The Hard Talk about Jesus: Dialogue or Condemnation

Amidst the hustle and bustle of tourists looking for souvenirs next to the Vatican, my friend Jane (not her real name) who followed me as part of an interfaith delegation to Rome, pulled me aside to tell me how she was scarred by her encounter with Christians years ago. And the experience continue to traumatize her.

It was a colleague at work, an enthusiastic Protestant Christian who, knowing she is a free thinker, kept telling her about Jesus without her asking. One day, probably out of frustration, this colleague leaned in and said to her, "You know if you do not believe in Jesus, you will go to hell."

Jane was so traumatized by the experience she asked me again if she will go to hell. I told Jane that Jesus himself was condemned to death on the cross, and he certainly would not want the same for anyone. He came out of love to help us discover the Love of God and not to traumatize people into believing in him. There and then, I bowed gently and apologized to Jane on behalf of any Christian who hurt her by Faith.

Pope Francis's recent remarks at Catholic Junior College in Singapore set off a firestorm by saying we should not say which religion is better. And that religions are different pathways to discovering God. His remarks set off a firestorm in some hardline circles of the Church and  Protestant Christians.

Here, I want to clarify that, by and large, mainstream Christianity is engaged in dialogue with religions. Ever since 1964, the entire Christian world has matured in interreligious dialogue as in, it is led by good leadership, quality scholarship on the subject and community engagement.

Interreligious dialogue is mainstream Christian approach and policy

No prominent global Christian leader will go to a leader of any religion and say they will go to hell. This applies to any Christian leader on the World Council of Churches or prominent Orthodox leaders. What Pope Francis said in an interreligious gathering is mainstream Christian approach and policy; anything else is fringe. In Singapore, there was a case of a Pastor who openly disparaged other religions, and he was called to task.

Personally, I have been on the receiving end of such condemnation. When I studied in polytechnic more than two decades ago, an enthusiastic Protestant youth asked me if I believed in Christ. I said yes, as I am a Catholic. He then went on to explain to me that Catholics are not Christians and insisted my baptism was false. It was traumatic to hear, but thanks to him, I went to study deeper about my Faith. And found what he said was utter nonsense.

Then, in my own Church, as a Catholic youth in interreligious dialogue, I have been personally told off three times by Catholics, young and old, that my interfaith effort is worthless. They said I should accept that all are condemned to hell.

It was painful to hear, and I always had to push back and explain that the Pope led interreligious dialogue at the highest level. When I was a youth, Pope John Paul II led the way for interreligious dialogue. He, too, was severely criticized when, at Assisi in 1986, the Pope gathered the leaders of the world's religions to pray for peace.

One imam in Europe once said that, and I wholeheartedly agree. Why do we do interreligious dialogue? We do so not only for others but to exorcise the demons within. Such demons of superiority and exclusiveness are always lurking in the background.

I am grateful, therefore, for Pope Francis's leadership in dialogue. Despite the ferocious personal attacks at him, he continues to present Jesus as someone who is open to dialogue, like how Jesus had a welcoming dialogue with the Samaritan woman, Nicodemus, and the Roman soldier.

Today, the world needs leaders of dialogue, not more condemnation. Jesus would have done the same.