinction they always make?

Speaker 3 41:15

What is that distinction?

Speaker 2 41:16

Between evangelization

Speaker 3 41:18

and pro- pro- pro- No, what, what, yeah, that's, say more what that means.

Speaker 2 41:19

Okay. Um, evangelization is where I tell you my truth, and I lay it out before you, and I discuss it with you As far as you ask me questions and I tell you and I discuss it with you. Proselytizing is when I won't-- I, I don't just lay it down and o-offer it to you, but I'm sticking it down your throat, and I won't stop sticking it down your throat. It's not, "I've given you my truth, and the, the... It's there for you." Right? That's evangelization. Proselytizing is, "Here's my truth, and you have to take it."

Speaker 3 41:55

Uh-huh. Right. Yeah, but there is also an, uh, um, th-this distinction, and maybe it's corresponding to the, the, the, th-this distinction between evangelization and proselytization, but, um, between mission and witness. Yeah. Um, and when, when Nostra aetate, uh, speaks of interreligious dialogue, it introduces this notion of witness. Uh, and what it seems to want to be getting to there is this idea that a Christian can enter into interreligious dialogue that involves a certain posture of respect toward, uh, an affirmation of religious others. But it, it nevertheless is a, an aspect of this mission, right? Ad gentes, this mission to the peoples, uh, uh, insofar as one is wit- uh, giving witness to one's faith. And so maybe, yeah, that... maybe that's an-another kind of expression of this idea or this possibility of proclaiming while not being, uh, in one's face, so.

Speaker 4 42:47

Right. So it's, it's actually about what, what is mean by evangeliz- evangelization or, or Dawah, right? So if i-is the purpose of- Dawah

Speaker 42:56

literally, sorry to interrupt- Right meaning, uh, the call, the

Speaker 4 42:58

call to Islam. Yeah, the call, right. That's- Yeah that's Dawah meaning call to Islam. And i-i, you know, i-in the modern context, the, the, the Dawah movement is actually more concerned with how to call Muslim to be more pious in their religious life instead of to try to convert others to Islam, or there is-- I-it doesn't mean that, you know, Muslim Daees or evangelists is not interested with converting people to Islam, but, but the Dawah in the moral context is more concerned with, with Muslim themselves rather than, than with others. So it's urged us to really think about what is the purpose of the Dawah. Is it to convert others or to, you know, to call people to be more sincere about their religious

Speaker 43:41

searching? Now, from an outsider perspective, Munim, I, I, I see that I'm thinking of the Gulf. We're speaking with the Abu Dhabi meeting with Ahmed El Tayeb and Pope Francis, and, um, the Gulf is a context where there are different institutions engaged in interreligious dialogue. A lot of meetings are being held in Abu Dhabi and elsewhere in the Gulf, but it's, uh, d- the people in the Gulf are also very religious, you know, the Muslims there, and there are, there's concern with, with advancing Islam, and a celebration of... I mean, uh, my understanding is that converts to Islam, you might have a newspaper article about them or they'll get some public affirmation. So they go together, you know? Right, right. They're definitely coexisting, it seems to me. And it, it's very popular to speak about, like, miracles in the Quran, things that can attest to the truth of Islam. It seems that in the contemporary moment, dawah's going strong and dialogue is going strong. Is that your assessment as well,

Speaker 4 44:34

sir? That, that, that is true. I mean, of course it's, it's, it's re- it's, you know, it's this difficult question to draw a line between mission and, and, and, and, and dawah, right? Or be- between, uh, uh, a mission and dialogue. You know, where is the, the line between the two, uh, activities? Uh, so it's, it's a really important aspect to, for, for to have further discussion on this.

Speaker 44:53

Which is another way of saying that Mining Scripture is a very important podcast. This episode is important, so will the next. I think that might bring us to our close of our discussion. Thank you, friends. Friends, um, uh, among our listeners, please spread the news about Mining Scripture. Thank you for joining us. Don't forget to rate with many stars our podcast and review it if you have a moment, and be sure to be with us for the next episode of Mining Scripture: Where Divine Word and Human Reason Meet.