The Nature of Encounter between Christianity and Other Religions as Witnessed on the Japanese Scene

The Nature of Encounter between Christianity and Other Religions as Witnessed on the Japanese Scene

by Masatoshi Doi

I

Professor Paul Tillich, in his Interpretation of History, has suggested that border lines are truly propitious places for acquiring knowledge, whereas if one stands in the interior, removed from the broad sphere beyond the boundaries, he is without an object of comparison with which to judge his own situation correctly.¹ If this be true, it may safely be said that Japan is one of the most propitious places for understanding the true nature of encounter between Christianity and other religions, and provides an excellent laboratory for the study of religions. In 1957 there were 142 Shinto denominations (including 15 Shrine—Shinto organizations), 170 Buddhist denominations, 36 Christian denominations, and 29 other religious organizations, making a total of 377, registered with the

The postwar resurgence of new religions in Japan has been stupendous, with some 700 new religions registered with the government. About half of them disappeared after the enforce169ment of the new Religious Corporation Law of 1951, but others have made remarkable advances. At least five of them have won more than 600,000 adherents each. Reiyukai, a Nichiren sect, alone has gained a membership of 2,300,000, or more than four times the total Christian population.

The reasons for the burgeoning new religions are several. Marxist scholars ascribe them to the social unrest in postwar Japan. But this alone cannot explain the total phenomenon, because new religions are not necessarily thriving in the poverty-stricken areas. A more fundamental reason is to be found in the frustration of the whole nation by defeat in war. Every nation needs an object of devotion. For the Japanese it had been the destiny of the nation with the deified Emperor as its focal point. But now that the nation’s destiny has run counter to their expectations, the Emperor himself disclaiming divinity, they have lost their object of devotion. It is very natural, then, that as they recover from their state of stupor, they look for a new religion that might heal their frustration and claim their total devotion. Such is the psychological situation in which the new religions have grown.

But this is only a recent development. In order to understand the situation correctly one must have adequate knowledge of the historical development leading up to it. I have no space here to deal with it in any considerable length, but I should like to describe briefly some basic mental traits of the Japanese which have contributed to the development of religion in Japan.

I propose to characterize the basic trait of the Japanese mentality as the absence of the sense of ultimacy. The original Japanese tribes were thoroughly optimistic. They were happy and contented with the present life. They had no ultimate viewpoint from which to judge the present. This is the reason why they had such a vague view of the future world. The future world, or Yomi, was only a shadowy, miserable place where the dead went. Even such contemporary Shinto sects with good standing as Konko-kyo and Kurozumi-kyo have no definite teaching concerning the future life.

This absence of the sense of ultimacy also explains why they lacked the consciousness of sin. In its place, they possessed a sense of ceremonial uncleanliness. But this referred to an external deficiency, while sin, in the Christian sense, is the moral sense of guilt.

Man cannot live without some standard of reference. When one 170lacks an ultimate point of view, he tends to lift up some part of the finite world as sacred, and in such a case there is no radical breach between the sacred and the secular. The relationship is understood in terms of continuity. Kami, the Japanese word for God, simply meant “what is above.” Among the primitive Japanese, everything that was lifted a little above ordinary things, be it an animal or a stone, was worshiped as Kami. Any person who had done meritorious service for the ethnic group was enshrined as Kami.

This absence of the sense of ultimacy also leads to syncretism, which is characteristic of Japanese religions. On the Japanese scene syncretism means two things. One is the fusion of two or.more religions into one system. This tendency has been very strong among the Japanese. The time was when Shinto gods were identified with Buddhist deities under the name of Two-Aspects Shinto. Even at present syncretic forms are prevalent among the “new religions.” Syncretism also means man’s split adherence to two or more religions. It is remarkable to note that in 1957, against a total population of 90 million, the total number of adherents reported by all religious organizations amounted to 123 million. Since the total number of those who had no religious beliefs at all was estimated at 24 million, this means roughly that each Japanese believed in two religions at a time.

This syncretistic attitude can be explained partly by the geographic position of the islands. Isolated from the continent by the sea, Japan has never experienced a sweeping invasion by a foreign religion. New religions never entered as radical antitheses to the old. They were introduced gradually and piecemeal, with the result that the old religions coexist with the new in layers, so to speak.

A great change came in the middle of the sixth century when Buddhism was introduced. The optimistic, life-affirming ancient Japanese for the first time learned to doubt the meaning of life. Their eyes were opened to the transitoriness of earthly things. “Contempt for this Polluted Land; Yearning after the Pure Land!” became their shibboleth. But the effect of this encounter was mutual. Buddhism accommodated itself to the life-affirming temper of the Japanese by developing esoteric practices. Doctrines with life-affirming implications were emphasized, for example, “Every person is Buddha in essence,” “This world of life and death is in essence identical with Nirvana,” and so forth. Nonetheless, it is 171true that the Japanese people, by virtue of Buddhist influence, have obtained a deeper insight into the meaning of life. Buddhism had a stronger sense of ultimacy than primitive Shintoism. This is proved by its power to relativize all spatial-temporal existence.

Confucianism entered Japan earlier than Buddhism, but its spiritual influence began to be felt much later, i.e., in the Tokugawa period. It is through and through a worldly religion, if it can be called a religion. It taught scarcely anything about the future life. Its greatest contribution was that it provided the nation with a system of morality which taught men to take universal laws pertaining to human relations more seriously. Thus far human relations had been dealt with in a rather spontaneous and emotional fashion. But Confucian morality, because of its feudalistic and legalistic character, could not do justice to the subjective and creative aspect of moral life. From the purely religious point of view it added little that was profound except the vague monotheistic idea of “the Heavenly Emperor” or “the Supreme Emperor.”

When Christianity came into contact with the Japanese people for the first time in 1549, the Jesuit missionaries communicated their message in Buddhist terms because these were the only religious terms the Japanese could understand. The result was that Christianity was accepted by the Japanese as a religion of salva-

But Christianity did not simply build upon the substructure

which had been left unfinished by the Buddhists. This is proved by the fact that such important terms as “God” and “soul” were used in the Latin original because no equivalents could be found in Buddhist terms. For the Buddhist who understands the Ultimate Reality in terms of universal law or Dharma, God and soul as individual existences are something to be transcended. A personal God as the Ultimate Reality is foreign to the Buddhist philosopher, although there is a strong tendency in Japanese Buddhism, especially in Shingon Buddhism, to personify the Ultimate Reality. But in the final analysis this is only an expedient (hoben) to make it understandable to the common people. The Buddhist doctrine of transmigration seems implicitly to presuppose the permanence of individual souls, and some Buddhist scholars explicitly affirm the immortality of individual souls. But, after all, they are no more than 172ripples in the water. All this seems to suggest that the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism is continuous and discontinuous at the same time.

The second encounter between Christianity and the Japanese people took place in 1859 when Protestant missionaries began their work. The first Japanese to be converted were sons and daughters of the samurai class who had been brought up in the Confucian tradition. Accordingly, what appealed to them most strongly was the puritan ethics introduced by the first Protestant missionaries. They felt that Christianity would give the nation power to fulfill the Confucian moral code. In translating the Christian concept of God they preferred the Confucian concept “the Supreme Emperor” to the Shinto concept “Kami,” which had polytheistic connotations. This meant that they were better equipped than the Shintoists and Buddhists to understand the Christian concept of God. But considerable time elapsed before they understood fully the essence of Christianity as the Gospel of redemption.

The Shinto cosmogony and the Shinto concept of soul helped some Japanese to understand the Christian doctrine of creation and the Christian concept of soul, even though they had to overcome many discrepancies between the ethnic-naturalistic religion and the universal-revealed religion.

A deeper understanding of the Christian Gospel has been represented by those Christians who have been converted from Buddhism. They unanimously confess that the Christian Gospel is the fulfillment of Amida Buddhism. The Reverend Mr. Kamegai, a Christian minister converted from the Buddhist priesthood, says that nothing of the best in Buddhism is lost in Christianity, even though he admits there is a radical breach between Christianity as a revealed religion and Buddhism as a product of human reflection.

This brief sketch of the historical development of religion in Japan gives us a more realistic basis for a systematic discussion of “The Nature of Encounter between Christianity and Other Religions.”

II

Scientific study of a subject presupposes a methodology, and determination of the method must come not from a preconceived dogma or logic, but from the true nature of the reality with which the student is to deal. The reality we are going to deal with here is 173not simply a psychological or cultural phenomenon, even though it has psychological, cultural, and even physical aspects. Instead, it is primarily a personal encounter between God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and man in his religion.

This excludes a type of dogmatic approach in which the objective knowledge of a group of dogmas is taken as the absolute presupposition and from which the experiencing subject is excluded. When a group of dogmas is taken in itself as the absolute truth, it becomes a closed system which can admit no element of truth or meaning in any other system, either religious or cultural. No one would imagine that such an attitude could do justice to the reality of other religions.

Hendrik Kraemer’s Biblical realism is a marvelous attempt to do justice to the reality of other religions without drifting away from Biblical presuppositions. I agree with Dr. Kraemer in the conviction that the revelation in Jesus Christ is the ultimate standard of reference.⁴ I also believe in principle that a theology of religion which investigates religions in the light of this revelation can understand their true nature more profoundly than a science of religion.⁵ But I wonder if a theology of religion set forth by a theologian who has been brought up in a particular religious tradition may not involve limitations which prevent him from meeting with other religions in due fairness and openness. I am inclined to believe that a theology of religion alone cannot do justice to the reality of other religions. It needs objective knowledge of other religions as a corrective, even though I definitely reject the idea that the universal Logos is the final tribunal. The final decision must be made within the theological circle, after paying due attention to the objectively given knowledge of other religions. This is necessary because a theologian qua theologian cannot be flawless in his knowledge of other religions even if the revelation in the light of which he examines them be flawless.

Dr. Kraemer shows real wisdom when he says that Christianity as an historical religion is a distorted response to the divine act and as such stands under the judgment of God just as do all other

This ability of Protestant Christianity to criticize itself

174by the same standard as other religions constitutes the only door through which the theologian can communicate with other religions in due fairness and openness. This enables him to accept openheartedly such a corrective as I mentioned above. Faith gives him the ability to stand not only inside the theological circle but also outside it, as Professor Tillich would say. The stronger his faith is, the greater is his ability to step out of the circle without losing himself as a committed Christian.

Other objective approaches which are as inadequate as the abovementioned type of dogmatic approach for dealing with our subject may generally be called scientific. By scientific approaches I mean those methods—by whatever name they may be called: comparative religion, history of religion, or science of religion—for which the universal Logos is the final tribunal and from which the existential involvement of the ego is excluded. Since faith is a matter of existential commitment it is clear that these objective approaches cannot do full justice to the real nature of religions. Yet it is also clear that there are such phenomena as similarities and dissimilarities between religions. In each religion there are strong points and deficiencies in comparison with other religions. Should these things be neglected or deemed insignificant because of the sui generis character of all religions?

In the Bossey document entitled “The Word of God and The Living Faiths of Men,” fulfillment theory is discredited on the ground that religions are wholes and complete in themselves.’ It is true that a religion is something more than the sum total of its parts; it has a principle or core which integrates the whole. But this integration should not be understood too much in biological terms. As a matter of fact, every historical religion is a synthesis of different elements from different cultures and religions as far as its historical expression is concerned. Christianity is no exception. Christianity in its present form is a synthesis of many elements from Judaism, the mystery religions, Hellenistic ideas, modern rationalism, and so forth.* Therefore, we must admit that there is some element of continuity between Christianity and other religions and cultures as far as their historical expressions are concerned, al175though it is also true that there can be no conversion from one religion to the other unless there is some element of discontinuity between them.

In a survey conducted by the writer the majority of replies from converts gave support to the fulfillment theory. Out of 52 answers to the question, “Do you think Christianity is a fulfillment of the good points of your former religion or its total negation?”, 25, or 48 per cent, were “fulfillment”; 19, or 37 per cent, were “total negation.” Of the 19 who answered “total negation,” 6 were fundamentalists who had been strongly indoctrinated with absolutist tenets. In addition to them, 4 answered, “Christianity is superior to my former religion”; 2 answered, “All other religions are implied in Christianity.” If these latter are taken into account, the number supporting synthesis over negation is overwhelming. It may be asserted that this question is too sophisticated to be answered by average Christians. On the other hand it may be argued that these answers are valuable precisely because they have been given by laymen who are theologically unbiased. In any event, it can hardly be denied that the most natural answer Japanese Christians would give to this kind of question is the “fulfillment” type rather than the “negation”

My thesis, then, is that the central core of the religious experience, which is involved in the encounter between Christianity and other religions, is the existential commitment of a person, who has been brought up in a definite religious tradition, to God who revealed Himself in an historical event as the ultimately meaningful reality. This encounter is to be understood in terms of correlation between the ultimately meaningful event and the experiencing subject who accepts this event as ultimately meaningful. Where either pole of this correlation is lacking there can be no real encounter. No historical event can be ultimately meaningful unless there is an experiencing subject who accepts it as ultimately meaningful. And no experiencing subject can produce the ultimately meaningful event. Only what is ultimately meaningful can produce the consciousness of what is ultimately meaningful.

A genuine Christian faith must be absolute as far as it is an existential commitment within this correlation. But this absoluteness cannot be claimed as an objective truth because it cannot be proved objectively. It can be attested only through the total existence of the believer. I do not mean that the pragmatic test is the 176final tribunal, nor that there is an exact correspondence between the validity of the theological circle and its historical expressions. In so far as the subjective side of this correlation is relative to the social and psychological situation of the believer, there can be no final test in history. I simply mean that no better test is conceivable on the subjective side of the revelatory correlation.

The real experience of what is ultimately meaningful attests itself in its power to relativize everything which is preliminary, its power to say “no” to every attempt to elevate what is preliminary to the rank of ultimacy. This is the negative function of faith. There is an absolute gap between that to which faith testifies and everything else. But faith cannot testify to itself in this world except through that which is preliminary. The Christian message cannot be communicated to the Japanese without using terms and ideas understandable by them, whether these terms and ideas be Buddhistic, Shintoistic, or Confucian, and even though in the Christian’s mind these terms and ideas may have different connotations than in the originals. Nevertheless when the Christian chooses one term from others there must be in the chosen term some quality by virtue of which it is more conformable than others to the reality to which he testifies. There must be an element of continuity between the two. It is the positive function of faith to choose between different terms.

We may state this in another way. When a Japanese Buddhist is touched by the Christian message, his existence within the Buddhist theological. circle will be shaken. For a while he may remain within his original circle, retaining the power to resist the enticement of the new religion. The deeper he is involved in the original circle the stronger his resisting power will be. But the more he experiences the strength of the Word of God, the more he loses his power to resist. And finally he will surrender his total existence to the new reality, finding himself transferred into a new theological circle. At that moment he may be able to say, “But whatever gain I had [in Buddhism], I counted as loss for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:7).

However, no one can be sure that he is not still understanding some Christian doctrines in Buddhist terms. He may still be a hidden Buddhist. Buddhism is so deeply instilled within the lifeblood of the Japanese people that some Japanese Christians in critical moments invoke the name of Buddha instead of that of Christ. This 177suggests that they are Christians only on the conscious level while still remaining Buddhists in the subconscious. It might be that after a iong process such a person’s understanding of Christianity will be completely purged of Buddhist implications and he will become a real Christian from the bottom of his existence.

Now, faith in the Protestant sense is not simply the acceptance of a system of dogmas but a life which expresses itself through theological formulations, preaching, and social and cultural activities. In such expressions faith is not bound by any particular system of dogmas or ideas, nor is it restricted to a certain pattern of culture. As man’s free response to the divine act it has the freedom to choose between various doctrines, ideas, and cultural patterns so that it may be able to create a new system of doctrines and ideas and a new cultural pattern in accordance with the historical situation in which the believer stands.

But in this process the man of faith is not left to his own discretion. He has to conform to the divine act to which he testifies. This involves, therefore, a double process of criticism and formation. In forming a new system of doctrines and a new cultural pattern he has to choose between different ideas and cultural values, and this criticizing process itself forms a new system and a new pattern. Emphasis can be eitker upon the critical side or upon the formative side. If too much emphasis is laid upon criticism for the sake of purity of doctrine, Christianity tends to become abstract and to remain aloof from the religious and cultural situation in which it stands. If, on the contrary, too much emphasis is laid upon formation for the sake of adaptation, it involves a danger of falling into distortion.

The much-retarded indigenization of Christianity in Japan may be partly explained from this angle. Since the beginning of Protestant missionary work a century ago, Christianity has pioneered in educational activities and social-welfare work. Even at present about one tenth of the colleges in Japan are Christian. Thus it may be said that the permeation of Japan by Christian culture has far exceeded the increase in church membership. But this “Christian culture” can hardly be said to be indigenous. For the mass of the people it is still something imported. -

The Japanese church is noted for its high theological attainment in comparison with churches in other mission lands. Yet, as a matter of fact, we are still in a stage of importation. No theological 178system has ever been developed in Japan which can truly be called indigenous. This is partly due to the prevalence of a type of theology whose hairsplitting criticism tends to frighten theologians away from developing an apologetic theology that is pertinent to our boundary situation.

As a result, Protestant evangelism in postwar Japan, in spite of the slogan “Let the Gospel penetrate into the masses!”, has not been as successful as it was intended to be, whereas hundreds of thousands of people are thronging to such fanatical religions as Risshokoseikai and Sokagakkai which promise to meet their immediate needs.

In response to my question, “Why have you given up your former religion?”, 14, or 31 per cent, of 45 converts from other religions answered, “The teachers’ personalities were debased”’; 12, or 27 per cent answered, “The daily life of the believers was degraded”; 11, or 24 per cent, answered, “They were superstitious”; 5, or 11 per cent, were disgusted by corrupt religious management; only 3, or 6 per cent, were dissatisfied with their religious doctrines. This means that the Japanese people are more concerned with the value aspect of religion than its truth aspect. No religion can appeal to them unless it proves itself to be valuable or meaningful for them through creative and formative activities.

Of course, here lurks a danger. Too much accommodation to the value judgments of adherents of other religions would result in the suicide of Christianity. The true nature of Christian formation reveals itself in its power to transform the value system of a given culture. And yet, transformed values are also values. Christianity, because of the uniqueness of its revelation, cannot avoid competing with other religions in regard to this value aspect. Christianity is not the sum total of preliminarily meaningful things, but it cannot bear witness to the ultimately meaningful reality except through preliminarily meaningful things. When John the Baptist, through his disciples, asked Jesus, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”, Jesus answered neither “I am” nor “I am not.” He simply said, “The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them” (Mt. 11:5).

Tip: use the ← and → keys to move between chapters; press Ctrl K to search. Share any printed page with index.html?p=<page>.

↑ Back to top ⬇ Download the scanned PDF