Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies: Hospitality and Friendship [1st ed.] 978-3-030-17804-8;978-3-030-17805-5

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiii
Introduction (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 1-11
A Short Secular and Religious History of Ihievbe Town (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 13-28
Factors Shaping Religious and Cultural Identities in the Ihievbe Community (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 29-41
Philosophical and Christological Arguments for Hospitality as a Dialogical Model (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 43-65
A Case for Hospitality in the Era of Religious Pluralism (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 67-81
The Philosophy of Friendship and Its Place in Constructing Interreligious Encounters (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 83-116
Expressions of Relationality and Alterity in Contemporary Pluralistic Cultures: A Case Study of Ihievbe Community (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 117-130
Ethnographic Findings Justifying the Relevance of Hospitality and Friendship as Tools for Interfaith Dialogue (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 131-222
Conclusion (SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai)....Pages 223-230
Back Matter ....Pages 231-239

Citation preview

PATHWAYS FOR OUS ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies Hospitality and Friendship SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai

Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue Series Editors Gerard Mannion Department of Theology Georgetown University Washington, DC, USA Mark Chapman Ripon College University of Oxford Oxford, UK

Building on the important work of the Ecclesiological Investigations International Research Network to promote ecumenical and inter-faith encounters and dialogue, the Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue series publishes scholarship on such engagement in relation to the past, present, and future. It gathers together a richly diverse array of voices in monographs and edited collections that speak to the challenges, aspirations and elements of ecumenical and interfaith conversation. Through its publications, the series allows for the exploration of new ways, means, and methods of advancing the wider ecumenical cause with renewed energy for the twenty-first century. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14561

SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai

Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies Hospitality and Friendship

SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai University of Portland Portland, OR, USA

Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue ISBN 978-3-030-17804-8 ISBN 978-3-030-17805-5  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

When we take time to encounter others at the deepest layers of our humanity, we cannot but be transformed. This is my story. Prior to writing this book, I had a very traditional understanding of my Christian faith. For me, it was simple. Only Roman Catholics had the assurances of attaining salvation. For others, it was a gamble. All that changed when I was working among the Catholic community of Umudiala-Ezinifite, Nnewi, Anambra State, Nigeria, in the Summer months of 1995. Seeing how my fellow Catholics treated an elderly priestess of one of the deities of the indigenous religions of the town and my interactions with her that led to a deep interfaith friendship grounded in her generous hospitality shown toward me, I could no longer justify my supersessionist faith. That singular event has today led me to write this book and propelled me to embrace wholeheartedly a theology that is authentically interfaith and dialogical in all its expressions. Details of my hermeneutic conversion based on that event can be found in a previous work of mine titled, “Interreligious Friendship: A Path to Conversion for a Catholic Theologian,” in Interreligious Friendship After Nostra Aetate, published in 2015 by Palgrave Macmillan. As you read this work, it is my hope that you will begin to ask yourselves those difficult questions that will lead you to encounter members of other faiths, not as enemies but as friends, who will lead you to a deeper appreciation of the workings of God in God’s world. The ultimate conversion we are called to experience is not so much that of v

vi   

Preface

moving from one religion to another, rather it is about seeing in the other the beauty of God that our previous eyes of faith could not see. The urgency of this work cannot be overstated. Too many continue to die due to violence carried out in God’s name. The dark clouds of violence have held captive the religious imaginations of many in Nigeria, India, Central African Republic, Myanmar, the USA, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many more countries. It is my sincere hope that the warmth of God’s peace will soften all hardened hearts. May God’s light lead all people of faith to a dawn of universal sisterhood and brotherhood. May God’s peace be proclaimed from the highest mountains and hills of our world. May we experience again the flourishing of religions that call all persons to embrace their neighbors as brothers and sisters made in God’s image and likeness. Portland, USA December 2018

SimonMary Asese A. Aihiokhai Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology

Acknowledgements

It has taken me over two decades to articulate clearly my vision of a world defined by God’s gift of religious pluralism. My encounters with persons of diverse faith traditions in Africa and in North America have led me on a path of self-discovery as I intently lookout for the sacred in places many in my own Christian faith have judged to be profane. I am thankful to all the mystics I have encountered on this journey. First and foremost, I thank the priestess I met in 1995 whom I fondly called nne (mother). Though you no longer live with us in this world, you have joined the community of ancestors. May you continue to guide all who seek God through your intercession. Also, I thank all persons of faith who courageously call for dialogue among religions. Your courage has given birth to a new generation of theologians, who have dedicated their profession to articulating theologies of dialogue and encounter for their respective religious traditions. This work would not have been possible were it not for the support and insights of such persons as Drs. Marinus Iwuchukwu, Elochukwu E. Uzukwu, C.S.Sp., and Gerald Boodoo, from Duquesne University, and James Fredericks from Loyola Marymount University. I am also very grateful to my former student and friend, Lisa Pitelli from Saint Leo University, who spent months proofreading this manuscript and offering me new perspectives I had not thought of before. Your friendship is truly appreciated. My profound gratitude goes to the members of the Muslim, Catholic, and Ihievbe Traditional Religious communities in Ihievbe town who vii

viii   

Acknowledgements

shared with me their cultural and religious heritage. Without your generosity and willingness to be vulnerable, this work would not have been written. I cannot forget my interpreter, Mr. Christian Oikhere. Your patience and willingness to help me throughout the time I was doing this research has paid off. Finally, with a sense of reverence do I remember Mr. Patrick A. Oikhere and Mr. Andrew Irogho Ohiosumwan. Your willingness to share with me the religious and cultural histories of the town has yielded the desired result. Unfortunately, both of you passed away recently. I pray that your memories will live on through this work. May you rest in God’s peace.

Contents

1 Introduction 1 References 11 2 A Short Secular and Religious History of Ihievbe Town 13 2.1 A Short History of the Roman Catholic Church in Ihievbe Town 19 2.2 Expressions of Culture and Religion(s) Among Ihievbe People 22 References 28 3 Factors Shaping Religious and Cultural Identities in the Ihievbe Community 29 3.1 Cultural and Religious Descriptions of Hospitality in Ihievbe Language 31 3.2 Cultural and Religious Descriptions of Friendship in Ihievbe Community 34 3.3 A Short History of Interreligious Living Among Ihievbe People 36 References 41 4 Philosophical and Christological Arguments for Hospitality as a Dialogical Model 43 4.1 Christ’s Hypostatic Identity as Divine Hospitality 59 References 63 ix

x   

Contents

5 A Case for Hospitality in the Era of Religious Pluralism 67 5.1 Practical Ways for Applying Hospitality as a Tool for Interreligious Encounter 75 References 80 6 The Philosophy of Friendship and Its Place in Constructing Interreligious Encounters 83 6.1 Christology and Interreligious Friendship 92 6.2 The Nature of Dialogue in Friendship in Islam 96 6.3 The Place of Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion 100 6.4 Interreligious Friendship and Religious Identity 106 6.5 Critique of the Roman Catholic Church’s Call to Mission 108 References 113 7 Expressions of Relationality and Alterity in Contemporary Pluralistic Cultures: A Case Study of Ihievbe Community 117 7.1 An Ihievbe Sense of Social Harmony as Grounds for Interreligious Dialogue 123 7.2 An Ihievbe Reading of Christian Salvific History as Grounds for Validating the Religious Other 126 References 130 8 Ethnographic Findings Justifying the Relevance of Hospitality and Friendship as Tools for Interfaith Dialogue 131 8.1 Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Roman Catholics in Ihievbe Town 135 8.2 Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Roman Catholics in Ihievbe Town 161 8.3 Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Muslims in Ihievbe Town 185 8.4 Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Muslims in Ihievbe Town 193 8.5 Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Traditional Religionists in Ihievbe Town 197 8.6 Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Traditional Religionists in Ihievbe Town 204 References 218

Contents   

xi

9 Conclusion 223 References 230 Appendix 231 Index 237

Abbreviations

AGD.  Ad Gentes Divinitus, Decree: On the Missionary Activity of the Church. December 7, 1965 DH.  Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration: On Religious Liberty. December 7, 1965 DI.  Dominus Iesus, Declaration: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. August 6, 2000 GS.  Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution: On the Church in the Modern World. December 7, 1965 LG.  Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution: On the Church. November 21, 1964 NA.  Nostra Aetate, Declaration: On the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions. October 28, 1965 UR.  Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism. November 21, 1964

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract  The preference for hospitality and friendship as means for constructing a viable dialogical model is intentional. While hospitality makes real the possibility for enduring engagement among religions and their members, it does not always translate to friendship among religions. By using hospitality, I intend to show the necessity for religions to take seriously how their heritages affirm relationality as means to bear witness to their religious truths in the world. Religions cannot simply be open to the possibilities of encounters without concretizing them, hence the introduction of friendship. I contend that interreligious friendship is possible only when hospitality is initially demonstrated. To do this, I ground hospitality and friendship within the religious traditions of Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion. Christian triumphalism has no place in interreligious dialogue. The view that other religions lack complete salvific truths and that the elements of truth that they have derived their validity from the merits of Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church does not reflect the attitude of Christ himself. During his earthly ministry, Christ did not advocate for the eradication of Judaism, rather he preached a message that had liberating consequences for all persons (Von Balthasar 1982, 245). The centrality

© The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_1

1

2  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

of love of neighbor in the mission of Christ means not only to love the stranger but to go further and demonstrate authentic hospitality as well as develop bonds of friendship with one’s neighbor. In this work, I explore hospitality philosophically, theologically, and culturally as a human condition that makes friendship possible. Here, the works of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas are central for understanding how hospitality fosters interreligious encounters; yet, the contributions of other philosophers like René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Luc Marion are examined. The aim for this theological appropriation of hospitality is to show that humans, as religious beings, are called by God to be hospitable toward each other and to create bonds of friendship. Friendship, as a tool for constructing a dialogical model among religions, should be grounded in a specific meaning of the word. To this end, the definition of friendship by Jürgen Moltmann is used and supported by the philosophical contributions of Aristotle, Cicero, Derrida, Plato, and Buber. In short, this work makes two claims: that hospitality and friendship are innately part of the human condition and that both constitute a relevant part of every religious tradition. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Marion, Buber, and Levinas argue for relationality as part of the constitutive make-up of collective humanity (see Plato 1991, 12, 16, 17; Aristotle 1953, 205–206; Cicero 1991, 90; Aquinas 2.1.109.2; Marion 2002, 9; Buber 1958, 6; Levinas 1999, 101). This does not mean that every human being lives authentically in the graced process of relationality. These authors argue, to live truly, humans must relate to one another with openness, trust, and a willingness to be vulnerable. To successfully encounter a religion so that our impressions correspond to the lived experiences of its adherents, I dialogue with the Catholic community in Ihievbe in Midwestern Nigeria and explore the elements that both hold it together and define its identity in a religiously pluralistic context. I analyze the cultural heritage of the people and underscore the community’s emphasis on social harmony. Among the Ihievbe people, the role of their ancestors is closely linked to the preservation of social harmony and brings the significance of hospitality and friendship into their consciousness. Christianity, like other religions, has a rich heritage on concrete practices of hospitality by its founder, Jesus Christ. The relational qualities of the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ can be understood within the broader framework of hospitality because hospitality affirms a sense of

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

innate generosity of encounter with another. Through hospitality, the host and the guest express a sense of generosity. A gift proceeds from the generosity of the heart of the giver and is received because of a generous willingness on the part of the guest. Through the incarnate Christ, generosity of God and humanity are both affirmed and preserved as God encounters humanity with a pure desire to share God’s divinity with humanity. The hypostatic union serves as a witness to this divine gesture. Humanity also demonstrates generosity by receiving this gesture of love from God in and through Jesus Christ. Humanity’s generosity is sustained by God’s grace and humanity’s free agreement to this divine invitation. To deny human generosity is to deny human free will. Christian theology maintains a balance between the salvific actions of God and the free response of humanity, while affirming that the ability to make choices is itself a gift from God, a gift that may be refused nonetheless. Islam and Ihievbe Traditional Religion have rich heritages that encourage the practice of hospitality and friendship. I will explore these traditions to show how hospitality and friendship help construct a dialogical model for religions in a pluralistic setting. From Islam, I appropriate texts that reveal the role of relationality and survey the life of the Prophet Mohammed to discover how hospitality and friendship promote interreligious encounters. To substantiate the argument that religions provide openings for relations between different faith traditions, I will recover the foundation of ancestral relationality found in Ihievbe Traditional Religion. Though hospitality is necessary for a religious dialogical model, friendship solidifies what hospitality initiates. It involves opening the heart to another, be he a stranger or acquaintance, out of care for the good of the other, and friendship signifies a deliberate desire to encounter each other in unexplored depths. Friendship with a stranger shatters concepts of him/her as less human or possessing partial salvific truths. I argue that friendship among members of different religions brings about fruitful dialogue, even in matters that appear irreconcilable. In his writings on interreligious relations among people, Amos Yong recognizes how friendship revives hope during times of religious violence (Yong 2008, 19). For Aristotle, friendship is reciprocal by its nature and mutuality is fundamental for perfect friendship (Aristotle 205). Within interreligious dialogue, desire for the good of the other is not proselytizing; rather, dialogical encounter is the common project, and the desire to know one another is rooted in mutual respect. The kind of friendship for which I advocate in this work transcends Aristotle’s claim that perfect friendship

4  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

exists only between two persons (210). Borrowing from Buber, if the human condition is grounded in the desire to encounter the other, perfect friendship is not a closed project restricted to two persons, rather it is the authentic way of relational encounters. In other words, relationality is the human condition (Buber 6). Friendship as a theological model for interreligious dialogue requires openness to the other and letting the other define herself/himself in the context of the friendship. This model is different from the colonial missionary model as pointed out by Vítor Westhelle, which creates the conditions that allow the colonial agent to be in control of the outcome (see Westhelle 2010, 15–32), and categorizes the other either as an outsider in need of redemption or as a heretical insider in need of rehabilitation. For example, in Africa, the colonial and missionary agents viewed the indigenous people as inferior, which legitimizes a systematic eradication of the cultures and religious fervor of the people. A counter-approach to the evangelical and colonial ideology, this model of true friendship is open to surprises, to joys, sorrows, expectations, always with a willingness to engage. Culturally, Ihievbe people hold that the ancestral link with the community serves as the constant guide for them to relate through hospitality and friendship. In other words, the human person has a graced link that serves both as a guide for living the ethical life of relational encounters and as constitutive of the human identity. Ancestors live, not in a different world, but through the members of the community, which disposes the members to the conditions for relationality. People are expected to live their lives guided by the examples of the ancestors by showing hospitality as well as forming bonds of friendship. Another common characteristic shared by Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion is that relationality is a gift from the other. In the Christian tradition, God is the ultimate other who invites humans to encounter God (Rolnick 2007, 7). For humans to attain the fullness of their humanity, they agree to this divine invitation. In the philosophical tradition, Buber argues that the fullness of relationality is conditioned by the presence of the other. The other’s presence is an invitation to engage and be relational. In the Ihievbe worldview, true relational existence is conditioned by the ancestors who invite the community to be faithful to their roots. Among the Ihievbe people, hospitality and friendship touch every aspect of human interaction and extend to contacts with non-humans. The ground for existential harmony is right relationship with the other,

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

and people believe in the collective and individual responsibility to live harmoniously. Thus, differences in religious beliefs are dealt with amicably to preserve the peace. The people adopt a pragmatic approach, one that views the primary purpose of religion as bringing about the flourishing of life in all its expressions. It becomes a serious source of contradiction to find religious views encouraging violence and the destruction of life. Even when religion advocates an eschatological promise of eternal life, the earthly life, which is lived before the eschatological one begins, must be lived in peace and harmony. In the current dispensation, religious communities cannot choose to isolate themselves. The global community is constantly being brought together by many unavoidable factors. To foster healthy interactions among members of different religions and among the religions themselves, experts in the respective religions have a responsibility to embrace effective models for dialogical encounters. How a religious tradition views itself cannot be constructed in isolation of the other religions that it shares the religious space with. In the Ihievbe Catholic community’s context, for example, proximity to another religion makes it a fundamental requirement to take into consideration how the other religions shape one’s religious self-awareness. Hence, there needs to be a radical commitment to knowing the other. This work argues that dialogue among religions is possible. To justify this claim, I will present a detailed description of the dynamics among three religions present in Ihievbe in Edo State of Nigeria as a model for those living in religiously pluralistic societies to emulate. For almost a century, these religions, Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion appropriated the cultural and religious virtues of hospitality and friendship in shaping a dialogical worldview for their members leading to a complete absence of religiously motivated violence in the town. I cannot overstate the urgency of this paradigm considering the religious violence that continues to plague many communities in the world. As I write these lines, one reads constantly of the religiously motivated violence occurring in Northern Nigeria, led by Boko Haram, a Sunni-Islamic religiously militant group. The genocide being carried out by the Anti-Balaka Christian terrorist group and the Séléka terrorist group that is predominantly Islamic in Central African Republic. The genocide being carried out by Buddhist majority population of Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslim minority of the country. The rise of militant and radical Christian right in America that continues to demonstrate strong Islamophobic tendencies in

6  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

the current dispensation under the presidency of Donald Trump. All these examples and many more necessitate an urgent need to articulate concrete and pragmatic ways of building healthy relations among persons of different religious traditions in our world. Addressing the dialogical model of the Roman Catholic Church, this work, while reflecting on the ongoing encounters in Ihievbe town, sheds light on the theological reasoning that has shaped such a model. This approach is necessary because the argument is posited that part of the crisis that faces people of faith today comes from the missionary and colonial strategies adopted by the Western powers during their exploitation of non-Western societies. In the African context, historical, cultural, and religious achievements of the people were denied their true value and simply referred to as barbaric, demonic, and uncivilized. A sense of religious superiority of the Christian religion was made the norm, both privately and officially, in the encounters between the Christian missionaries and the religious leaders of the indigenous communities. As a corrective vision to that of the non-dialogical missionary agents, Buber’s relational philosophy again serves us well. To recognize the other is not based on the intentionality of the subject over the other. The distance between the subject and the other need not be eradicated or the outcome is the totalization of the subject over the other. Authentic relation or friendship occurs only when the distance between the other and the subject is preserved (Buber 1998, 52–53). For the Roman Catholic Church to embrace fruitful religious encounters, other religions need the freedom to be what they are. Disallowing the other to retain its alterity is to instantiate violence against it. Alterity can never be reduced to an alter ego; rather, “the other is what I myself am not” (Levinas 1987, 83). Hospitality and friendship as dialogical models reflect both a disposition of openness to the other, and recognition of otherness and difference. Buber’s primal disposition for relational encounter is the distance between the subject and the other. In hospitality or friendship, the human subjects constantly preserve not only the common interests but the freedom to disagree. Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal views are conditioned by the historical locus of the church. This point is relevant for shaping the development of the understanding of doctrine by the church. This progressive growth to openness is made possible by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of salvific history. In Yves Congar’s words, “dogmas are not yet perfect,” they depend on the progressive openness to the Spirit who reveals new

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

insights into a church that is catholic—openness to alterity (1983, 34). Again, Congar reminds us that in Christian history, “men have claimed to know and to be able to say who was for God and who was not, and those periods in which they claimed this knowledge most persistently were the least tolerant and often the most cruel. Those were periods of ‘Christianity’, but not of catholicity” (35). This progressive knowledge of God’s will for the Roman Catholic Church legitimizes the relevance of seeking new dialogical models that help the church to appreciate the relevance of the religious other. The scope of this work is limited to the study of two philosophical, cultural, and theological themes—hospitality and friendship—with the aim of applying them to broaden the interreligious discourse. To further this, effort is made to understand the self-identity of the Ihievbe Catholic community in the context of its interactions with other religions in Ihievbe town. Since the identity and mission of Christ is central to the content of what the Christian party brings to the table of interreligious discourse, a section of this work focuses on locating these themes in Christ’s identity and mission. Put succinctly, friendship and hospitality, as dialogical models, are not alien to who Christ is. In this case, while advocating for the need of another dialogical model, an engaged call to Roman Catholics to take seriously the dialogical identity and mission of Christ is pursued. When two religions meet each other, and both claim to be the only path to human salvation, there is bound to be tension. This work tries to find a solution to religious violence and to construct a path for encounter among the adherents of different religions. In doing this, the assumption is that the notions of hospitality and friendship are both religious and cultural heritages that can be developed as theological principles for interreligious encounters. This work aims to show how these have worked in a concrete context that is interreligious. Methodologically, this work explores the historical, cultural, religious, and sociological dynamics among the people of Ihievbe as they pertain to interreligious encounters. While the general focus of the study is the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town, the presumed view in this work is that one cannot truly speak of a religious tradition in isolation from its surroundings and the agents that shape that surrounding. Thus, this study has deliberately brought into the conversation both the Islamic and Ihievbe Traditional Religion communities in the town.

8  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Both structured surveys and oral interviews were conducted among members of Ihievbe community. One hundred adults from each of the three religions were surveyed. Also, fifteen adults from each of the three religions were interviewed. The aim of the surveys and interviews is to show how deliberate and casual interactions among the members of the religions have helped to shape their self-awareness. Also, this finding is used as the basis for the argument for the Roman Catholic Church in general to embrace interreligious dialogue and be open to the robust identity to which it can lead. It is my hope that this work will contribute to the theological enterprise aimed at fostering dialogue among different religious traditions. The emerging realities associated with globalization, where cultures and peoples are constantly interacting, necessitate an interreligious consciousness as a way of living in this current dispensation. If religious suspicion and violence are to be handled constructively, it is the view in this work that other paradigms of discourse and interactions are needed. The conscious efforts of the religious people of Ihievbe to construct healthy interreligious encounters can become a model for other societies faced with religious pluralism. Operating from the riches of the Ihievbe cultural tradition, as well as from the Roman Catholic-Christian tradition, this work will be valuable to the multifaceted discourse of today. Simple solutions to complex realities are no longer feasible. A patient, exhaustive, and objective study of interreligious interactions is what is needed. Hence, two philosophical, theological, and cultural themes, hospitality and friendship serve as ways for carrying out this project. This work focuses on dialogue that proceeds from the lived experiences of a faith community. Dogmatic affirmations, theological truths, or doctrinal proclamations, when separated from the experiential realities of the faith of the people, run the risk of being rigid, exclusive, and counterproductive. On the other hand, when these proceed from the faith experiences and interactions of the people, they are building blocks for a healthy interreligious society. This work is divided into nine chapters. This chapter presents an introduction to the work and posits the claim that healthy interreligious encounters in the era of religious and cultural pluralisms are possible. To achieve this, two further claims are made, that hospitality and friendship can be used as constructing legitimate interreligious dialogue and encounters among religions in contemporary era.

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

Chapter 2 explores the origins of Ihievbe town, its culture, and the factors that shaped the introduction of Christianity to the town. The pragmatic approach to religious diversity inherent in Ihievbe religious and sociocultural worldview is stressed. Chapter 3 sheds light on the factors shaping the religious and cultural worldview of Ihievbe people. The linguistic significance of hospitality and friendship in the sociocultural life of Ihievbe people is addressed in detail. Also, this chapter sheds light on the historical instances where interreligious encounters helped to shape the relational dynamics of the people of the town when faced with issues related to religious differences. Chapter 4 highlights the philosophical and Christological grounds for hospitality as a dialogical tool. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, Jean-Luc Marion, Jacques Derrida, and Emmanuel Levinas are engaged to show how hospitality is part of the human condition. A deliberate attempt is made to present the conditions necessary for hospitality to become a dialogical tool. The Christological understanding of the hypostatic union sheds light on the inherent openness of God to alterity as it plays out in the divine–human relations in the incarnate Christ. This point is used to buttress the argument for hospitality as a viable tool for dialogue with other religions by Christians. Chapter 5 addresses tangible ways that the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town continues to use hospitality as a dialogical model. The place of hospitality in Islam and Ihievbe Traditional Religion is affirmed as well as the practice of hospitality in the African context. Finally, concrete ways of using hospitality as a dialogical tool for engagement among religions are addressed. Chapter 6 presents the philosophical argument for using friendship as a dialogical tool among religions. While focusing more on Buber’s contributions to the discourse on friendship, the works of other philosophers are brought into the conversation and critiqued when necessary. A major part of the chapter addresses the life and ministry of Jesus Christ as reflecting a Christian understanding of friendship between God and humans. Also, friendship as a theological and a sociological tool in Islam and Ihievbe Traditional Religion is presented with the intention to show that it can be a viable tool for interreligious encounters. Friendship is also treated in relation to how it shapes the religious identities of

10  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

those involved in it. The relational dependence of all religions as well as among humans is the grounds for such reasoning. Finally, a critique of the Roman Catholic Church’s approach to mission is treated, and the need to embrace mission through friendship is presented as an alternative. Chapter 7 addresses the cultural significance of relationality and alterity among the Ihievbe people as grounds for validating the use of hospitality and friendship as dialogical tools. This chapter presents the importance of social harmony in Ihievbe worldview. Since social harmony among the Ihievbe people is made possible by the role such virtues as hospitality and friendship play in the community, I argue that a workable dialogical model can truly be constructed by using these two virtues. Finally, this chapter extrapolates from the results of the surveys and interviews a sense of Christian salvation history that affirms and attests to religious diversities as understood by the Catholic community in the town. Chapter 8 analyzes the surveys and interviews conducted among Catholics, Muslims, and Traditionalists in the town. Attention is given to the viability of hospitality and friendship as dialogical tools among religions. Hence, this section critiques the paradoxical elements in the Roman Catholic magisterial teachings on other religions and presents the obstacles that such elements create with the intent to foster authentic interreligious engagement among religions. Chapter 9 offers some concluding remarks as well as concrete suggestions that different religious should consider implementing as means of celebrating the fruits of interreligious dialogue and encounters. One of these is what I have referred to as collaborative worship. I argue that if religious traditions agree that the holy can be found in other religions, then at the heart of one’s sacred space should be reserved a place of hospitality and friendship that leads to the well-being of the religious other. Furthermore, I call for Roman Catholics to embrace the sacred texts of other religious traditions and proclaim them during their own liturgies as a visible way of affirming the workings of the Holy Spirit in the traditions of non-Christian religions.

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

References Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, 2.1.109.2. http://www.newadvent.org/ summa/2109.htm. Accessed August 2, 2018. Aristotle. 1953. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. J. A. K. Thomson. London: Penguin Books. Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. Trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. ———. 1998. The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Cicero. 1991. “De Amicita.” In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 77–116. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Congar, Yves. 1983. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. Trans. David Smith. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1987. Time & the Other. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. ———. 1999. Alterity & Transcendence. Trans. Michael B. Smith. New York: Columbia University Press. Marion, Jean-Luc. 2002. Being Given: Towards a Phenomenology of Givenness. Trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Plato. 1991. “Lysis.” In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 1–27. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Rolnick, Philip A. 2007. Person, Grace, and God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Von Balthasar, Hans Urs. 1982. The Von Balthasar Reader. Ed. Medard Kehl and Wemer Löser. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Westhelle, Vitor. 2010. After Heresy: Colonial Practices and Post-colonial Theologies. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Yong, Amos. 2008. Hospitality & The Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

CHAPTER 2

A Short Secular and Religious History of Ihievbe Town

Abstract  By exploring the history of the founding of Ihievbe town, one begins to observe a heightened cultural memory of the relevance of hospitality and friendship as tools for building healthy communities. Openness to strangers and celebrations of the cult of friendship are noticeable markers of the town’s sociocultural worldview. Even the strategic embrace of Christianity as means to counter the disruptive demands of Islam during the early part of the twentieth-century points to the town’s pragmatic approach to religion. Ihievbe town is one of the 12 autonomous communities that make up both Owan East and West Local Government Areas of Edo State. The other autonomous communities or towns are “Emai, Evboimion, Igue, Ikao, Iuleha, Ivbi-Ada-Obi (This name is used to refer to three towns because of their common ancestral heritage. The towns are Warake, Ivbiaro, and Errah.), Ora, Otuo, Ozalla, Sobe, and Uokha” (Oyakhire 1997, 41). Ihievbe is sub-divided into eight villages. They are Iyaba (Ivbiogwonu), Emabu, Ugba, Okhuame (Ovongbuan), Owore, IhievbeOgben, Ekhueye, and Otua or Otuo (Ogbomo 1997, 53). Ihievbe is in Owan East Local Government with a population of 8512. According to the 1991 census, the population of Owan East Local Government Area is 152,630: 78,890 men and 75,740 women. Owan West Local Government had a population of 99,056: 50,755 men and 48,301 women. © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_2

13

14  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Ihievbe is bordered in the North by Akoko-Edo Local Government Area; in the North-West by Igue town; in the North-East and East by Etsako West Local Government Area; in the West by Uokha town; in the South-East and South by Ivbi-Ada-Obi clan (This consists of the following towns: Warrake, Ivbiaro, and Errah); and in the South-West by the Emai clans. Ihievbe town has its administrative headquarters in Iyaba or Ivbiogwonu. The correct name for this is Ivbiaba or Ivbiababa which means children of Ababa. Those who inhabit the villages in Ihievbe town trace their lineage back to its founder, aboriginal people, and migrants who established domicile there. Unfortunately, due to lack of written documentation on the identities of the aboriginal people, there is no concrete way of distinguishing them from the descendants of Ọbo. However, different totems in the villages confirm the view that aboriginal people inhabited Ihievbe prior to the migration of Ọbo. Unlike many of the other towns in Owan East and West Local Government Areas, where migrants still have settlements, Ihievbe does not have a separate settlement for migrants. Factors contributing to this reality include cultural openness traceable to the hospitality of the town’s founder and a sense of friendship that is not restricted to the members of the town. For these villagers, friendship and hospitality are pointers to the concrete expression of fraternity in the community. Like the other towns and clans that make up Owan East and West Local Government Areas, Ihievbe insists on its cultural and linguistic autonomy. Hence, Ihievbe people refer to their language as Ihievbe rather than as a dialect of Yoruba or Bini. However, due to the origins of the languages of the people that make up Edo State, Ihievbe people and the other ethnic groups in Edo State are referred to as the Edo-speaking people of Edo State. It is worth noting that the geographical location of Ihievbe and its proximity to Benin Kingdom has made historians gloss over its historical heritage. As noted by Onaiwu W. Ogbomo, this explains the late introduction of Islam and Christianity to the town as well as other Owan towns and villages (11). While Benin Kingdom had a Christian presence as far back as the fifteenth century, and other major kingdoms and city-states had either a jihadist presence or a Christian presence, Ihievbe did not fall under the radar of the Muslim jihadists from Nupe until the later part of the nineteenth century (Etsu Nupe, Jibril, was the first king to embrace Islam. He began his reign around 1770 C.E. Islam

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

15

became the dominant religion in the kingdom when it was conquered by the jihadist Shehu Usman Dan Fodio, the founder and first Sultan of Sokoto Caliphate. Before his death in 1817, Dan Fodio created a theocratic state. Nupe Kingdom was put under the jurisdiction of the Emir of Gwandu, in present-day Kebbi State in North-Western Nigeria, during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. In the political structure of Sokoto Caliphate, the Emir of Gwandu is next to the Sultan of Sokoto and has political jurisdiction over the Western part of the Caliphate). Although they brought Islam to the town, the jihadists had economic motives as they were actively involved in the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, one that saw the enslavement of tens of millions of Africans by Arab Muslim slave raiders and traders for the duration of one thousand years. As a precautionary move to avoid these slave raids, Ihievbe people moved to Ihievbe-Ogben, a territory within the town with the natural defenses of caves and hills. When the British eventually implemented the ban on slave trade throughout its annexed territories in present-day Nigeria, Ihievbe people finally moved back to their town. Though many indigenes returned, a good number remained in Ihievbe-Ogben. Hence, Ihievbe consists of Ihievbe and Ihievbe-Ogben. Those that remained in Ihievbe-Ogben make up one of the eight villages of Ihievbe town. Furthermore, not only does oral history present Ihievbe as founded by a Bini man, a significant influence and adoption of Yoruba cultural heritages are obvious. Ihievbe clothing attire combines and adapts a Yoruba buba (pronounced boo-bah) and sokoto (pronounced sho-ko-to), which is a two-piece garment of a loose top and a loose type of trouser. People wear the Muslim agbada (a richly embroidered flowing garment) and turban, which was introduced by the Nupe jihadists in the nineteenth century. Also, women wear the Bini type of wrapper, the buba, and the sokoto. Distinct Ihievbe attire can be seen during the town’s celebration of the Ugoghon festival, the initiation of young adult males into the age-group system. In addition to clothing, the same influence is noticed linguistically: Words that are indigenous to the Yoruba, Bini, and Arabic languages are also found in the Ihievbe language. The predominant historical account asserts that Ihievbe was founded by Ohio-Ọbo (or simply Ọbo) during the reign of Oba Ewuare the Great, who ruled Benin Kingdom from 1440 to 1473 C.E. (Oyakhire 53). Another account is that Ọbo founded Ihievbe during the reign of Oba Esigie, who ruled from 1504 to around 1550 C.E. (Ogbomo 35). A third account states that Ọbo joined a delegation from Benin kingdom to

16  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

persuade Ọkpame who is also referred to as Ọmọrọdiọn (Egharevba 1968, 85) or Ọdiọn (Ogbomo 25), one of the heirs to the Benin throne who had fled from his brother, Ọba Olua (1475–1480) who usurped the throne, to Uọkha, one of the towns that make up Ọwan East and West Local Governments. In this account, Ọbo was a maternal cousin of Ọkpame, who later became Ọba Ọzọlua and ruled from 1480 to 1504 C.E. (Akharumere 2011, 1). Having persuaded his cousin to return to Benin to claim the throne, Ọbo remained behind to found Ihievbe. What is undisputable is that every historical account mentions Ọbo as the founder of Ihievbe. According to oral tradition, Ọbo is believed to have come from Orogbeni Quarters in present-day Benin City and practiced his trade as a native doctor in “Isi-Evbe (kola nut village) near Ehor.” It is believed that Ọbo’s maternal cousin Ughunbi or Uzuanbi, who is the founder of Ugboa and son of Ima, the founder of Emai clan (Ogbomo 35), and Ọbo traveled to Uokha in 1472 to request Okpame to come back to Benin City to claim the throne. Having sojourned and practiced his trade in Isi-Evbe near Ehor and considering his gratitude to his hosts for their hospitality, Obo decided to name his new settlement in Ido (which means rocky terrain) Isi-Evbe as a perpetual reminder of the hospitality shown him by his hosts when he lived near Ehor (Akharumere 1). British colonizers, in their inability to pronounce Isi-Evbe, called the town, Sebe, and as time went on Isi-Evbe (or Sebe) became known as Ihievbe (Bradbury 1957, 1). The strategic naming of the new settlement by Ọbo; symbolic of his appreciation of the hospitality shown him and his need to reciprocate such hospitality; has become constitutive of Ihievbe people’s cultural and social heritages. The social structure of Ihievbe sets the stage for understanding the depth of how the people view hospitality and friendship as part of their collective identity. Every village is divided primarily into the age-group system. Strangers can reside in any of the villages. In the respective village governments, strangers play important roles. They can serve either as consultors to the decision makers or even become part of the deliberative decision-making body. The only role strangers don’t perform is that assigned to the Edioma, since such a role is reserved only for male descendants of the founding father of Ihievbe town. However, it is important to note that the founding heads of the different villages within the community are not all direct descendants of the founder of the town. One of them, by the name of Ikhuohie or Ekhueye, was given to Ọbo as a payment for his services as a native doctor by one of his clients while he was sojourning

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

17

near Ehor. Rather than have the young boy as his slave, he adopted him and gave him the rights and privileges of one of his own descendants. While Oikhere presents Ekhueye as an adopted son of Ọbo, Akharumere states that Ekhueye is a direct son of Ọbo, being the child from a marriage to a daughter of one of Ọbo’s clients who gave his daughter to Ọbo as appreciation for services rendered (5). Patrick A. Oikhere’s account is supported by that of Mr. Samson Aihiokhai. Historically, prior to the introduction of Islam and Christianity to the town, the oldest male in each of the different kindred was the custodian of the kindred’s shrine and priest of the deity. He was also the political head of the kindred. On the level of villages, the eldest male person was both the high priest of the shrine of the village and the political head of the village. Kindred and village heads belonged to the Edioma age-group. The oldest man in Ihievbe, if he is a descendant of Ele, is automatically the ruler of the town and referred to as the Edion. To avoid too much concentration of political power in one person, an Edion is expected to choose an Ukor from a village different from his own. The role of the Ukor is to be the messenger of the most senior member of the Edioma age-group. Due to old age, the Edion, cannot always perform all the political duties of the office, thus power is delegated to another. Regarded as the face of the Edion in public, the Ukor chooses his assistant, the Agbaza, from yet another kindred or village, to be vetted and approved by the Edion. The Ukor can be removed by the Edion should he be deemed incompetent. Certain adjustments to the ruling system have occurred over time as a result: first, of the Nupe and Yoruba invasions of the nineteenth century; second, the incursion of British colonial rule; and third, the introduction of Christianity to Ihievbe. Prior to the Nupe invasion, Ihievbe town did not have hereditary chieftaincy or kings. The invading Nupe Muslims introduced the Turban Chieftaincy System, which created an elite group of Muslim converts, thus undermining the intricate balance of power maintained by the Edion-Ukor-Agbaza system of government. In undermining the independent city-state status of Ihievbe, the Nupe Muslim invaders brought Ihievbe under the authority of the Oba of Agbede, a Muslim who continued the Turban Chieftaincy System and strategically frustrated the age-group system of government. British colonial government, while implementing the policy of Indirect Rule, recognized the authority of the Oba of Agbede, who was appointed the District Head over Ihievbe. The people of Ihievbe resisted the tax policies of the Oba

18  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

of Agbede, his restrictions on the customs and traditions of the people, as well as his favoring of the introduction of Islamic social structures to the town. After inquiring into the complaints of the people of Ihievbe and other indigenous groups, the British colonial government established a new district in 1937 called the Kukuruku Division. The people in this district were also referred to as the Ivbiosakon clans. The name Ivbiosakon means people with filed teeth. This name was used to designate all the towns and tribes of northern Edo State because the members of these clans had the custom of filing their teeth as a cosmetic practice. It was not until 1967 that the name was changed to Owan referencing the name of the river that boarders the different clans with common linguistic and cultural heritages (Bradbury 84, 86–87; Ogbomo 10–11). British colonial government’s introduction of warrant chiefs in democratic societies, or societies without strict central government, tended to alter the entire sociopolitical dynamics of such societies. As noted above, Ihievbe, prior to Nupe invasion and British colonial rule, did not have a strong hereditary type of government. Rather, Ihievbe’s age-group system preserved an appropriate balance of power among the people, preventing the usurpation of power by one village or kindred. Ihievbe currently has thirty-three age-groups. New age-groups are formed every two years and the inductees undergo the initiation rituals done during the Ugoghon festival. Seven of these thirty-three age-groups provide manual labor. Named Ofiekpude, they maintain public places in the town. Seven other groups within the thirty-three age-groups defend the community. Prior to British colonial rule, these groups, called Ighele, fought the wars of the town. Today, these groups are called upon to provide security in the town as the need arises. The first four age-groups, referred to as Edio, are exempt from manual labor. The age-groups are ranked according to seniority. As one gets older and new age-groups are created, one begins to ascend the age-group system. Also, in Ihievbe, among the Edio agegroups, the oldest of the members are the Edioma (our elders). In the villages that make-up Ihievbe town, this age-group continues to perform the religious duties of high priests of the shrines of the deities. The members also appoint their own Ukors, who serve as prime ministers of the Edioma within their respective villages and kindred (Bradbury 89–90). Today, the administrative structure of Ihievbe is a blend of the established civil government and the cultural heritage of the people. Civilly, Ihievbe falls under the authority of the Chairman of Owan East Local Government Area, whose administrative office is in Afuze, the

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

19

headquarters of the local government area. Ward counselors from Ihievbe are part of the executive arm of the local government. There is no longer a council of all the Edioma headed by the oldest Edioma and his Ukor; instead, the duty of the council is being performed by a hereditary system of Ukor, which was begun by the Nupe jihadists, continued by the Oba of Agbede, and perfected by the British colonial government through the Indirect Rule System used to colonize Nigeria by Lord Lugard, the first governor-general, who amalgamated the two prefectures of Northern and Southern Nigeria and the Colony of Lagos in 1914. Hospitality and friendship continue to be distinct marks of Ihievbe worldview. Encounters between the members of the town and strangers who have made Ihievbe their home are traceable to these two concepts. The town makes a conscious effort to provide the necessary means for establishing oneself, like land for cultivation and building home, and the incorporation of the stranger’s children into the age-group system (Christian Oikhere 2011, Interview). The town, while maintaining the spirit of hospitality and friendship toward strangers, allows them to exercise their freedom, thus, should they choose not to allow their children to participate in the age-group ceremonies and be inducted into the system, such a decision is always respected by the community. There is a laudable social significance to the age-group system because it allows strangers to be incorporated into it. Hospitality is not seen as some external and superficial approach the community uses to diplomatically relate to strangers, rather, it leads to communion and oneness. Strangers can become one with the community, contribute to the life of the community, and even continue their own lineage within the community with legitimate rights and privileges.

2.1  A Short History of the Roman Catholic Church in Ihievbe Town The question, why do people convert to a religion, cannot always be addressed by appealing to a religious experience. Sometimes, conversion speaks to a pragmatic embrace of religion as a strategic political tool used to address an imminent threat from other realities. This sociopolitical reading of the phenomenon of religious conversion plays a significant role in the fictional novel, Arrow of God by Chinua Achebe. In it, Achebe presents the dilemma faced by the people during the colonial and missionary activities of the British in Igboland. The people of Umuaro,

20  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

faced with a religious and political dilemma in the hands of their religious and political leader Ezeulu on one hand who insists on strict obedience to the old ways of their people even with the new realities of colonialism and Christianization of his people, choose to weigh their options. The demands of the deity, Ulu, threaten the very existence of the community. Ezeulu insists that Ulu has instructed him to consume the three sacred yams within the duration of three months, knowing that by the time he has finished consuming the yams, the crops in the field would have rot away, triggering hunger and starvation throughout the community. The people decide to follow a pragmatic solution. They deliberately abandon Ezeulu and the deity Ulu. They choose to convert to Christianity because the Protestant pastor, Mr. Goodcountry tells them that they do not have to go through the rigid ritual practices before they can harvest their crops. All they need do is believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as their savior. For Mr. Goodcountry, this mass conversion demonstrates the legitimacy of his missionary abilities and the legitimacy of the Christian message. For the people of Umuaro, their conversion is simply a pragmatic and calculated means of survival in the new dispensation they are faced with (see Aihiokhai 2016, 151–163). This is the case with how Christianity was introduced to the people of Ihievbe town in Midwestern Nigeria during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Christian evangelization of Ihievbe town was completed by lay converts to the Catholic faith from Ivbiogwonu and other villages that make up Ihievbe town, under the guidance and leadership of Chief Louis Hidozie Oikhere. In the early twentieth century, he was elected by his village, Ivbiogwonu, to represent them before the Society of African Missions (S.M.A.) missionaries in Afashio-Uzairue. To counter the Islamization of their village, they embraced Catholicism. Chief Oikhere had previously converted to Catholicism while studying in Lagos, Nigeria. When he retired from teaching at Abeokuta, he contacted Rev. Healy in Afashio-Uzairue and informed him of the desire of his people to convert to Catholic Church. Having been educated and trained as a teacher in the colonial school system, Chief Oikhere was an asset to the missionaries, who used education as an evangelizing tool. He helped to establish the Catholic school in Ihievbe and became both the headmaster of the school and the catechist of the faith community. He served in this role until the mid-nineteen sixties. The responsibility of catechist was passed on to the late Sir Andrew Isunoya from Ovongbuan village in Ihievbe town. Sir Isunoya was a convert from Islam and worked tirelessly to improve the Catholic Church’s

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

21

presence in Ihievbe. He had a very pragmatic approach to his responsibilities, and, as the head of the faith community in Ihievbe, he encouraged his fellow Catholics to engage members of other religions. He always insisted on living the Christian ideals as a more authentic way of witnessing to the Gospel. After more than forty years of leading the community as their catechist, he passed away in April of 2011. The lay leadership and ministry of the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe are worth noting because they applied their faith to the realities they faced in their community. Their Muslim and Ihievbe Traditional Religion neighbors were related to them in one way or another, and this affinity for their religious neighbors shaped and influenced the dialogical approach they adopted even before the Catholic Church ever thought of exploring how to foster relations with other religions. Due to the lack of priestly vocations in these mission territories, the responsibility for sustaining the work of evangelization rested in the hands of the laity. Because of the vast territory covered by the missionaries, Ihievbe Catholic community was visited once a year by the Catholic priest who was resident in Afashio-Uzairue, located more than sixty kilometers away from Ihievbe. The catechist performed most of the duties usually ascribed to the priest. He catechized and baptized converts, officiated at weddings and at funerals, and led the community during the daily liturgies, as well as the liturgy of the word on Sundays, when the priest was not available. In the 1960s, the policy of the regional government of western Nigeria was to transform the curricula of all institutions in the region to reflect the realities of the region and the newly independent country. Departments of divinity in higher institutions were changed to religious studies to reflect the major religions that make up the country; African Indigenous Religions, Christianity, and Islam. Curricula no longer followed British colonial agenda; rather, they reflected the heritage of the cultures and histories of the people that make up independent Nigeria. Free education at all levels was introduced to all the towns and villages in the region. As noted earlier, there is a political undertone to the acceptance and conversion to Catholicism by the villagers of Ivbiogwonu and other villages in Ihievbe town. The restructuring of their society under Islamic Sharia Law coincided with the ventures of the S.M.A. missionaries in the region. The introduction of Islam to the people by “Nupe jihadists in the nineteenth century” and the successful proselytization carried out by Mallam Guruza, a Muslim scholar from Auchi, a town close to Ihievbe,

22  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

led to attempts to create an Islamic society (Ogbomo 144). This process of Islamization was pursued by the Oba of Agbede (King of Agbede), whose political jurisdiction covered all of Kukuruku Division (northern part of Edo State). A Muslim convert, the king was given the authority to continue the Islamization of the territories invaded by the Nupe jihadists. He instructed that Islamic dress codes and social practices be the norm in his domain. Noticeably, most villages in Ihievbe followed suit, except Ivbiogwonu village. The desire to preserve traditional religious practices by the members of Ivbiogwonu was frowned upon and frustrated by the emerging dominant Islamic presence. Consequently, Muslims in Ihievbe town began the policy of refusing their daughters to non-Muslims for marriage, and non-Muslim suitors were asked to convert to Islam as a condition for approval to marry Muslim brides. The members of Ivbiogwonu village countered this enforced conversion to Islam by embracing Roman Catholicism (Akharumere 33–36). I should note that there was a positive bias for Christianity by the British Colonial Government because being a Christian meant access to Western secular education. The strategy of conversion to Christianity as a means of having a voice in an oppressive society is common among many cultures and societies in Nigeria, as has been observed by Elizabeth Isichei (1995, 267). Introduction of Catholic school to Ihievbe town made the church a notable presence in the town. To combat the conversion of many Muslim youths to the Catholic faith, the Muslim community in the town began to operate their own religious school in Emabu village in 1955. This Islamic school was not very successful because it lacked qualified teachers and could not provide its students with the necessary skills needed to address the demands of the colonial and post-colonial era (H. Ilojie 2011, Interview. See also Isichei 2004, 176).

2.2  Expressions of Culture and Religion(s) Among Ihievbe People As noted by Onaiwu W. Ogbomo, both the distinct totems of some villages in Ihievbe and the similar totems present in the other villages in Ihievbe (and the Benin Kingdom in general during the period the founder of Ihievbe left the kingdom) suggest that two different groups inhabited Ihievbe (see Ogbomo 21–25). This fact reinforces the idea that there has been an accommodation of two groups of people, one by

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

23

the other and a reconciliation and usefulness of each group’s religious symbols. This point also buttresses the inherent expression of Ihievbe cultural history as one of perpetual receptivity of otherness. In many societal settings, such an encounter of two groups can lead to total suppression of one group by the other and traces of the suppressed group are intentionally blotted out from the historical consciousness of the people. This seems not to be the case in Ihievbe. While no mention is made of the aboriginal people, the survival of the different totemic symbols, shrines, and rituals among the different villages connotes an attitude of tolerance and acceptance by the different groups. The founding history, and the emphasis on their link to such a prominent kingdom as that of Benin, suggest a deliberate attempt to show the richness of the town’s beginnings rather than linking its roots to an obscure or insignificant geopolitical heritage. Ogbomo’s research on totemic symbols as an aid to linking the different settlements among the Owan towns is highly relevant if one is to understand the social dynamics among Ihievbe people. Since totems are emblematic of the geographical topography or climate of the inhabited land, it is not surprising that, in many cultures, plant or animal totems serve as solutions to ecological problems faced by the totemic communities (see Malinowski 1948, 29; Ogbomo 21). In Ihievbe, there are two types of totems, boa and bean (Ogbomo 35). The point at stake is that the presence of two types of totems among a people who claim one ancestral heritage and historical beginnings points to the presence of different cultural groups who inhabited or migrated to the place and a sense of tolerance between them (22). In this context, the dominant historical account is that of the Benin group that traces its ancestry to a Bini man. While one can speak of a central cultural affiliation and worldview in Ihievbe town, the expressions of the indigenous religion are unique to the different villages. Deities and shrines are worshipped and erected by different villages. For example, the primary deity of Ivbiogwonu village is Ekeva, a female deity, who, “during her life was very wealthy and after death turned into a stream” (ibid.). The people of Ivbiogwonu worship and seek protection from Ekeva (ibid.). Curiously, another tradition presents her as a male stranger who was welcomed to live among the Ivbiogwonu people; to show gratitude for the hospitality shown to him “when the people gave him shelter and took him in during the cold nights when he was wandering about, he chose to remain with

24  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

them permanently” (Patrick A. Oikhere “Religious Worship in Ihievbe,” Personal Papers, 1–2). The tradition continues, “He revealed himself as Ekeva. He provided Ogwuonu with two pots. Ogwuonu was told to add more pots. He ordered that during the dry season, seven virgin girls should fill the pots with water from the stream, and that there will never be drought in the land inhabited by Ogwuonu and his children. He also led Ogwuonu to Irememi Lake as a place for consulting the oracle to know the future” (ibid.). Importantly, here again is the underlying trend of hospitality. Hospitality shown to a stranger is reciprocated to the community and becomes part of the sacred memory of the people. Otua village in Ihievbe town has the deity and shrine called EdiIhievbe and Odai. Okhuame village has Oyanmuzo. Ihievbe-Ogben has Idame. There are also deities and shrines erected to the founder of families or villages within Ihievbe. Though Ọbo, the founder of Ihievbe town, has no shrine erected to him, some of his direct descendants have shrines erected to them. For example, Ele, the grandson of Ọbo, and Ekhaigo, the son of Ele, have a shrine erected to them. This shrine called Ele-bi-Ekhaigo (meaning Ele and Ekhaigo) is venerated by all the male descendants of Ele who are called Ivbiele (children of Ele), Iyaba or Ivbiababa or Ivbiaba (children of Ababa), or Odafen, and the female descendants of Ele, who are called Ivbidegbe. Currently, Ihievbe does not have a central religious shrine where everyone is obliged to worship, yet prior to Islamic presence, Elebi-Ekhaigo shrine was considered the most prominent of the shrines because many villages trace their origins back to these ancestors. Before the Islamization of the town, the religious high priest of the shrine was chosen from the oldest male among the descendants of Ele. The high priest was the political head of Ihievbe. However, such privileges have been taken over by the female line of Ele’s descendants. The Afonkhiai kindred, who trace their lineage back to Uwarore, a daughter of Aireme, the great-grandson of Ele and the great, great, grandson of Ọbo, are the current custodians of the shrine. During my time researching the religious dynamics playing out in Ihievbe, I was informed of the tensions that exist as a result of this change in leadership. I wanted to know how they have resolved this issue. One of the notable elders in the town informed me that the highest cultural rule has helped them to address it without resulting to violence. That cultural rule is that harmony must always prevail amongst the descendants of Ọbo.

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

25

While many of the shrines in the different villages in Ihievbe are still being used and the respective deities worshipped by members of the traditional religion, that of Ivbiogwonu is different. During one of my visits to Ihievbe, I was led by my guide to the place where Ekeva used to be worshipped. It is now an abandoned forest. During my visit to Mr. Andrew Irogho Ohiosumwan, the current oldest man in Ivbiogwonu, he informed me that with the advent of Christianity and the total Christianization of Ivbiogwonu village, the people have lost interest in continuing the cult of Ekeva. However, rituals attributed to Ekeva continue in an enculturated form among Christians of Ivbiogwonu (Andrew “Irogho” Ohiosumwan 2011, Interview). The high priest of Ekeva or the other shrines was considered “a spiritual leader based on the fact that his leadership was anchored on his role as priest of the particular shrine” (Patrick A. Oikhere Personal Papers, 2). In Ivbiogwonu, the last functioning high priest of Ekeva was the late Ahonsi Idonije, who died in 1946. However, as noted above, since the role of the high priest also entails custodianship of the rituals and customs that hold the village together, the requirements of offering sacrifice to Ekeva have continued. Instead of offering these sacrifices at the shrine and seeking the protection of Ekeva, it is expected that all sacrifices be offered to Jesus Christ during the Eucharistic liturgy in the Catholic Church in the town. Provisions were also made for those who convert to Islam to continue to offer such sacrificial offerings within the Islamic community of Ihievbe town. The current person who should have been the high priest of Ekeva is Pa. Andrew “Irogho” Ohiosumwan, who is a convert to the Catholic faith. Currently, the Edion title still has the religious authority in many villages, except in Ivbiogwonu quarter, where the traditional religion is extinct. However, the distinction is merely ceremonial, thus real political power lies with the Ukor of Ihievbe. The lack of a central shrine for Ihievbe has historically led to the Ukor performing such religious duties as are needed by the entire community. However, since the Ukor is a Muslim, most of the religious rituals that concern the town are observed according to Islamic practices. Prior to the Islamization of Ihievbe and the advent of Christianity, there was no clear distinction between the social and religious contexts. True of many cultures in Nigeria and Africa, the people have a high sense of religiosity. God is referred to either as Oghena (Lord) or

26  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Osalobua (God Almighty). Even though Oghena is considered distant from humanity, there is an intimate connection and presence of Oghena within the community. Everything that exists serves as Oghena’s love for the community, presence to the people, and support of the community. Ihievbe people believe that the world inhabited by humans is under the guardianship of ancestors who are called Erimi or Erivi. Also, in this human world, Oghena makes itself present through the deities who live amongst the members of the communities they have stewardship over (In Ihievbe language and worldview, Oghena, the almighty God, is genderless. The pronoun Ọ derives its gender within the context of the discourse where it is used). Hence, the shrine of a deity is the place of contact with that deity, as well as the medium through which the deity bestows blessings on the community, punishes evildoers, and ensures the continuous existence of the communities. Another portion of the structured world is the domain of the spirits, deities, and ancestors, which is understood as being in proximate contact with the world of humans. Esu, the deity in charge of rewarding good and evil, is also the door-keeper of Erivi (the land of the spirits). Esu is the messenger of the different deities and of Oghena; hence, when one offends a deity, Esu punishes the offender. Traditionally, observers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion have objects placed at the doorpost of their houses, signifying the protection of Esu who drives away evil spirits. Though many of the deities in Ihievbe pantheon of deities are female, the high priests of these deities are men. Fecundity is a very prominent theme among the worshippers of the different female deities. In this awareness, the continuity of the kindred, village, or community is assured through these female deities. It is important to understand the shift that has occurred over time in this town as it pertains to gender relations. Many of the shrines are dedicated to powerful female figures and the absence of female leadership in these shrines shows the influence of various factors as noted by Ogbomo. During the social upheaval of the nineteenth century, when the introduction of Islam helped to foster patriarchy, and along with the introduction of Christianity that emphasized male priesthood, focus shifted from female to male priesthood. Prior to these external influences, the need to foster male-dominated trade led to a historical hierarchy of the sexes in the society (see Ogbomo 144). In this work, it is relevant to note that in various religious rituals of the community women play fundamental roles. For example, when certain taboos are committed that threaten the community’s survival,

2  A SHORT SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF IHIEVBE TOWN 

27

women are responsible for the rituals that restore cosmological and social harmonies. Such rituals involve married women processing around the village naked, performing rites of purification, and praying for the restoration of peace and harmony in the community. Though the positions of priests of the shrines are accorded to the oldest men in the villages in Ihievbe, many women perform religious duties like those of diviners and healers in their respective villages (153–155). Living a morally ethical life is a primary condition for becoming an ancestor. However, apart from male heads of families, or those who played historical roles in the history of the community, ancestors are normally nameless. In the religious rituals of the traditional religion, the Edion of the respective villages serves as the living incarnation of the ancestors. In other words, ancestors inhabit a place of prominence within the community in the persons of the oldest male and guide the people through their wisdom and experiences. The Edioma have this proximate relationship with the ancestors because of their life experiences and because they have been gifted with longevity (145). Culturally, Ihievbe has no restrictions on who can become an ancestor, and every deceased member of the community can attain ancestor-hood. However, Oghena determines who becomes an actual ancestor; hence, ancestor-hood is understood to be a gift from God. Every family or kindred has ancestral emblems in the form of a “wooden staff” which is kept by the eldest male (Bradbury 99). Belief in witchcraft is prevalent among Ihievbe people. For example, people believe that witches and wizards are possessed by evil spirits, who, at night, turn into animals to cause havoc on people’s farms or inflict illnesses on people, even to the extent of murder. In 1973, some individuals from Otuo village in Ihievbe decided to adopt a deity from AkokoEdo (another town in northern Edo State, eighty kilometers away from Ihievbe) to combat the rampart harm against the people and their properties caused by witches and wizards. The deity is called Akakamiya and its shrine is in Otuo. Its current High Priest, Odion, is not a member of the Edion age-group. The people of Otuo believe he was chosen by Akakamiya to be its priest. It should be noted that Akakamiya is not one of the historical or traditional deities of Ihievbe. Akakamiya, like the other deities, is consulted by anyone in need of its protection, irrespective of the person’s kindred or village. The primary role of this deity is to punish and expose those who practice the art of witchcraft. It puts a spell over witches and wizards, preventing them from doing harm to their neighbors and forcing a confession from them in communal places like the market square.

28  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

References Aihiokhai, SimonMary. 2016. “Embracing the Pragmatic in African Indigenous Religions: New Perspective for Interfaith Dialogue.” In Christianity and Culture Collision: Particularities and Trends from a Global South, eds. Cyril Orji and Joseph Ogbonnaya, 151–163. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Akharumere, J. O. 2011. History of Ihievbe Clan, Owan East Local Government Area, Edo State. Benin City, Nigeria. Bradbury, R.E. 1957. The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of South Western Nigeria. London: International African Institute. Egharevba, J.U. 1968. A Short History of Benin. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press. Isichei, Elizabeth. 1995. A History of Christianity in Africa: From Antiquity to the Present. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ———. 2004. The Religious Traditions of Africa: A History. Westport, CT: Praeger. Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1948. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Ogbomo, Onaiwu W. 1997. When Men and Women Mattered: A History of Gender Relations Among the Owan of Nigeria. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Oikhere, Patrick A. 2008. “Awareness Address on the History of Ihievbe.” In Keynote Address Given to the Ivbiadafen Forum. Ihievbe, Nigeria. Oyakhire, G.B.L. 1997. An Edo Civilization: Owan Chieftaincy Institution. Benin City, Nigeria: Geebee Nigeria Limited.

CHAPTER 3

Factors Shaping Religious and Cultural Identities in the Ihievbe Community

Abstract  There is an essential continuity in the understanding of how a people view themselves, but it is not shaped by static factors that defy time. Instead, social interactions hinged on constantly evolving values, which are also shaped by the worldview of each epoch, help to define how a people collectively embrace a hermeneutic of identity. Ihievbe people face this same reality. Historical interactions with foreigners on the economic, social, political, and religious areas of life have led Ihievbe people to construct a broader approach to identity. With the introduction of Islam and Christianity to the town, the previous mono-religious identity embraced within the framework of Ihievbe Traditional Religion has given way to multiple religious identities. It should be noted that although Ihievbe, historically, had multiple shrines for worship within the context of Ihievbe Traditional Religion, Ihievbe people refer collectively to them as forming the religion of their land. Though the shrines have different rituals and rites, they are within the community’s collective religious worldview. Each of the deities venerated by the different villages and quarters is part of the total spiritual domain. Finally, this chapter sheds light on the history of interreligious encounters in the town. As the introduction of Islam and Christianity created a broader dimension of what it means to be religious, rather than abandon the traditional understanding of divine interactions with humanity or with the created order, © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_3

29

30  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Ihievbe people developed their own hermeneutic of religious pluralism. Thus, an Ihievbe convert to Islam or to Christianity typically approaches a new religion from the traditional hermeneutical locus. Prior to the emergence of these two world religions in the town, the people’s worldview was shaped by the traditional religion; and even with the presence of these two world religions in the town, they maintain beliefs unique to the indigenous religion. For example, belief in witchcraft, as mentioned above, originates from the indigenous religion and affirms the struggle between the good spirits and the bad spirits battling to gain influence over the destiny of people. Despite the effort made by missionary and jihadist agents of Christianity and Islam in the town to eradicate traces of Ihievbe Traditional Religion, the people both affiliate with the world religions and attest to the legitimate role the indigenous religion plays in shaping their societal and individual destinies. In their interactions with multiple religions, Ihievbe people constructed a religiously pluralistic society that addresses the needs and expectations of different religions while preserving the peace that has characterized their historical memories. The primary expectation for any Ihievbe person who takes seriously the need to be faithful to the vision of the founder of their town is to be an instrument of peace and hospitality. Hence, they continue the legacies of hospitality and friendship both within and outside the religious sphere. From the above account of the founding of the town and the dynamics that continue to shape its history, one can deduce the following factors that shaped the cultural and religious identities of the people. The first is the desire to be faithful to their tradition. If Ihievbe people are to live as their ancestral founder did, a constant reminder of the deeds and life of the founder is needed, especially for the young. Through folklores, proverbs, and adages, children are taught Ihievbe’s collective history and learn how to foster hospitality and friendship among themselves because these values have concrete and existential relevance to the survival and preservation of the community. Second, fidelity to a pragmatic embrace of diverse religions is noticeable in their religious worldview and history. Islam was not introduced in Ihievbe through peaceful dialogue, however, because of the welcoming spirit of the people and their desire to embrace the sacred wherever it is found, they accommodated the new religion. Rather than engage in wars of religion against the invading Islamic jihadists from Nupe and the itinerant Muslim scholars from Yorubaland, Ihievbe people accepted

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

31

Islam with the understanding that every religion has a right to appeal to the sensibilities of the people. However, though hospitality entails welcoming another, it also entails being prophetic. Some in the community resisted the enforced Islamization by Muslim jihadists because they judged it to be unproductive. For them, the appeal of a religion should be based on its relevance to the individual or community, rather than as an imposition upon the people (Ogbomo 1997, 144–145). During my interviews and interactions with the people of the town, they repeatedly called attention to the point that it is absurd for one to justify violence against another on the grounds of religious obligations. For them, the legitimacy of a religious claim is justified on the grounds of its intellectual and existential persuasiveness. Above all else, all religious truths are critiqued based on their life-affirming qualities. Finally, fidelity to the social virtues of hospitality and friendship plays significant roles in defining how Ihievbe people understand themselves and relate with outsiders. In the history of interreligious encounters in Ihievbe, these two virtues played significant roles in shaping religious presence and interactions. They are also tools for developing accountability among the different religions. To understand the significance of these virtues, it is proper to show how they are used to cultivate harmony among Ihievbe people.

3.1  Cultural and Religious Descriptions of Hospitality in Ihievbe Language The word for hospitality in Ihievbe language is ihumeke, which literally means: the revealing of the joys in one’s stomach for and toward another person. Hospitality entails relational encounters with another, either an individual or a group, and is a human response of openness to the other. Ihumeke evokes an understanding of a natural and a positive social response and includes concrete expressions of receptivity manifested in ritual gestures. Here, hospitality begins with reciprocal greetings and acknowledgment of each other. The host invites the guest to come into his/her home and offers them a seat, which is a gesture of high significance since it reflects a comfort level that leads to the openness of one to the other. Unlike many Western societies were greetings simply reflect civility; for Ihievbe people, to greet another is to enter into a covenant relationship that accentuates the vital force in the other and all that each party in the exchange calls family.

32  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Rituals of hospitality also involve the host inviting the guest to participate in the sacred ritual of meal sharing, which begins with the offer, reception, and sharing of kola nut. Through this, the host invokes their ancestors to bear witness to the ritual being performed, as well as to beseech protection for both parties. The breaking of kola nut—the actual eating of it—and the gifting of the kola nut for the guest to bring home, operate as sacred and concrete signs of the new bonds of fraternal and sororal love between the host and the guest. The preparation and serving of the meal are the climax of the encounter as everyone eats the meal as a sign of openness and complete trust among them. If one were to go against this after sharing kola nut with a guest, that person incurs the wrath of the deities and the ancestors. To appease the deities and ancestors, rituals of communal and individual purification are carried out to restore the favor of the deities and the ancestors. The relationship between the host and the guest transcends their individual context. The entire kola nut ritual is important because of the significance attached to the kola nut itself. Ihievbe oral tradition teaches that the kola nut is a gift from the deities passed on to the people by their ancestors. Through the kola nut ritual, ancestors, and deities that protect and guide the community are called to bear witness to the openness of heart that now exists among the host and guest while the core values of the community are reenacted. Kola nut is a gift from Oghena that is given to the entire community such that communal guidelines determine how it is cultivated, harvested, and preserved. Even when kola nut is shared among individuals, the life of the community is still at stake. This communal dimension to kola nut breaking, and the link between the crop and the community’s relationship with Oghena, make the ritual a reminder of three covenantal bonds: first that between those who partake of it; second, between the people and the community because they enter the sacred space inhabited by the community in the community’s relationship with Oghena. Third, because the kola nut is ultimately owned by Oghena, there is a bond between the individuals and Oghena. Anyone who partakes of it enters a relational bond with the divine. Furthermore, the kola nut ritual is a concrete symbol of hospitality because it links participants to the collective memory of their ancestors. For Ihievbe people, ancestors, though they reside in the dual spaces of the spiritual and the material world are present to the community through the wisdom of their elderly. As the kola nut ritual is performed by the eldest person in the gathering, it instantiates belief in their

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

33

continuity with the ancestral heritage of hospitality. By participating in the kola nut ritual, the community or individual is reminded to take seriously the demand of the ancestors for hospitality to strangers and visitors. Deities and ancestors are called upon to bless the gathering and the intentions of those present. They are asked to make positive the visit of the stranger, so the visitor may feel at home. The offering of a piece of the shared kola nut to take home is also very symbolic as it reminds the visitor of the new bond of friendship that exists between not only the guest and her/his host, but also between their families. Further, should the guest represent a village or a tribe, the kola nut becomes the concrete symbol of the sacred and amicable relationship that exists between her/his village or tribe and the Ihievbe people in general. Among the Ihievbe people, hospitality evokes a sacred memory that includes their collective link to the founder of the town, their protoancestor. The historical account of the journey of the founder of the town from Benin Kingdom, his sojourn in Ehor, a town north of Benin, and his eventual settlement in Ihievbe, stress the significance of hospitality; while the actual naming of the town by Ọbo is a further reminder of hospitality. Societies preserve the events, circumstances, and details of their founding stories deliberately, not arbitrarily. The recounting of the founding story of Ihievbe town, when recounted, reminds children of the need to be hospitable to strangers. Such a didactic exercise shows the centrality of hospitality as a yardstick for measuring the identity of the people of Ihievbe and demonstrating the town’s perpetual faithfulness to the examples of its founder. Ihievbe people also express hospitality through the act of commensality. By inviting a visitor to partake of a meal prepared by the host, both the host and the guest are drawn into a sacred space of trust. Here, each one is open to the other and willing to care, be responsible, have no ill intentions, and journey with one another if the need arises. To refuse the meal is a clear sign of distrust and a rejection of hospitality. Such a refusal, if done by one Ihievbe person toward another, is considered an abomination that must be cleansed. A stranger or a visitor to any home in Ihievbe is always invited to a meal. Meal sharing cannot take place unless the issue is first resolved. While the breaking and sharing of kola nut begin the ritual gestures of hospitality, when it is followed by meal sharing, the gesture of hospitality is considered fully expressed and the relational bonds are in full effect. It should be noted that the kola nut ritual is also a full expression of hospitality, especially when the occasion does not demand that an actual meal be prepared.

34  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Among the adherents of Ihievbe Traditional Religion, hospitality plays a significant role in ritual worship. Worshippers bring offerings to the respective shrines, and through the high priests, they are given to the deities. The high priests in turn accept these offerings, present kola nuts to the worshippers, and pray over the kola nuts and ask for the blessings from the deity to the worshippers. Such a ritual is very symbolic because just as the offering of kola nuts to a visitor is a sign of hospitality and welcome, a similar expression of hospitality is said to exist in this kola nut ritual between high priest and worshipper. It is important that worshippers accept the kola nuts or else a state of distrust is said to exist between the deities and the worshippers.

3.2  Cultural and Religious Descriptions of Friendship in Ihievbe Community The word for friendship in Ihievbe language is omomena, and it literally means, “one to whom I am close and who enjoys my love.” The subjects interviewed for this book understand friendship as a deliberate choice for all involved. According to them, the choice to be a friend with another is deliberate and can be motivated by different circumstances or reasons. Since it entails a deliberate relationship between two or more persons, friendship also involves a movement toward the other. One cannot be a friend to another without making a move toward the object of friendship. In other words, friendship involves moving from one’s comfort zone into the realm of expectation. Just as one engages the other with an attempt to establish the bonds of friendship, the other, if such friendship is to be authentic, must always have the freedom to respond as she/he sees fit to the initiator of the gestures. In other words, friendship is always reciprocal. Though the measure of friendship is not to be determined simply by a visible exchange of goods, it involves openness of one’s heart to the other in a reciprocal manner. Omomena reveals an internal openness of the self to the other and a sense of trust brought about by the process of establishing the amicable bond among the persons involved. The word for a friend in Ihievbe language is omomeiru. Although this word can be translated as, “You are my friend,” its meaning also includes a sense of public declaration of the amicable bond that exists between two persons or groups (Madam Isunoya 2011, Interview). Thus, one can conclude that in Ihievbe language, friendship is understood as a surplus reality that is both intrinsic and extrinsic in nature and content.

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

35

Friendship and hospitality are closely related. While hospitality is primal in the initial contact between two persons or groups, friendship is built upon hospitality. In other words, one cannot be a friend of another unless there is a sense of hospitality toward the other. Reception of the gesture of hospitality can lead to friendship. In friendship, there is knowledge of each other. One cannot be said to be in a bond of friendship with an abstract person. Friendship involves an encounter. While friendship is interpersonal, the fruits of friendship can be shared by those related to the persons involved in the bond of friendship. Among the Ihievbe people, there is a sense of covenantal bond that is created when two persons become friends. The word omomeiru refers not only to the immediate persons who share the bond of friendship, but also to those who are close to them. Similar to the way that the Ihievbe people treat hospitality, friendship evokes community. One cannot be an enemy of those close to one’s friends. This point is vital if one is to understand the implications of establishing bonds of friendship as a tool for enacting interreligious dialogue. Establishing a bond of friendship among peoples of different religions entails an extension of such a bond to those each one regards as close to them. Friendship is a sacred reality among Ihievbe people. Historically, among the Ivbiogwonu people of Ihievbe, there is the demand for restoration of friendship during the celebrations of the rituals pertaining to the Ekeva deity. A month of ritual peace and friendship is observed by the people and all who have enemies are expected to reconcile during this period. No one is obliged to break the communal peace by quarreling or instigating violence (Patrick A. Oikhere “Religious Worship in Ihievbe” Personal Papers, 2). Friendship and hospitality are celebrated as marks of community during the Ugoghon festival, which marks the celebration of the maturation of young men, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, who are being inducted into their own age-group. Here, the participants do away with all discord or enmity must be done away with by the participant. As the celebration involves the entire town, it rejuvenates the community. The bonds of friendship and hospitality are renewed through the new age-group members who will ensure the continuity of the tribe’s existence. Should anyone be involved in a quarrel with her/his neighbor and this becomes known to the celebrants, the punishment is an enforcement of justice by the celebrants who go to the homes of the persons quarreling and leave behind the objects used in the celebration. Such a gesture means that the celebration cannot continue until those quarreling

36  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

addresses their differences and re-establish the bonds of friendship among themselves (Samson Aihiokhai 2011, Interview). This fact points to the conclusion that Ihievbe Traditional Religion is a religion of peace. The different shrines and rituals emphasize a sense of communal harmony and friendship; hence, adherents cannot participate in ritual worship when they bear malice or have evil intentions toward their neighbors or someone in the community. One must first reconcile with one’s enemies before one can offer sacrifices at the shrines of the respective deities.

3.3  A Short History of Interreligious Living Among Ihievbe People The realities of religious pluralism in Ihievbe town require study of the dynamics that have shaped the worldview of its inhabitants. The historical realities surrounding the introduction of Christianity and Islam to a place that was previously mono-religious created a definite shift in social interactions. Instances of interreligious negotiations or dialogue in the history of Ihievbe arose from the need to foster harmony and resolve religious differences which, if left unresolved, would have led to communal tensions and disputes. Though interreligious dialogue ought not to originate solely out of disputes, the need for harmony is relevant. By embracing interreligious dialogue, different religious traditions help to foster a climate of interreligious awareness and knowledge among the members. To engage one another is to help eradicate stereotypes usually brought about by ignorance of the other. Catherine Cornille states this beautifully when she argues that interreligious dialogue not only helps to dispel tensions among religious persons but can also become the means for religious persons to “become aware of their own essential criteria of truth through positive – and even more poignantly negative – responses to the religious other” (Cornille 2009, xi). In this era of cross-cultural migrations and interactions, the need for religions to dialogue with each other is not only unavoidable, but essential. Through dialogue, members of the different religions realize that different religions are unique, and yet also serve a common purpose: to fulfill humanity’s innate desire to encounter the holy and to shape their own lives. Certain factors have necessitated interreligious engagement among these religions, which include the very nature of the community. The members of the town prefer to see themselves as having a common ancestry, yet it is virtually impossible for them to avoid addressing the

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

37

differences among these religions since such differences have bearing on the structures of the community. A clear example is the relationship between adherents of the traditional religion and those of Islam during the early part of the twentieth century. The introduction of Islam brought about the push to move away from what the Muslim proselytizers saw as idolatry. They condemned the established way of life, including the organizational structures of the community, and drove for an eradication of the role of elders in the community’s religious rituals in order to replace them with Islamic ones. The introduction of the “tying of turban” as a visible expression of affiliation with Islam and participation in the political administration of the community led to a major revolt from some members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion (see Ogbomo 144–145). Acknowledging this tension between Islam and the traditional religion, a deliberate effort was made to reach a compromise. The Intelligence Report of H. F. Marshall in 1937 was such an attempt to resolve the tensions. Aimed at preserving two social structures advocated by the respective religions, the compromise permitted converts to Islam to continue the practice of “tying of turban” and adherents of Ihievbe Traditional Religion to continue to worship at their respective shrines (Andrew “Irogho” Ohiosumwan 2011, Interview. See also Marshall 1937). Furthermore, the relationship among adherents of Ihievbe Traditional Religion and Islam has been one of accommodation and appropriation (see Oyakhire 1997, 43–44). The two religions share the common practice of polygamy, and although many have converted to Islam, their religious worldview continues to be shaped by Ihievbe Traditional Religion. The same can also be said of many converts to the Catholic faith. For example, Ihievbe people generally believe in the existence of spiritual forces such as witches and continue to venerate ancestors, irrespective of their religious affiliations. Another factor in the call for interreligious engagement has to do with a pragmatic assessment of the respective religions and their usefulness to the lives of the people. As noted already, the acceptance of Roman Catholicism by the entire Ivbiogwonu village has some pragmatic dimension. As a way of resisting the aggressive policies of Muslims in the community, the entire village converted to Roman Catholicism; especially since Christianity was the religion of the members of the British colonial administration. Furthermore, the practice of providing western education, which served as the passport for participating in colonial administration, contributed to the acceptance of Christianity by the members of the village.

38  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

While highlighting the history of interreligious encounter among different religions, it is important to show more than just the positive encounters so that we create an opportunity to be prophetic and continue the process of holistic encounters. As the above instances show, historical realities of interreligious encounters in Ihievbe town have not always originated from the desire to want to engage the other. To buttress this point further, the following case shows the need to work toward a broader encounter that reflects and originates from the positive desire to engage one another. Introduction of a Western educational system to Ihievbe in the early part of the twentieth century by the Society of African Missions was specifically a proselytizing tool. The attempt of the Muslim community to establish its own school system was frustrated by the lack of competent teachers. By insisting on following the regulations of Canon Law, the S.M.A. missionaries systematically used education as a proselytizing tool in the town. Furthermore, bias for Western education by the colonial government inadvertently led to a class system because those educated in the Roman Catholic schools had easy access to the jobs in the colonial government. When interreligious encounter is motivated by competition, the result is not always positive. This is particularly true when such an encounter is aimed at proselytizing those of another faith. Still, there were positive encounters among the three different religions in Ihievbe. It is now the common practice to participate in interreligious meetings, which are attended by the religious leaders as well as the followers. This practice was started by the Roman Catholic Parish of Saint Jude in Afuze under which Saint Lazarian Church in Ihievbe was a parish mission until 2011. These meetings help to foster dialogue, respect for, and educate the participants on the traditions and teachings of the different religions and respect for one another. To understand the significance of some recent interreligious encounters, it is appropriate to expound on some cultural and religious dynamics operating in Ihievbe community. Ihievbe people return the remains of all daughters to their kindred for burial. Though the historical origin of this practice is not known, it can be explained by the matrilineal trends in the culture. By returning the remains of their daughters to their kindred, Ihievbe people believe that they are fulfilling their ancestral obligations. There is room for fostering a broader appreciation of both men and women in the community, yet this practice does affirm an existential

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

39

equality among men and women. It was threatened by the burial rituals of Muslims and Christians who saw themselves as excused from this practice because, for them, it is linked to the traditional religious belief that every Ihievbe woman has a link to the deities of the traditional religion. Instead, Muslims insisted on burying their dead alongside Muslims, and Christians among fellow Christians. To resolve this development, a compromise was reached, and today there are three cemeteries in Ihievbe town, including those of Muslims, Christians, and Ihievbe Traditional Religionists. The cemeteries are in the community-owned land. They are adjacent to each other. Surprisingly, there are no fences demarcating them. The cemeteries are further partitioned among the different villages of Ihievbe so that the deceased are buried alongside their kindred members. For example, a deceased Christian from Ovongbuan village married to a Muslim from Emabu village is buried in the Christian burial site and among her fellow Ovongbuan Christians. Should she be a Muslim, she will be buried in the Muslim burial site beside her fellow Ovongbuan villagers who are Muslims. For the men, they are buried beside their fellow religionists in the section designated for the religion. Another religious dynamic occurs within the Ihievbe cultural practice of naming a newborn child, which is usually done by the oldest man in the extended family of the child in consultation with the child’s parents and involves praying to the ancestors for protection over the child and asking for a successful future. The name given to a child is not simply for identification, it also acts as a prophetic guide for the child because the name guides and guards her/his destiny. A person is said to have lived a fruitful life if she/he has lived fully the meaning of their name. Christians and Muslims alike observe this practice. Ihievbe people maintain that our names are our links with the ancestors, who reveal our destinies. In other words, our names are our guides through life and represent the pathway to achieving our destinies. Ihievbe’s Ugoghon festival provides another arena and purpose for interreligious dialogue. For Ihievbe people, a man who reaches adulthood and fails to celebrate with his age-group cannot be accorded the privileges of adulthood, nor is he allowed to marry any woman from Ihievbe. Thus, in the mindset of the people, a young man is not an adult until he performs the appropriate rites of passage. These rituals involve the performance of certain religious acts by the designated person from Otua village in Ihievbe, while families of the celebrants usually carryout

40  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

religious rituals that specifically originate from Ihievbe Traditional Religion. To ensure that Christians and Muslims participate, the town decided that families of the young celebrants should adhere to their own religion’s rituals, so Christians and Muslims are expected to offer prayers of thanksgiving in their churches and mosques, respectively. Though the role of the oldest man in the quarter as a harbinger of peace and harmony in the community is still recognized, the demands of Christian identity require a shift in both the ritual practices and the method by which the functions of the oldest man in the community are observed. For members of the traditional religion, when there is a dispute in the community, part of the reconciliatory process involves a request from the oldest man to those in conflict, that reconciliatory offerings be made to the deities. In Ivbiogwonu, when people come to the oldest man, a Roman Catholic convert, to adjudicate matters within his jurisdiction, he reaches a compromise that respects not only his own faith, but that of those involved. It is not always the case in religiously pluralistic settings that attempts will be made to foster dialogue aimed at compromises in matters which, if not handled properly, will lead to more conflict. When a community looks beyond its differences and encourages interactions among the constituent members based on those factors that unite the community, they will transcend the differences. Among the Ihievbe people in general, there is collective consciousness of their unity and a sense of their cultural obligation to show hospitality not only to strangers, but also among themselves. The circumstances surrounding the introduction of Christianity to Ihievbe are worth remembering. That the Ihievbe people accommodated Christianity is not disputable. The gift of land to the Roman Catholic community to build its place of worship and its schools ought to be recognized as a visible expression of hospitality. This is particularly important when one recognizes the significance of land in the Ihievbe community. To be given land to erect one’s home goes beyond civility: It is a concrete expression of friendship and becomes the basis for communion. In Ihievbe town, the people feel responsible for fostering the bonds of friendship and hospitality among those of different faiths. For an Ihievbe person, religious affiliation serves to perpetuate communal harmony. The bonds of unity brought about by their faithfulness to the ideals of ancestral heritage transcend any theological or religious truth. The test of a religion is its ability to foster communal unity, harmony, and the flourishing of life.

3  FACTORS SHAPING RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES … 

41

The proximity of the different adherents of Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion predates any deliberate attempt at dialogue, and coexistence predates intellectual interreligious dialogue. In other words, interreligious living is primal to Ihievbe people. Family members are split among the different religions and continue to cherish their bonds irrespective of their religious affiliations. In Ihievbe town, cultural ties of friendship precede the arrival of both Islam and Christianity. In fact, it is easy to see a stranger as an enemy simply because such a person belongs to a different religion or culture. The current nationalistic wave moving across Europe and the USA under President Donald Trump gives credence to this conclusion. Immigrants, refugees, and Muslims are being described as dangerous people who threaten the status quo. However, when boundaries of the unknown are breached through deliberate attempts to engage, the stranger is no longer an enemy, but a friend. When friendship is established, it is then difficult to carry out acts of violence against a friend, even if these acts of violence are motivated by religious beliefs. The notion of commensality is important if the evils of religious violence are to be overcome. Such simple gestures of welcoming visitors into one’s home and sharing a meal with them are not simple per se; they originate from the depth of cultural values that can be used as dialogical tools. Among Ihievbe people, commensality is part of hospitality and leads to friendship. The roles of friendship and hospitality in interreligious encounter among religions will be explored in detail in this work; for now, it is enough to recognize the centrality and significance of such cultural tools of hospitality and friendship in the project of fostering interreligious encounters among Ihievbe people.

References Cornille, Catherine. 2009. “Introduction: On Discernment in Dialogue.” In Criteria of Discernment in Interreligious Dialogue, ed. Catherine Cornille, ix–xix. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Marshall, H.F. 1937. Intelligence Report on the Ivbiosakon Clans in Ishan and Kukuruku Divisions Benin Province. Benin City: Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. Ogbomo, Onaiwu W. 1997. When Men and Women Mattered: A History of Gender Relations among the Owan of Nigeria. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Oyakhire, G.B.L. 1997. An Edo Civilization: Owan Chieftaincy Institution. Benin City: Geebee Nigeria Limited.

CHAPTER 4

Philosophical and Christological Arguments for Hospitality as a Dialogical Model

Abstract  This chapter will explore the philosophical, theological, and cultural ways hospitality can be used to foster an enduring model of interreligious encounter/dialogue. A concise study of the philosophical contributions of René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Luc Marion, and Jacques Derrida on the discourse on hospitality will be pursued. These contributions will be analyzed using the thoughts of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas whose works will be the foundation for articulating the philosophical arguments for hospitality as a dialogical tool for encounters among religions. In the context of religion, hospitality does not arise from the abundant goodness of one religion that leads to a benevolent charitable gesture toward another religion. Such a notion only reveals a subtle sense of self-love and a narcissistic understanding of God’s relational encounter with the said religion. Authentic hospitality should begin with the guest and not the host. The other, as a guest or, in this context, as a religion, shapes the initial invitation to encounter by invoking in the host the obligation to respond appropriately. However, the host’s freedom to respond positively or negatively is never denied. Authenticity is expressed not through the false elevation of the self, but by the willingness of one to engage the other. © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_4

43

44  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Hospitality as a philosophical tool needed for transformative dialogical encounters is very much in line with the projects of Buber and Levinas. For example, in his philosophical discourses on the relevance of recapturing the alterity of the other as the way forward for contemporary Western philosophy, Levinas highlights the ethical and religious significance of hospitality (Levinas 1969, 172). To better understand the contributions of both men, the philosophical traditions that shaped their writings need to be explored briefly. As an epistemological and theological concern, relationality has always preoccupied humans. Questions concerning the purpose of being, how the subject defines itself, and the link between mortality and immortality have shaped the history of philosophy and theology in both Western and non-Western societies. The primary concern of Descartes was to show how the subject comes to know who or what it is as a subject, or, in other words, to understand the implications of relationality in the context of subjectivity. To resolve this epistemic concern, Descartes begins with epistemic doubt and reduction in complexities, hoping to end up in epistemic simplicity as has played out in the theological sphere: God understood as perfect simplicity. He surmounts his epistemic doubt by settling for a new ontology, one that elevates subjectivity/consciousness to the supreme level of meaning-giver for all things—cogito ergo sum “I think therefore I am” (Alweiss 2005, 37). Descartes’ conclusion influenced most of the Western philosophical thoughts since his time. The preoccupations of philosophers such as Husserl, Heidegger, Buber, Levinas, Derrida, and Marion are all linked to this conclusion of Descartes’ epistemological quest. Furthermore, Descartes’ conclusion is not isolated from the Christian theological understanding of God as a source of knowledge and meaning. Christianity from its onset, taking its cue from the Hebrew Scriptures, came to understand God as the source of meaning. In other words, nothing outside of God could be the source of meaning for God. Everything outside God derives their meaning from God and when they help to explain who God is, they derive that ability as a graced gift from God’s self-communication. Accepting of the Judeo-Christian view that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, Descartes fully understood this. Hence, since God derives God’s meaning from God’s self, it follows that humans must also derive their meaning from themselves (see Morrow 2005, 20; see also Marion 1975, 82).

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

45

Husserlian contribution to this discourse is hinged primarily on the concern of trying to show how relationality is preserved within the first principle of Descartes. To resolve this concern, Husserl introduces intentionality and intuition. The former refers to the notion that to be conscious is always to be conscious of something. In this context, rather than focusing on knowing the essence of the object, Husserl focuses on the phenomenological representation of the object which consciousness engages intentionally (see Peperzak 1993, 14–15). However, since the other as object is distant from the knowing subject, Husserl introduces intuition as the possibility of knowing without distance (Husserl 1970, 17). Expressed another way, to be conscious of the other is to have intuition into the being of the other. While preserving the all-knowing subject of Descartes, Husserl roots relationality within the subject as consciousness. Consciousness thus pries into alterity and deprives it of its privacy through the gift of intuition. Distinguishing his work from that of Descartes, Husserl reflects on the possibility of the all-knowing subject of Descartes mistaking the knowledge of the object encountered. To resolve this dilemma, he introduces the concept of phenomenological reduction to the discourse on the theory of knowledge. Phenomenological reduction refers to the possibility of consciousness through intentionality knowing the revealing object phenomenologically by following the epistemic doubt of Descartes and arriving at the conclusion, although it is different from that of Descartes: that knowledge of the other is phenomenological knowledge made possible through intuition (254; Levinas 1998, 20–21). Husserl’s approach is an escape from the certitude (ontology) of the knowledge of the other that has shaped Western theories of knowledge. Describing consciousness, Husserl introduces the notions of sleep and sleeplessness, which Levinas rightly claims, is an attempt to situate consciousness within transcendence while also acknowledging its place in immanence (Levinas 23–24; Husserl 1977, 177ff). Husserl attempts to restore subjectivity within the world as against its flight from the world in the history of metaphysics since Descartes. His approach is significant because it will greatly influence Heidegger in his own philosophical contribution to the understanding of Being/Dasein. However, Husserl’s effort to move away from ontology to phenomenology is frustrated by his situating knowledge within intentional-subjectivity. Even if the knowledge of the other is phenomenological knowledge, the freedom of the other is threatened, and such intrusion

46  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

into the space of the other does violence to alterity. Levinas extensively critiques Husserl’s phenomenological philosophy and shifts the discourse toward ethics, since, for him, phenomenology’s attempt to account for a theory of knowledge cannot escape ontology’s grip. Buber also revolts against Husserl’s approach because he sees it as threatening the relational dynamics of knowing reciprocally. For Buber, all knowing is knowing through reciprocal encounters; thus, the primacy of subjectivity in Descartes’ and Husserl’s works must be overthrown to give way to the I-Thou relationship, which is not simply an abstract theory of knowledge, but is constitutive to concrete lived experiences of humans in community. Heidegger, for his part, moves the conversation to an aspect of Husserl’s contribution, that of recognizing that the knowing subject is a being-in-the-world (Heidegger 1962, 192). Heidegger, like Husserl, is concerned with how Descartes’ theory of knowledge has been understood with the consequent denial of the facticity faced by the subject within the context of existing-in-the-world. Thus, rather than focusing on subjectivity as the grounds for knowledge, Heidegger posits that Descartes’ knowing subject must first be understood as a relational being before the claim to its existence. It should be pointed out, as done by William J. Richardson, that the world as understood by Heidegger is not the reality determined by space and time; rather, it is the possibility of encountering other beings (Richardson 2011, 156–157). The world is the possibility of relationality. Heidegger restates the claim of Descartes from “I am, therefore I exist” to “existence precedes essence.” This declaration influenced, in a considerable way, the works of Buber and Levinas, even as they distanced their works from his (Cohen 2004, 235). For both philosophers, Heidegger’s affiliation with Nazi Germany brought about distaste for him and his works (Peperzak 12). Heidegger goes further in his discourse on being-in-the-world by introducing the concepts of guilt, conscience, and call. Guilt refers to a lack of being when being-in-the-world fails to respond to the call of conscience (Critchley 2011, 149–150). He also contends that conscience is the possibility of hearing the call of Dasein. The call of conscience, argues Heidegger, is one that “summons being to itself – that is, to its ownmost potentiality-for-Being” (147–148; Heidegger 273). This is the point of departure for the critique of Heidegger by both Buber and Levinas: to argue, as does Heidegger, that the call of Dasein is a call that originates from itself and addressed to itself, is to posit Being as isolated even in the world (Heidegger 275). It is to acclaim the supremacy of Being as the finality of existence without its engagement with alterity.

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

47

As presented below, Buber argues for an overthrow of the self-absolving Dasein of Heidegger. If Dasein calls itself to itself without the possibility of it being affected by alterity, then the legitimacy of alterity/ Thou is trivialized and relegated to a secondary status in its encounter with Dasein. This is the crux of Buber’s critique of Heidegger, which I embrace wholeheartedly. In the project of constructing a viable dialogical model for religions, no religion is self-sufficient. In fact, the opposite is the case, each religion is always in need of the transformative presence of other religions within the context of engagement. In other words, self-sufficiency denies the role of God in God’s gifting religions with relationality as a mode of being-in-the-world. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other religions define themselves always in relation to other religions or the secular world even when such self-definition is done at the expense of the other. Levinas rejects the understanding of Dasein by Heidegger. In his critique of Heidegger, he moves away from the primacy of Dasein to the realm of alterity. Rather than focusing on ontology, Levinas brings the realm of ethics into the discourse. For him, the care of Dasein is brought about by the call from the other. Unlike Heidegger who argues that the call originates from Dasein to itself, Levinas posits that the call originates from the other addressed to the subject/Dasein/I. This call invokes in the subject a sense of responsibility toward the one who calls. It is a call that pleads to the subject to reject violence. Unlike Heidegger’s call, which leads to a sense of pride and fulfillment, this call awakens in the subject an awareness of her limitations as an incomplete being in need of being-there-for-the-other. Again, for Levinas, every encounter can be reduced to ethics, hence revealing certain nuances that are needed for it to be truly fruitful. Derrida pushes this argument further by stating that ethics can be equated to hospitality. He is quick to point out that “ethics,” in this context, “is without law and without concept” (Derrida 1978, 111). This idea is relevant if one is to understand the contributions of Derrida to the discourse on hospitality. In his work, Of Hospitality, Derrida shows the tension between unconditional hospitality, characterized by transcendence above law and economy, and conditional hospitality, which falls under regulations determined by the host who must ask for the name of the guest, her place of origin, language, and demand that the guest abide by the laws operating in the household or in the country (see Dufourmantelle and Derrida 2000). In this context, the guest can easily become a hostage or a foreigner who must accept the identity given to

48  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

her by the individual or institutional host. By equating ethics to unconditional hospitality, Derrida is faithful to the prophetic witnessing of Buber and Levinas in calling contemporary society to take seriously the need to understand hospitality outside the boundaries of control that have shaped Western appropriations and practices of encounters with others (see Dufourmantelle and Derrida 2000, 1–2). For Levinas, relationality begins with the other whose presence is not reducible to the hermeneutic boundaries given by the subject or host. Rather, relationality begins from the initial encounter conditioned by the presence of the guest who invites the host to take seriously the totality of the encounter (Peperzak 52–53). This point is also stressed in the works of Marion, for whom the phenomenon of hospitality between the subject and the guest is always a gift (Marion 2002, 9). Rather than focusing on the self-knowing subject as articulated in the works of Husserl, Marion attends to the realm of the gifting phenomena (Komasinki 2010, 111). What is encountered by the subject is not the product of its consciousness but the gifted “saturated phenomena,” which has an open possibility of responses by the subject. Marion further shows that the subject ought to be understood as “gifted.” He writes; “…we do not experience ourselves solely as given, like every other phenomenon, but as gifted (adonné) – as those who receive themselves in the reception of the given, far from waiting for this given in the position of a receiver who is already available and secure in itself” (Marion 2005, 122). Marion stresses that the subject’s identity can only be understood in the context of it being received and responded to from the first call, as well as the ongoing calls from the gifting phenomena of alterity. To support this point, Marion uses the analogy of fatherhood to show the true relationship between subjectivity and alterity (117). The gift of life given to the child has important nuances that shape the path followed by Marion in his discourse on hospitality. First, the gift is not tangible (121). This frees the gift from the rules and regulations of commerce, or what Derrida refers to as, “conditional hospitality.” Also, the placement of the gift outside the regulations of commerce or conditioned hospitality helps to overcome the restrictions of reciprocity, which Marion sees as falling within the realm of commerce and expectations that deny hospitality its true meaning: unconditional gesture of welcome by one to the other (16; see also Dufourmantelle and Derrida 77). Second, the gift of life through fatherhood brings about a unique identity of the self in the child, one that is not a mere replica of the identity

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

49

of the father (Marion 2005, 124–125). However, the gift of life to the child does not solely lie in the action of the father. There is a sense of unique complementarity on the part of the father and the mother in gifting life to the child. The child has a unique identity, which is the gift of selfhood/identity. This opens the child to possibilities of also being able to render such a unique gift to others. This possibility shapes Marion’s saturated phenomena: what is given leads to further giving (118–119). He describes this as, “an infinite hermeneutic” (see 2002, 211; see also Harold 2010, 209). Since every person has a father [and mother], Marion attempts to show that this is the general condition of all relational encounters. The gift is not restricted to a single hermeneutic nor is it reciprocal. The child can never respond to the gift of life from the parents adequately. This example reduces reciprocity to absurdity and puts it outside the discourse of authentic hospitality, which Marion hopes will shape the relational encounter within human society. The beauty of Marion’s approach is that it frees the self/identity from the phenomenological hermeneutic on the subject as the source of meaning and its own identity. The self/ identity is seen as a gift from another, justifying the view that identity is always shaped within the context of givenness/relationality (see Marion 1998, 34; see also Chicoine 2010, 203). Marion’s approach invites the subject to a place of humble recognition that hospitality helps to shape and define one’s identity. The presence of the other cannot be seen as an obstruction to the subject’s agenda. Instead, the other is seen as the source of the gift that brings life to the subject and helps it to contextualize itself as possessing a gifted identity within the framework of the tri-relational characters of alterity known as the gifting other; the gift itself, which is the actual process of encounter; and the gifted, who is the receiver/subject. Marion’s unique contribution to the discourse on hospitality is based on his view that the gift “shows itself on the basis of itself because, like every other phenomenon, it gives itself on the basis of itself…hence without owing anything to another reason (or cause) than itself” (Marion 2005, 126). This view of Marion attempts to free the gift both from the control of the source (alterity) and from the recipient (subject). The gift becomes the source of its identity and purpose. However, this question remains unanswered: What becomes of the other after she has gifted the subject with a gift that has its own purpose? Does this removal of the other from the purpose of the gift not lead to the denial of the place of

50  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

alterity in shaping the identity and purpose of the subject, since the gift itself is totally self-sufficient? Marion fails to address this issue. Indeed, he attempts to show that the shift from emphasis on alterity to the gift itself is because the gift is traceable to alterity; however, the two are not synonymous. The gift of life from the father [and mother] to the child, Marion argues, does not equate to the life of the father [or mother]. This is an attempt of his to preserve the identity of the other as not a mere replication of that of the father [or mother]. This effort to protect differentiation as the necessary condition for constituting unique identities in the father [or mother] and the child should be welcomed. Nevertheless, it fails to protect the continuous relevance of the other in the process, and this failure on the part of Marion can lead to an eventual, intentional forgetfulness of the other by the subject who may be tempted to focus solely on the gift and see itself bound to an encounter only with the gift and not with the source of the gift also. Another contradiction in Marion’s view on the relationship between the receiver (subject) and the source of the gift (alterity) is his perception that the call from the other is given a name by the receiver (subject) (2002, 211; see also Harold 304). In other words, subjectivity’s role in metaphysics as the ground for meaning is not completely eradicated in the views of Marion. The encounter with the other, even though the encounter is a gift that originates from the other is always received in the context of the finitude and limitations present in the subject. The space of the subject and its distance from the other, as well as, its freedom to determine what is relevant to it is preserved. There is a problem with this: if meaning is essentially determined by the subject, then the role of alterity in the process of the encounter and shaping the purpose of the encounter, as posited strongly by Levinas, is trivialized. To name something is to have control over that which is named. One sees this at play in the dialogue between Yahweh and Moses in Exodus 3:1–21. Moses asks God for God’s name and God chooses not to be defined by anything outside of God or even within the imaginative abilities of Moses and his fellow Israelites. For Buber, alterity is the source of meaning and identity. For Levinas, the process of encounter is initiated by alterity and cannot in anyway be trivialized. The place of alterity as the grounds for ethical intersubjectivity distinguishes the contributions of both Buber and Levinas from the prevalent Western philosophical traditions culminating in insular Heideggerian Dasein (Buber 1965, 171). Dialogue between beings, argue both Buber and Levinas, does not originate from the self-reflecting being sufficient

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

51

in itself and engaging out of the superfluous qualities within it; rather, relationality proceeds from the other whose presence shapes the content of the encounter. For Buber and Levinas, the human person is thrown into relationality. There is no escape from it. The flourishing of the human person is determined by how each one takes seriously this relational vocation. Subjectivity is not to be understood through abstract conceptual postulations, but through the very heart of relationality. In the words of Levinas, “The humanity of man, subjectivity, is a responsibility, an extreme vulnerability” (Levinas 2003, 67). This notion of vulnerability in hospitality is also stressed in Derrida’s contributions. Situating the discourse on hospitality in the context of the home, Derrida points to the violence initiated by the arrival of the other as guest (Westmoreland 2008, 6–7). In the encounter with the other, the host/subject is thrown into a situation where his laws and boundaries are threatened by the unannounced presence of the unnamed guest. The host suddenly finds himself both as a host and as a guest, while the guest also becomes a host. In Derrida’s words: … the hote who receives (the host), the one who welcomes the invited or received the hote (guest), the welcoming hote who considers himself the owner of the place, is in truth the hote received in his own home. He receives the hospitality that he offers in his own home; he receives it from his own home – which, in the end does not belong to him. The hote as host is a guest. (Derrida 1999, 41)

Derrida’s attempt to preserve the link between unconditional hospitality and conditional hospitality is at play here. The host inhabits the world of conditioned hospitality when he engages the guest as host but is also thrown into unconditional hospitality when he opens himself up to the possibility of becoming a guest in the home and engaging the guest as his host. Although this aporia is paradoxical, Derrida refuses to eliminate the tension, because for him, human encounters are shaped by such tensions. He focuses on the interchangeability of place in the encounter between the host and the guest, a view shaped by Buber’s principle of reciprocity. Derrida’s argument reminds me of the experience I once had in 1997 when I was a formator at the Holy Ghost Juniorate in Ihiala, Nigeria. During this period, we had a guest from France spending a year with us and helping to teach our seminarians. In my attempt to interact with him, I realized that I was a guest in his own world while he was a

52  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

guest in mine. This interchangeability of identities as noted by Derrida was very much at play as we both attempted to negotiate our encounters. For Buber, while reciprocity affirms interchangeability, it does not eliminate difference. While there is reciprocity, the subject/I and the other/Thou cannot be conflated into a single reality. Reciprocity/interchangeability is possible because of difference. Levinas does not follow this approach, however. For him, in an actual encounter, the I/subject/ host engages the other/Thou/guest always as a subject, yet his identity or responsibility is conditioned by alterity. Levinas moves away from an ontological approach to relationality and simply emphasizes the inability of the subject to supplant the other because the other is encountered as a trace, a graced possibility. The introduction of the concept of “trace” preserves both the possibilities of infinite hermeneutics derived from the encounter, as noted by Marion, and the freedom of the other from the conceptualizing tendencies of the subject that it has been taught for centuries to believe is the source of meaning. Buber and Levinas have their distinct approaches to the subject of human relationality, but they agree that relationality is at the heart of the human condition. Buber hinges relationality to ontology. For him, the constitution of human identity is found in relationality. This is a primal condition, a pre-conscious reality constituting the essential identity of the human person (Buber 1958, 63). Again, Marion also attests to this point and shows the primal and enduring identity of every person as gifted identity. He does this, as described above, by using the analogy of fatherhood [and motherhood]. Every person derives their identity from the gift of fatherhood [motherhood], thus demonstrating the relational aspect of identity as a gifted relational identity. For Levinas, the focus is to retrieve the link between the human condition and ethics (Cohen 241). For Buber, “Relation is mutual. My Thou meets me as I affect it” (Buber 1958, 15). Levinas’ argument is that the expectation of a response conditioned by reciprocity is a false one which will lead to the preservation of a biased sense of selfhood at the expense of alterity. However, Levinas does not deny the point that, in relational encounter, there is bound to be transformation in the process. However, for him, such transformation is a graced one, graced by the alterity of the other whose trace invites the subject to take seriously the invitation to be ethical as well as vulnerable. Marion shares the same conclusion with

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

53

Levinas. For him, reciprocity only leads to commerce and deprives hospitality of the grace of immeasurability of acts of goodness shown toward another (Marion 2005, 120). Both Buber and Levinas see relationality as bordering on vulnerability. To be in a relationship is to be vulnerable. Buber finds that this vulnerability lies in the letting go of preconceived assumptions. It entails an encounter with the other that is grounded in a trusting blind-faith; while believing in the transforming relational encounter as a graced gift (Buber 1965, 170). It involves an “essential” openness of one to the other in a reciprocal way. In his words: In essential relation…the barriers of individual being are in fact breached and a new phenomenon appears which can appear only in this way: one life open to another – not steadily, but so to speak attaining its extreme reality only from point to point, yet also able to acquire a form in the continuity of life; the other becomes present not merely in the imagination or feeling, but in the depths of one’s substance, so that one experiences the mystery of the other being in the mystery of one’s own. The two participate in one another’s lives in very fact, not psychically, but ontically. (ibid.)

Responding to this openness to the other involves trust, and willingness to encounter without prejudging. The other enacts the legitimacy of the subject. In the context of interreligious dialogue, hospitality involves willingness to encounter another religion even when the other religion has fundamental differences from one’s own. By engaging in relational encounters with the other religion, there is a fundamental belief that God invites all religions to encounter each other. The aim of such encounters is not to make converts of the members of the other religions, but because it is God’s will that authentic religious expressions involve encountering each other. Vulnerability in such encounters entails letting go of centuries-old intellectual biases and embracing the process as a moment of grace. If one is to understand hospitality as a model for dialogue, Marion’s emphasis on the gift as empty of intentionality is enlightening. Relationality in the context of interreligious encounter can transcend intentionality that originates either from the host or the guest. The emphasis here is on the ability to enjoy the encounter and allow it to

54  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

shape the outcome. In other words, in the process of encountering each other, religions ought to discard preconceived views of each other and allow the meeting to create its own outcome. This act of letting go is especially paramount when the content of the prior-based knowledge originates from eras of animosity. It is an approach that can lead to a new awakening for religions, and an epiphany that allows them to experience the grace of God in a new and rich way that is unburdened by the past. Marion’s contribution to hospitality can foster authentic encounter among religions if they can begin to see themselves as essentially bound to each other in a relational manner. Religions cannot escape from relationality, although each religion is in itself distinct from the other just as the father [or mother] is always different from the son even though they are related through the gift of fatherhood [or motherhood]. However, Marion’s view that the subject/receiver has the indisputable right to bring to birth the call from the other needs to be critiqued in the context of interreligious encounter (Marion 2002, 288; Harold 209). The right is always a graced one that is given and legitimized by God. The legitimacy of a religion while engaging another does not rest in the domain of the religion being encountered. Legitimacy is a claim both religions possess by virtue of their being media for God’s encounters with humanity. God serves both as the source and meaning-giver for the encounters. The implication of Derrida’s views on hospitality in the context of interreligious encounter is quite telling. While affirming the place of unconditional hospitality as an encounter outside the boundaries of preconditions, his preservation of the aporia arising from the connection between unconditional and conditional hospitality needs explanation. Derrida ought to answer the question: How can unconditioned interreligious encounter proceed within the context of conditioned interreligious encounter? In other words, how can a Christian both encounter a Muslim unconditionally and conditionally? An immediate conclusion we can derive from this aporia is that it defines the realities faced by religions in today’s world. While divine mandate invites religions to be open to the epiphany of God in the world, the social realities of the modern state validate only conditioned openness shaped by biased national or institutional interests and agendas. On another note, Buber argues that in essential relations, there is a primal movement initiated by the other. However, the subject responds to this movement by moving toward the other who initiates it. In sum, Buber sees human existence as reciprocal moving toward each other and

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

55

living out relationality; “all real living is meeting” (Buber 1958, 11). Furthermore, Buber holds that in direct relation between the I and the Thou, “No system of ideas, no foreknowledge, and no fancy intervene between I and Thou. The memory itself is transformed, as it plunges out of its isolation into the unity of the whole” (ibid.). Levinas gives a little nuance to this position of Buber, while still upholding the place of relationality as the grounds for being. He is more interested in the concrete person-to-person relationship that falls within the realm of ethics. Relationality is ethical and involves the experiential condition of every human encounter. Encountering parties do not have the leisure to run away from relationality; rather, the subject is held captive by the ethical demands of the other. Such demands by the other, argues Levinas, surround every turn made by the subject. Relationality evokes vulnerability of the subject who must then engage the other with authentic openness that goes against the very self-defenses constructed by the subject in an attempt to gain power over the content of the encounter. Levinas writes, …in vulnerability lies a relation to the other that is not exhausted by causality, a relation prior to all affection by the stimulus. The identity of the self does not set limits to submission, not even the last resistance that matter in potential opposes to the form that invests it. Vulnerability is obsession by others or approach to others. It is for others, from behind the other of the stimulus. An approach reduced neither to representation of others nor to consciousness of proximity. To suffer by the other is to take care of him, be in his place, consume oneself by him. (Levinas 2003, 64)

Like Buber, who argues that relationality is the human condition, Levinas upholds the place of vulnerability for the other by the subject as a pre-conscious reality. Relationality, argues Levinas, involves “substitution, responsibility, and expiation” for the other by the subject. This “responsibility for the other,” he argues, “is not assumed at any moment, in any present. Nothing is more passive than this challenge prior to my freedom, this pre-original challenge, this sincerity” (ibid.). Levinas embraces a more radical approach to the dethronement of selfhood that has led to violence against the other than does Derrida (see Dufourmantelle and Derrida 79). By focusing on ethics, Levinas gives relationality a central place in the philosophical discourse of the West. The collapse of the relevance of religion in the West hinges on the attempt by Christianity to define the world from its own point of view

56  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

and deny the originality of the non-Christian worldview. Levinas argues, as does Buber, that God is a God of alterity whose otherness transcends the usurpation embarked upon by narcissistic religious traditions (Buber 1958, 115–116). The other, they insist, invites the subject to a relationship that makes her vulnerable, one that involves trust, care for the other, and being in the moment. In the religious context, Buber’s and Levinas’ approaches to relationality are even more binding because they depict the divine relational engagement with the human subject. Buber, Levinas, and Marion highlight the nature of Yahweh’s encounter with Israel as one of alterity. Marion focuses on the response of Samuel to Yahweh’s call as the nature of the relationship between God and humanity; difference of identity is preserved in the call and response between Yahweh and Samuel (Marion and Kearney 2005, 243–244). Relationality is also affirmed in that singular event. This is also the nature of divine encounter in many religions. Christianity affirms the otherness of God while at the same time recognizing the engaging presence of God in human history. In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, God’s presence in the community can be felt through the deities, the ancestors, and the entire created order. Social harmony is a visible and concrete manifestation of the engaging God who rewards those who respond to divine invitation with social and familial harmony. In Islam, God is utmost transcendence, and yet God has provided humanity with the means for transformative encounters. The entire universe reveals the magnificence and benevolence of God. Faithfulness to God cannot but be judged by how one relates to God’s creatures. Human life in community is shaped by the desire to acknowledge the sacred presence of God in the created world. Hospitality shaped by the philosophy of relationality articulated by Buber and Levinas involves openness, trust, and vulnerability. Relational openness among religions in their dialogical encounters ought to include theological and doctrinal openness as well. For the church, it ought to involve a strong commitment to the mission of the Holy Spirit who calls Christians to engage the self-revealing God who has visited humanity through other religions as well. To be open to the Spirit of the Trinity is to be open also to humanity and other religions. Such openness should involve willingness to encounter, and trusting that through the encounter, God will continue to reveal God’s self to the faith community.

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

57

The same expectations can be addressed to Muslims and those who embrace other faith traditions. The current persecution of Christians by Islamic fundamentalists in Northern Nigeria shows a lack of understanding of Allah’s command to Muslims in the Qur’an which states, “O mankind, indeed, We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted” (Qur’an 49:13). Openness, as a constitutive part of hospitality, is fundamental for shaping the structure of the encounter. It serves as a faithful witness to the respective religious traditions involved in the encounter. Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion have within them belief in the workings and presence of God in human society. God’s alterity is preserved and encountered through encounter with the holy or sinful other who serves as the face of the divine. Openness also involves having the conviction that the religious other is a legitimate partner in the dialogical encounter. It includes taking the other seriously and believing that the other has something relevant to contribute to the encounter and shows a sense of humility defined by the understanding that one cannot exhaust God’s self-revelation in the world. Trust, as a characteristic of interreligious hospitality, evokes a sense of fraternity among religions. Most religions will affirm the oneness of humanity, and belief in the ability of humanity to embrace their common goodness. Interreligious hospitality affirms these truths. While encountering other religions, a sense of relevance of the other is appreciated through the willingness to trust the other as being able to serve as agent of the divine who reveals itself. Every religion has legitimacy among their followers because these followers have a strong sense of commitment to their religion. Hospitality affirms this trust in one’s religion and in others’ commitment to their own religions. One cannot engage in fruitful interreligious encounters when one views the religious other with suspicion. For Roman Catholics, the sense of trust in the context of interreligious engagement must be seen as an invitation by the Holy Spirit to embrace the will of the Father to unite humanity in its desire to work toward a better world. The religious other cannot be seen as a competitor who must be overcome; rather, the other religions and their adherents serve as legitimate media for encountering revealed truths.

58  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Vulnerability involves willingness to engage without prejudging, and acceptance of rejection by the other when necessary. Hospitality does not necessarily require reciprocity. This is the point Levinas is making when he criticizes Buber’s view of relationality as being reciprocal. Expectation of reciprocity in interreligious hospitality can lead to a distraction from embracing the moment of encounter. The freedom of the other to encounter, or not, cannot be taken from her. However, it can be argued that the reality of the human condition is such that no one can escape from encountering the other. Buber’s claim of reciprocity has legitimacy only because humanity has been made prisoner of relationality. How one responds to the reality of encounter is a different issue. Buber and Levinas affirm that the other is always present and calls the subject to a relational encounter. For Buber, this presence is existential. For Levinas, it is an ethical presence, one that is mediated by the trace, shadow, and/or voice of the eluding other. Their views buttress the point that, within human community, relationality is an inescapable human condition. Humanity does not have the freedom to live outside of relationality; it has only the freedom to respond adequately or inadequately to the continuous relational encounters. The same is true among religions. All religions are practiced in the human context and as such are conditioned by relationality. To embrace relationality, a religion must be willing to trust the other religion being encountered and be open to the extent of being vulnerable. On the other hand, a religion can decide to engage manipulatively by seeing the other religion as a threat and a false reality. Both Buber and Levinas reject the latter approach. For Buber, an encounter that is not conditioned by trust, openness, and willingness to respond adequately to the encounter leads to a false self-understanding. Levinas goes further to maintain that, in the context of encounter, the subject is invited by the other to engage ethically, even to the point of substitution. The subject is invited to embrace the other wholeheartedly. This is what it means to be human or religious. To turn away from the other is to do utmost violence to oneself and perpetuate the grave violence the other faces from a world that has been shaped by a false sense of the self as the center of meaning. Levinas’ view applies to many teachings among many religions. In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, there is the understanding that one cannot love God or one’s

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

59

neighbors enough. In other words, relational love is always constitutive of the human condition and cannot be exhausted. Islam has a very rich tradition and spirituality of self-effacing love for the other. Christianity is rooted in the understanding that God’s love is non-exhaustive and is the model for love in human society.

4.1  Christ’s Hypostatic Identity as Divine Hospitality To understand soteriology through and in Christ, the early Christian communities had to grapple with the idea of the relationship among the persons of the triune God. A central understanding among the leaders and theologians of the early Christian communities is to see the Trinity as constitutive of relational intimacy. Even when they disagreed among themselves on the nature of this relationship as to whom divinity was to be attributed, they agreed on the fact that the revelation of God through Christ demonstrates a sense of superlative intimacy. The choice of personhood as a way of distinguishing the three distinct and yet inseparable powers in God is not an accidental choice; rather, it contextualizes relationality within the Trinity. John Zizioulas points to this by showing how in the western part of the Roman Empire the notion of personhood did not necessarily depict a sense of quidity, rather it stressed more the idea of relationality (Zizioulas 1985, 34). However, among the early Christian communities, the intent was to articulate a sense of permanence of identity while at the same time affirming intimacy within the Trinity. Also, the risk of falling into Sabellianism had to be avoided, thus necessitating urgency in the project of articulating an ontology of God. Tertullian’s usage of persona to describe diversity within God is linked to the idea of relationality. He stresses this as he shows how the relationship between the Godhead and the Word are so related, and yet distinct, that they have two distinct identities. Arguing for the concreteness of the Word of God, Tertullian demonstrates how it will be contradictory to hold that the Word of the Father is empty and inferior. Divinity is such that whatever comes directly from it has a legitimate claim to an equal status with it. Tertullian writes:

60  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter VII)

He argues that there is eternal intimacy among the persons of the Trinity in such a way that each is within the other (Chapter VIII). He highlights the sense of openness toward the other, a point that will be used also to describe the relationship Jesus Christ has with humanity through his incarnation. Tertullian’s theological reasoning has had sway among many Christian communities, including the Roman Catholic Church, on understanding God as a relational entity that has modeled the created order along the lines of the relational connection within the Trinitarian economy. Other early church fathers, like Basil the Great, demonstrate further this doctrinal view. Basil argues that the names Father-Son-Spirit depict relationships. These names, he argues, do not tell us about the essence of God since that is beyond human comprehension. Rather, they tell us about how God has revealed himself to humanity as a relational being (Basil, Contra Eunomium, 1:15). In other words, the revelation of God within human history is not about knowing the essence of God, but about stressing the point that the God of history is a God in relation both with himself as tri-persons and with the world (see Panikkar 2004, 77). Jesus Christ, as the second person in the Trinity, is God-inrelationship with humanity. By taking on human nature, God has engaged humanity in an intimate way. The relationship between God and humanity is reflected in the incarnation. The Chalcedonian definition of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ is worth exploring to understand the significant role relationality plays in the Christian religion. The characteristics of hospitality as a form of relating can be found in the description of this doctrinal definition adopted by Chalcedon. The union of divinity and humanity in Christ reflects a relation between divinity and humanity that is open, trusting, and vulnerable.

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

61

Chalcedon is a reconciliation of the two theological views of the Antiochene and Alexandrian theological schools. While the former stresses the humanity of Jesus in its theological reasoning in showing how God in Christ has encountered humanity, the latter stresses the actions of divinity in Christ at the detriment of the legitimate significance of Christ’s humanity. To curtail the excesses of these two positions, Chalcedon balanced the relation between divinity and humanity in Christ by focusing on their distinctiveness and inseparability united in the divine personhood of the Son of God (Price and Gaddis 2005, 61–62). By linking humanity and divinity to divine personhood, Chalcedon continued the trajectory of reasoning among the early church that saw Trinitarian economy through the lenses of relationality. The union of the humanity and the divinity of Jesus is expressed in relationality, which in turn depicts the way God invites humanity to embrace relationality. The hypostatic union can be described as a relationship of openness. The fact that God has engaged humanity through God’s Word, to the extent that the Word has condescended to human level and invites humanity to engage it through His Son by entering into a relationship of unity while always preserving alterity, is at the heart of the definition of the God–human identity of Jesus Christ. In the hypostatic union, the notion of alterity is stressed. Humanity is invited to embrace a relationship that does not in any way rob us of our characteristics of limitations, mortality, space, time, and finiteness. Also, in Jesus Christ, humanity responds to divine invitation to encounter God by accepting the invitation in such a way that divinity shares an intimate union with human nature. Although Christian Scripture casts divinity as the dominant actor in the drama of union between divinity and humanity, Christian understanding of the creation of humankind by the Word of God reflects the view that humanity, aided by the grace of God, is capable of cooperating with God (67; see also 1 Tim. 2:5). Again, the preservation of alterity in the hypostatic union forms the ground for encounter between divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. The sense of alterity is stressed by the early church in relation to the dynamics among the persons of the Trinity, between the two natures in Jesus Christ, and between God and the created order, because to deny this will lead to a complete eradication of either the divine or the human in the Christian worldview. God cannot relate to God’s self unless there is difference within God. Even in the human world, relationality

62  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

is possible because of the distinct characteristics of humans. These differences, either in God or among humans, are not merely intellectual, but real and concrete. The distinctions among the three persons of the Trinity are real, concrete, and permanent. Yet, these are not to be understood as opposed to each other. Alterity is the grounds for relational unity, not uniformity. While the former is deliberate and willful, the latter is devoid of freedom. Trust is another characteristic of hospitality that explains the hypostatic union as a union of relation between divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. That which God has made can be trusted. Created human nature is worth trusting. That God can trust created human nature is demonstrated for the purpose of the hypostatic union. Since God by Its nature cannot die or suffer, to expiate the sins of fallen humanity against God’s command, human nature has to be trusted by God to be able to respond adequately by being the vessel through which divine expiation through the incarnate Word of God has to be carried out. On the part of humanity, there is a sense of trust in the efficacy of the suffering, death, and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God, who is capable of leading humanity to a higher status and to enter into a new relationship with God, that is, becoming adopted children of God. This is possible because Jesus Christ is seen within the Christian tradition as the manifestation and archetype of the fullness of the relationships humanity embodies, is called to be, and will be at the end of times. Jesus Christ, by willingly trusting in the liberating and redeeming powers of God in Him, demonstrates humanity’s ability to trust in God as the source of redemptive security. A sense of vulnerability is the third characteristic of hospitality that is traceable also to the hypostatic union. Through the incarnation, God has taken the ultimate risk of choosing to encounter finite humanity. In Jesus Christ, immortality embraces mortality. Also, humanity has taken a great risk by entering into an intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ. As Raimon Panikkar puts it, while following the thought process of many before him, “…the humanization of God corresponds to the divinization of Man. Christ is the revelation of God (in Man) as much as the revelation of Man (in God)” (Panikkar 17). This vulnerability that is inherent in the incarnation does not make humans divine just as the Godhead. Instead, the hypostatic union serves the purpose of leading humans to a new way of relating with God and among themselves. Jesus Christ as true human and God invites humans

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

63

to embrace the relational possibility of being able to love God and themselves in a hypostatic way by fostering unity with God and with fellow humans while at the same time acknowledging, preserving, and respecting the differences between them in the relationship. By so doing, humans gradually become what God has intended them to be: children of God (16).

References Alweiss, Lilian. 2005. “I Am, I Exist.” In Givenness and God: Questions of JeanLuc Marion, ed. Ian Leask and Eoin Cassidy, 37–46. New York: Fordham University Press. Basil the Great. 2004. Contra Eunomium. In Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. Trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. ———. 1965. Between Man and Man. New York: Macmillan. Chicoine, Glen. 2010. “The Intuition of Meaning-Acts in Jean-Luc Marion: The Sign, Gift and Word of God.” In Selected Papers on the Thought of JeanLuc Marion, ed. John R. White, 144–162. Steubenville, OH: Quaestiones Disputatae. Cohen, Richard A. 2004. “Buber and Levinas—And Heidegger.” In Levinas & Buber: Dialogue & Difference, ed. Peter Atterton, Matthew Calarco, and Maurice Friedman, 235–249. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Critchley, Simon. 2011. “The Null Basis-Being of a Nullity, Or Between Two Nothings: Heidegger’s Uncanniness.” In Phenomenologies of the Stranger: Between Hostility and Hospitality, ed. Richard Kearney and Kascha Semonovitch, 145–154. New York: Fordham University Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1999. Adieu. Trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dufourmantelle, Anne and Jacques Derrida. 2000. Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to Respond. Trans. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Harold, Philip J. 2010. “Givenness and Inspiration: Levinasian Responses to Marion.” In Selected Papers on the Thought of Jean-Luc Marion, ed. John R. White, 207–225. Steubenville, OH: Quaestiones Disputatae. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Trans. J. Macqarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.

64  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI Husserl, Edmund. 1970. Logical Investigations. Vol. I. Trans. John N. Findlay. New York: Humanities Press. ———. 1977. Phenomenological Psychology: Lectures Summer Semester 1925. Trans. John Scanlon. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Komasinki, Andrew. 2010. “A Transcendental Phenomenology That Leads Out of Transcendental Phenomenology: Using Cimacus’ Paradox to Explain Marion’s Being Given.” In Selected Papers on the Thought of Jean-Luc Marion, ed. John R. White, 114–132. Steubenville, OH: Quaestiones Disputatae. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. ———. 1998. Of God Who Comes to Mind. Trans. Bettina Bergo. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 2003. Humanism of the Other. Trans. Nidra Poller. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Marion, Jean-Luc. 1975. Sur l’Ontologie grise de Descartes: Science Cartésienne et Savoir Aristotélicien dans les Regulae. Trans. Derek J. Morrow. Paris: Vrin. ———. 1998. Reduction and Givenness: Investigations of Husserl, Heidegger, and Phenomenology. Trans. Thomas A. Carlson and Ed. James M. Edie, et al. Northwestern University Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. ———. 2002. Being Given: Towards a Phenomenology of Givenness. Trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 2005. “The Reason of the Gift.” Trans. Shane Makinlay and Nicolas de Warren. In Givenness and God: Questions of Jean-Luc Marion, eds. Ian Leask and Eoin Cassidy, 101–134. New York: Fordham University Press. Marion, Jean-Luc, and Richard Kearney in Dialogue. 2005. “Giving More.” In Givenness and God: Questions of Jean-Luc Marion, ed. Ian Leask and Eoin Cassidy, 243–257. New York: Fordham University Press. Morrow, Derek J. 2005. “The Conceptual Idolatry of Descartes’ Gray Ontology: An Epistemology ‘Without Being’.” In Givenness and God: Questions of JeanLuc Marion, ed. Ian Leask and Eoin Cassidy, 11–36. New York: Fordham University Press. Panikkar, Raimon. 2004. Christophany: The Fullness of Man. Trans. Alfred DiLascia. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Peperzak, Adrian. 1993. To the Other: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis. Trans. 2005. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Richardson, William J. 2011. “Heidegger and the Strangeness of Being.” In Phenomenologies of the Stranger: Between Hostility and Hospitality, ed. Richard Kearney and Kascha Semonovitch, 155–167. New York: Fordham University Press.

4  PHILOSOPHICAL AND CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS … 

65

Tertullian. Against Praxeas. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.vii. html. Accessed 1 April 2018. The New American Bible. 1987. Wichita, KS: De Vore & Sons. The Qur’an. Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meaning. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Saheeh International, 1997. Westmoreland, Mark William. 2008. “Interruptions: Derrida and Hospitality.” Kritike II (1) (June): 1–10. Zizioulas, John D. 1985. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

CHAPTER 5

A Case for Hospitality in the Era of Religious Pluralism

Abstract  This chapter sheds light on the tangible ways the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town continues to use hospitality as a dialogical model. The place of hospitality in Islam and Ihievbe Traditional Religion is affirmed as well as the practice of hospitality in the African context. Finally, concrete ways of using hospitality as a dialogical tool for engagement among religions are addressed. As you read this chapter, it is my hope that you will begin to think of ways you can become a vehicle of God’s hospitality to all you encounter, knowing fully well that diversities, whether religious or cultural, are possibilities for growth when embraced with open minds and hearts. In contemporary usages of hospitality, a sense of paternalistic generosity on the part of the host toward the guest is pervasive, so that hospitality has come to reflect the abundance from which the generous host can extend the needed goods to the guest. In this way, the conditions for hospitality are always defined by the host. Therefore, it is important that one goes beyond this view of hospitality to reclaim a rich hermeneutic that strips hospitality of elements of paternalism and frees it from the manipulative control of the host. In this chapter, I intend to articulate a theological, philosophical, and cultural hermeneutic on hospitality as a means of constructing dialogical models for interreligious dialogue. © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_5

67

68  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Hospitality is linked to culture, a point made decisively by Derrida who writes; “Hospitality is culture itself and not simply one ethic among others” (Derrida 2005, 16). Elochukwu E. Uzukwu also reminds us that hospitality is part of the African way of “being in the world” (Uzukwu 1988, 162). The fabric of any culture is demonstrated by how those who identify with it relate both with themselves and with those outside. Religions can also be said to be forms of culture in this sense since they are shaped and structured by many of the same elements that constitute culture: liturgical/language, rituals of initiation, modes of relating with members and non-members, link to ancestral founders/religious founders, myths of origin of reality/creation stories, and hermeneutics on death and the beyond/eschatological narratives. Kevin F. Burke goes further by stating that cultural diversity is part of how to be church and helps to lead the church to embrace broader hermeneutics on what it means to be church and how to do theology in a world shaped and defined by difference (Burke 2005, 27). In his article “Missionary Today: The African Situation,” Uzukwu gives a summarized expression of the practice of hospitality in many communities in Africa. Though the different cultures or communities in Africa have distinct qualities, many of them share some common cultural traits and sometimes similar ritual gestures of hospitality. I should note here that, at times, these ritual gestures have different religious and social meanings attached depending on the communities. For example, kola nut is a common ritual symbol for expressing hospitality, but the debt of the meaning given to this symbol is different from one culture to another. The meaning given to the ritual of kola nut breaking by the Hausas of Northern Nigeria is quite different from that by the Yorubas of Western Nigeria or the Binis of Midwestern Nigeria and the Igbos of Eastern Nigeria. However, though there are nuances in the meaning of this ritual, these ethnic groups all use kola nut to express hospitality. Ihievbe people go further by linking it to friendship as well. Uzukwu reminds contemporary societies that African reverence for hospitality has endured in the face of the forces of imperialism and colonialism that have attacked the very heart of African social life and identity (Uzukwu 158). This point is worth noting since it shows that hospitality, if used to construct a dialogical model among religions, can withstand the forces and voices that may want to encourage religious exclusivism or violence.

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

69

On another note, Gregory Olikenyi, in his work on African hospitality, argues that African hospitality is characterized by “the principle of reciprocity” (Olikenyi 2001, 103). He argues that the principle of reciprocity refers to “an unconditional readiness to share…both material and non-material things…It must be continued and practiced by all the parties involved…” (106). It is true that the practice of hospitality among Ihievbe people is conditioned by total openness toward the stranger and receiving them without reservations. However, reception of a stranger by a host is not conditioned by expectations of reciprocal gestures. The stranger is considered an incarnation of the ancestors and one is obliged to show the stranger that she/he is welcomed just as the ancestors are always welcomed in the community. The stranger is not obliged to be hospitable. However, for the citizens of Ihievbe town, hospitality is expected to be part of their daily interactions. This expectation is not demanded from visitors from other towns. Olikenyi’s point is relevant for understanding the transforming nature of hospitality. As he writes, “the traveler is expected to show hospitality to any other person especially a traveler in return for the hospitality he, as a stranger, receives from people” (108). While for Ihievbe people, visitors from other towns are not bound to the injunctions of hospitality, the African sense of always being hospitable to others holds sway over all Africans. The significance of hospitality in African societies is that it attains a “ritualized status” in the life of any community (Uzukwu 159; Mbiti 1991, 176–179). Children are taught the necessity of hospitality in any particular tribe or ethnic group through stories and folklores that demonstrate the link between the survival of the community and the practice of authentic hospitality. The Fang of Gabon liken the presence of a stranger to that of an ancestor and to show their gratitude, they “kill a fowl and prepare a meal which the visitor alone must eat completely since she symbolizes the presence of the ancestors in their midst” (Uzukwu 159; see also Mbah 1980). The beauty of hospitality is that it is not discriminatory. It involves openness toward the other encountered and precedes friendship, which involves a discriminatory affection shown toward a particular other. However, in hospitality, there is a sense of affirmation by both the guest and the host. Though Levinas does not treat hospitality in the context of reciprocity, he, nevertheless, attests to this mutual affirmation or awareness of the proximity of one before the other. Even when the subject refuses to extend a helping hand toward the “suffering” other, the face

70  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

of the other is never removed from the gaze of the subject. Put simply, there can be no escape from the encounter (Bloechl 2011, 233). This proximity of the other, argues Levinas, enacts in the subject a moral obsession for the other. It is in this obsession for the other that one’s subjectivity is found. In other words, identity is always within the context of “for the other.” Identity is not to be construed as an isolated reality created in the isolation of being; rather, it is in the crossroads of encounter that identity is created and shaped (see Levinas 1981, 86–89). The introduction of obsession as a religious and moral imperative in shaping openness toward the other by the subject encountered is relevant for fostering interreligious encounter within the circles of hospitality. For the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe, relational openness toward the religious other is not defined by it, rather; it is through the graced gift of hospitality that proceeds from God as the gracing Other. The approach of Marion is relevant for understanding the grace of hospitality as a gift from God. God stands as an eternal witness to how the community receives and responds to the gift. The gift received is a gift that calls the community to encounter positively the religious other. In the words of Cornille, while reflecting on the writings of Amos Young on hospitality, “Insofar as God has poured out God’s Spirit throughout the world; Christians are invited, nigh required, to become both hosts and guests toward their religious neighbors” (Cornille 2011, 36). Through hospitality, religions are invited to encounter the other to whom they have been drawn and for whom they have an enduring obsession. Obsession can also be understood in the context of interreligious pluralism as the inevitable engagement with the religious other from which there can be no escape without denying the graced gift of encounter. In a religiously pluralistic society like Ihievbe, there is already a sense of proximity that is enduring. Using Levinas’ description of the effect of hospitality on the subject, the Roman Catholic community in the town is held “captive” by the presence of other religious traditions (Levinas 1981, 112). Their proximity is not one of mutual isolation; rather, it is one of invitation to engage—an invitation to be hospitable. It is an invitation also to embrace the grace of affirmation of the workings of God made manifest through the religious other and not through the self-reflective effort of the Roman Catholic community. It is an invitation to embrace relationality with authentic openness without theological hesitations. In fact, it is an invitation to embrace the risk of trusting God to be the guide and shaper of the encounter even when human logic dictates otherwise.

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

71

From the survey and interview responses of the members of the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe, it is ostensibly a community that has embraced the gift of pluralism and which is invited to engage the religious other as a way of discovering the fullness of its own identity. The community is navigating and articulating a theology of openness while at the same time trying to hold on to the identity constructed for it by the missionary agents that helped to establish it. It is of utmost importance for this community to embark on a legitimate reflection on its historical past to see how its context has shaped its current identity in relation to the identity of other Roman Catholic communities. Without shying away from this project, the community can begin by first seeing its current interreligious identity as a graced one made possible by the ever-present God who works in religions the community encounters. The obsession for the religious other can lead to deeper awareness of itself. As Levinas states, the face of the other is the possibility of awakening to the responsibility for the other (1999, 170). Buber even goes further by expressing, “he who ceases to make a response ceases to hear the Word” (Buber 1965, 45), while Derrida makes it a command as he writes; “I must welcome the infinite, and this is the first hospitality, beyond the capacity of the I – which is obviously the impossible itself” (Derrida 2002, 386). The community can see God and understand God’s work in human salvific history through the other religions. Most importantly, the presence of the other religions can be an occasion for it to understand how God continues to reveal God’s self to the community in a way that is unique to their experiences, and yet authentic, even if it may be different from the identity constructed by the magisterial teachings on Roman Catholic identity. To arrive at a fruitful conclusion to this reflection, the community must be open to the process of encounter with the other religions. Above, I stated that religions can be equated to modes of cultures and I listed the characteristic similarities between culture and religion. Using this example, the view of Peter Phan on cultures as “opening new ways of living the gospel” for Christians can also be equated to other religions (Phan 2003, 6). Encountering other religions, Roman Catholics, especially those in Ihievbe town, can begin to see a rich opening for receiving a broader hermeneutic on what their role is in the community, who they are as a community of believers, and what God expects of them. In other words, they can begin to enter the realm of an “infinite hermeneutic” as they relate with other religions. The other religions serve, in this context, as the gift of awakening to a new sense of being.

72  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Trust is another characteristic of hospitality that can be used to reflect on the pluralistic reality facing the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe. The religious dimension of hospitality, articulated properly by Levinas in showing how the religious subject is held captive by the desire for the well-being of the transcendental Other, justifies taking seriously the place of trust in interreligious encounters. In the context of religion, trust is foundational, especially when it involves the dynamic presence of God working in religions. For the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe, the practice of hospitality toward other religions should be rooted in having complete trust in the relational encounter as a gift from God who invites the community to embrace the relationship as a means for sustaining itself and growing in its destiny. To trust the relationship with the religious other is a sign of having faith in the workings of God. This religious dimension to hospitality is important if hospitality, as a religious model for articulating interreligious encounter, is to have any relevance at all. By linking it to the religious, Levinas has helped to show the viability of hospitality as a means for articulating God’s will for the community, which can also become an invitation for the community to reflect on how much faith it has in God’s guiding grace for it as a community living out the vocation of interreligious engagement. This approach is also revolutionary in the sense that it shifts emphasis away from the relevance of the church to an emphasis on the role of God. Ecclesial relevance has most often been an obstacle in the process of discerning rightly the role of God in interreligious encounter. This view has also been noted by Phan in the Asian experience. He pushes the argument further by stating that this calls for a new form of ecclesiology (14). The wisdom of Phan’s position becomes apparent when we explore the historical positions of the Roman Catholic Church in dealing with other religions and other Christian Churches in part four of this work. Ecclesiology, historically, is juridical and is grounded in the certitude of the views articulated by the magisterium over the centuries with the aim of gaining power and control over all that is religious. This approach has frustrated all attempts see the hand of God operating in other religions implicitly. The church, both universally and locally, ought to take seriously the fact that trusting in the role of God in the encounter with other religions is equivalent to being faithful to the mission given to it by Jesus Christ. To trust in God while encountering other religions is to let go of power.

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

73

While Phan focuses on the overthrow of the current ecclesiology of the church for one that is shaped by the encounters with other religions and Christian churches, Elizabeth Amoah and Mercy Amba Oduyoye call for an overthrow of Christology that fails to address every aspect of African life (1988, 37; see also Stinton 2004, 34–35). Christology must address the religious pluralism of Africa, the economic life of its people, the issues of injustice and violence against women, the role of women in the life of the church, the plight of refugees and the marginalized in the continent. Jean-Marc Ela gives a forceful argument by warning that; If Christianity wishes to avoid the temptation of the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 20:31–32), it must assume the tragedy in Africa…In this situation, the return to Jesus makes it absolutely necessary that our Christian reflection becomes incessantly suspicious toward any God-talk that attempts to “pass on the other side” of the actual situation in Africa… . (Ela 1994, 18–19)

In other words, Christology must be shaped by the totality of the human experience in a contextualized world. Christology done in abstraction only does violence to the community of believers and to the church in general, a point related to the views of Bishop Mathew Kukah, the catholic bishop of the Diocese of Sokoto in Nigeria. He argues that the tensions faced by Christians and Muslims in Nigeria are rooted in the social factors shaping their lives in community as a nation (Kukah). To address their religious differences without also addressing their social situation will only lead to a false peace. Trusting the relationship with the other as a legitimate way of being for religions justifies the need to be vulnerable within the relationship. Vulnerability includes the limitation involved in the failed attempt to contextualize and conjure a boundary for the relationship with the other. The religious other is not an object that can be limited and held captive by the categories of meaning enacted by the religious subject. Levinas and Buber affirm the freedom and transcending nature of the religious other who escapes all attempts of imprisonment by the religious subject (Levinas 1969, 172; Buber 1965, 7–8). Again, the logicality of this argument is attested to by the fact that the religious other stands in the place of the transcending Otherness of God. Thus, vulnerability is a reminder of the limitations of the religious subject and an invitation to embrace an epistemological humility as needed for the appreciation of the rich dynamics of the relational encounter.

74  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

The sense of limitation brought about by trust in the religious other ought to lead the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe to embrace a relational practice that does not reflect a sense of religious superiority in relation to other religions in their social context. It should evoke in them faithful commitment to the practice of engagement and a deeper reflection on how God is inviting them to embrace their own commitment to their faith, which ought to play itself out in the context of religious pluralism. The Roman Catholic Church in general must take seriously the belief that God is present in other religions, a view made forcefully by Bishop Emmanuel Ade Badejo, the catholic bishop of Oyo Diocese in Nigeria. For him, Roman Catholics have a fundamental belief that God is present in all religions and this view has and continues to shape “the interreligious policy” of the church toward other religions (Badejo). This understanding must not proceed solely from the hermeneutic tradition within the church that seems to have been shaped by a phobia for a non-Western hermeneutic, since such an approach will always justify a sense of religious and moral superiority over other religions. Though Badejo is convinced that the church’s worldview is shaped by recognition of the universal presence of God in all religions, the practice of the church through many instances prove otherwise. However, the broadening of the hermeneutic tradition on ecclesial identity in the church is needed; one which must include a viable engagement with other religions, believing that such an engagement constitutes part of the Christian identity and fidelity to the mission, ministry, and expectations of Jesus Christ. Belief in God’s presence in other religions has a more epistemological conviction when it proceeds from a shared reflective experience with other religions within the context of encounter. Perhaps the words of Buber can serve as a constant reminder of the importance of interreligious dialogue. He writes: A time of genuine religious conversations is beginning – not those so-called but fictitious conversations where none regarded and addressed his partner in reality, but genuine dialogues, speech from certainty to certainty, but also from one open-hearted person to another open-hearted person. Only then will genuine common life appear, not that of an identical content of faith which is alleged to be found in all religions, but that of the situation, of anguish and of expectation (Buber 7–8).

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

75

For the community in Ihievbe, the responses to the questions of the survey and the interviews reflect a growing sense of awareness of their limitations and the superfluous workings of God in all religions in their social context. This understanding is possible because of their proximity to these other religions and their concrete experiences of devoutness of the members of these religions. One can surmise that concrete encounters with members of other religions can lead to a sense of humility and a strong recognition of religiosity as a universal phenomenon among all religions.

5.1   Practical Ways for Applying Hospitality as a Tool for Interreligious Encounter As has been noted above, hospitality involves opening of one’s heart and being willing to take the risk of meeting the religious other who always stands outside of the orbit of manipulations and reduction to one’s hermeneutic agenda. Openness of heart toward the other requires prophetic engagement with one’s own religious tradition. A critical look at the history of Christianity reveals a strong supersessionist attitude, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, that has viewed other religions and those outside its boundaries as possessing doctrinally inferior identities. For centuries, this ideology shaped the Roman Catholic Church’s missionary projects. Anti-Judaic attitudes, in part, molded early attempts to define Christianity, especially after the expulsion of Christians from Jewish worship by the Temple authorities. Also, Christendom viewed its encounter with Islam as a threat, leading to the unfortunate history of the Crusades (Russell 2009, 90). The fundamental concern that should guide self-engagement with one’s own religious tradition is how the practices of religion by the faith community, in general, have strayed from the ideals of the religion in question. In other words, it is important to critique those historical moments where human power and manipulations of the other have shaped how a faith community understands its own religious truths. It involves speaking truth to one’s own religious heritage. Rather than a faith commitment, this approach involves total commitment and resolve of the collective will of the faith community to acknowledge their religious history and repent the times they rejected the ideals of the God encountered in history. In the context of Ihievbe, the church has not

76  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

always reflected the model of Christ. As noted earlier on, conversion to the Roman Catholic faith was often a prerequisite for providing Western education to the people, so commonly, converts to the faith were made to deny their own identities and embrace the Western concept of civilization without regard for their true feelings. Although the meaning of traditional names reflects the very ideals of Christian life, they were rejected and deemed barbaric as baptismal names. Nigerian theologian Luke Mbefo calls us to revisit the Christian heritage from the colonial agents and missionaries. A central piece of his advice to Africans is for them to revisit their “cultures and religions in order to resurrect the traces of the divine” (see Mbefo 1996, 10, 16; see also Ezigbo 2010, 27–30). Nor is Islam free from this accusation. Popular resistance to the cultural and religious Islamization of their society is at the center of conversion to Catholicism in Ihievbe town. A sense of metanoia is necessary, emanating from the resolve both to speak truth to one’s own religious history and to make the future better. The need for self-reflection, both on the level of the practice of the faith by a particular religious community and by the entire religious tradition, is fundamental in shaping the path for engaging in fruitful interreligious encounters. When there is no repentance, there is bound to be a repeat of centuries-old biases and exploitations. He concludes his advice by advocating that Christianity can reconcile its link to African Indigenous Religions by seeing itself as a fulfillment of these religions. I disagree with his conclusion. My view, as demonstrated throughout this book, is that the legitimacy of all religions is grounded in the logical possibility that God can engage humanity through the many religions without any contradiction. My view imposes a critique on the current Christological conclusions by Christians and the Islamic view of the finality of revelation resting in the Prophet Mohammed in light of the reality of religious pluralism. The need for self-reflection is closely tied to a second way that hospitality can help to shape the path for interreligious encounter. Awareness of the contradictions of how one’s religion has been practiced in history ought to lead to the understanding of limitations in the collective hermeneutics on the deposits of faith in one’s religion. The mere fact that over centuries the Roman Catholic Church has, in many instances, been an agent of oppression, exploitation, intimidation, manipulation, and marginalization of the poor, the religious other, and those considered unholy, justifies the need to be humble before God and before the religious other. This is most necessary because, in their respective historical

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

77

moments, people viewed these instances as reflecting their faith in the will of God. The development and spread of theological hatred against Jews, Muslims, other religions, and Christians of other denominations show that the church, even with the best intentions, can misunderstand God’s will and promote a manipulative human agenda in the name of God. This awareness ought to lead it as a faith community to welcome the religious other as a legitimate medium for understanding the complex ways God engages humans in their historical context. When the religious other is encountered in the context of humility, she can become God’s corrective grace for one’s religious tradition. God’s otherness does not reside solely in one’s religion; and God’s transcendence can be encountered within the boundaries of another religion. Many examples in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures buttress this argument. The king and people of Nineveh, considered archenemies by the postexilic Israelites, invited the Israelites to a newer way of understanding how their God relates with humanity. The chosen people had a condescending attitude toward Gentiles and saw Yahweh as a personal possession that would save only them. The prophet Jonah is surprised to find that Nineveh and its people do not only take seriously the warnings from God but are also spared the destruction that was to befall them. This awareness and deeper understanding of God’s will and teachings might have gone unappreciated if not for this encounter (Jon. 1–4:11). Also, consider the meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, whom the Jews saw as an infidel and unworthy of God’s love. Jesus’ encounter with the woman and her fellow Samaritans astounds his followers. Although everything about her and her people were considered unworthy of God’s love, Jesus found in them worthy dialogical partners and recipients for God’s salvific love (Jn. 4:1–42). Joseph F. Mali calls attention to some nuances present in this story. Before engaging the woman, the narrative presents Jesus leaving the Jewish territory and entering into the land owned by the Samaritan people. As Mali rightly argues, this movement of Jesus is symbolic; “he lets go of existing prejudices against the Samaritans by the Jews of his time” (2013, 150). Also, “he overlooked the rabbinic warning against speaking to women in public” (151). This approach of Jesus, along with the candid dialogue between him and the woman, leads to what Mali calls “the blessing of dialogue” (166). The encounter helps to negate centuries-old prejudices and hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans, thus leading to the practice of hospitality by the Samaritans toward Jesus who is

78  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

invited to stay in territory of the Samaritans. These stories legitimize the claim that, when there is openness of heart in encountering the religious other, one can truly be led to understand new realities of God’s fruitful presence in human societies, irrespective of their religious affiliations. Hospitality must be concrete, or else it is mere ideology that has no legitimate claim to transformation. Every religion has some ritual actions that reflect its beliefs. It is not enough to see the religious other as a friend or a neighbor without having a place for her in the sacred space of worship. In the religious context, worship can become a place of encounter and a way of practicing commensality by sharing the food of worship that gives every religion its vitality. By inviting the religious other to worship with one, there is concrete affirmation of the religiosity of the other and her claim to legitimacy. Even when the religious other is not present, the recognition of her proximity during worship is a concrete way of disposing and opening one’s heart constantly to the grace of the other’s presence. The practice of monthly meetings among the different religions present in Ihievbe and other towns around is as a concrete way of legitimizing the transforming place of hospitality in interreligious encounters. However, a greater challenge is to go beyond the meetings and open the doors to the religious other during worship. This is a challenge that all religions must embark upon in contemporary times if God’s transforming presence is to be recognized, appreciated, and embraced, especially when animosity seems to define how different religions view each other. Collaborative worship implies making room for the religious other at the center of one’s own religious rituals. For the church, this involves creating space for Muslims in the Eucharistic celebration and worship rituals in such a way that the legitimacy of Islam as God’s gift to humanity is affirmed. Intercessory prayers already include prayers for the just rule of secular leaders, therefore it would not be too much of a stretch to include other religions, especially those within the social context of a faith community. However, the point is not to pray for conversions, but to celebrate God’s gift of the presence of these other religions in the community. This type of collaborative worship involves taking seriously the belief that God has encountered humanity in many legitimate ways. It requires self-reflection, accepting the contradictions in our faith, working toward correcting those contradictions in humility, and having the resolve to embrace the religious other in the spirit of hospitality within worship.

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

79

Only when the religious other has a legitimate place and role in our worship rituals can praying together be authentic and transformative. When this is not the case, praying together will simply be a superficial gesture of civility, used as a mask for covering suspicion and resentment of the religious other. Just as our human understanding of God’s encounter with humanity is always evolving in light of ongoing reflections on the history of salvation in any particular religious tradition, liturgical practices are not static, but dynamic. They are shaped by human experiences of the divine and reflections on these experiences guided by the hermeneutics on salvation history. These factors, among others, can lead a community to carry out liturgical reforms. A concrete example of liturgical reform is the accomplishment by Pope Saint John XXIII, who changed the Good Friday Liturgy in order to eradicate anti-Semitic attitudes that were the norm in Christendom for centuries and led to barbaric acts of violence against Jews. In my judgment, the reform carried out by John XXIII only reduced the anti-Semitic undertones in the liturgy. Much work is still needed if all anti-Semitic biases are to be completely eradicated from the Roman Catholic liturgies. In a context where religious pluralism prevails, reflections on the presence and role of God in the respective religions can lead to advocacy for such liturgical reforms. Collaborative worship will thus become the fruit of the collective reflections by the different religions on how God continues to work through their respective contexts. Breaking bread with the religious other has its full legitimacy when it is done within the sacred space of worship. Again, if different religions are to take seriously collaborative worship, the question needs to be asked: How is the religious other celebrated in one’s religious rituals? For Roman Catholics, the Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations can be critiqued and studied to see how other religions are celebrated or vilified. The legitimacy of this project lies in the argument that God transcends any form of colonization or privatization by one religion. Even the reality of Jesus Christ is not the sole property of Christianity. Islam has a legitimate place for Jesus Christ in its theology, sacred texts, and eschatological expectations. Can Christians say the same of the central figures of other religions? The facts seem to suggest otherwise.

80  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Finally, among Ihievbe people, there is a rudimentary practice of collaborative worship. As was noted and observed during the surveys and interviews conducted among the different faith communities, the members of the different religions participate in the religious worship of their neighbors. This may have played a great role in shaping the mentality of the people and helping them to affirm the workings of God through the different religions. However, the fullness of collaborative worship that creates a legitimate place for the other religions is still lacking. Collaborative worship revives the Greek practice of having a place for the “unknown God” among the pantheon of deities in Athens. However, the term “unknown God” is insufficient in collaborative worship, for it signifies a sense of inferior identity. The identity of the religious other must be defined by the other religion itself. Thus, in collaborative worship, the religious other is allowed to define how God has revealed God’s self through her own religious heritage.

References Amoah, Elizabeth and Mercy Amba Oduyoye. 1988. “The Christ for African Women.” In With Passion and Compassion: Third World Women Doing Theology, eds. Virginia Fabella and Mercy Amba Oduyoye, 35–46. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Badejo, Emmanuel Ade. “Religious Harmony and Peace: Save the Face of Religion.” In Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria. http://www.cbcn-ng. org/articledetail.php?tab=10. Accessed March 5, 2017. Bloechl, Jeffrey. 2011. “Words of Welcome: Hospitality in the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas.” In Phenomenologies of the Stranger: Between Hostility and Hospitality, eds. Richard Kearney and Kascha Semonovitch, 232–241. New York: Fordham University Press. Buber, Martin. 1965. Between Man and Man. New York: Macmillan Company. Burke, Kevin F. 2005. “Thinking About the Church: The Gift of Cultural Diversity to Theology.” In Many Faces, One Church: Cultural Diversity and the American Catholic Experience, eds. Peter C. Phan and Diana Hayes, 27–47. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield. Cornille, Catherine. 2011. “Interreligious Hospitality and Its Limits.” In Hosting the Stranger: Between Religions, eds. Richard Kearney and James Taylor, 35–44. New York: Continuum. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Acts of Religion. Trans. Gil Anidjar. New York: Routledge.

5  A CASE FOR HOSPITALITY IN THE ERA OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM 

81

———. 2005. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. Trans. Mark Dooley and Richard Kearney. New York: Routledge. Ela, Jean-Marc. 1994. “The Memory of the African People and the Cross of Christ.” In The Scandal of the Crucified World: Perspectives on the Cross and Suffering. Trans. and Ed. Yacob Tesfai, 17–35. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Ezigbo, Victor I. 2010. Re-imagining African Christologies: Conversing with the Interpretations and Appropriations of Jesus in Contemporary African Christianity. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Kukah, Matthew. “Persecution of Christians in Nigeria: A Peculiar Situation.” In Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria. http://www.cbcn-ng.org/newsdetail. php?tab=117. Accessed March 5, 2017. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. ———. 1981. Otherwise Than Being: Or Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingi. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. ———. 1999. Alterity & Transcendence. Trans. Michael B. Smith. New York: Columbia University Press. Mali, Joseph F. 2013. “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Model for Dialogue.” In Can Muslims and Christians Resolve Their Religious and Social Conflicts? Cases from Africa and the United States, eds. Marinus C. Iwuchukwu and Brian Stiltner, 145–171. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Mbah, A. 1980. Oral Presentation of Fang Tradition. Brazzaville: Grand Séminaire. Mbefo, Luke N. 1996. Christian Theology and African Heritage. Onitsha, Nigeria: Spiritan Publications. Mbiti, John S. 1991. Introduction to African Religion, 2nd ed. Oxford: Heinemann. Olikenyi, Gregory Ikechukwu. 2001. African Hospitality: A Model for the Communication of the Gospel in the African Cultural Context. St. Augustin: Steyler Verlag Nettetal. Phan, Peter. 2003. In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Russell, Letty M. 2009. Just Hospitality: God’s Welcome in a World of Difference, eds. J. Shannon Clark and Kate M. Ott. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Stinton, Diane B. 2004. Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Uzukwu, Elochukwu E. 1988. “Missiology Today: The African Situation.” In Religion and African Culture, ed. Elochukwu E. Uzukwu, 146–173. Enugu, Nigeria: Spiritan Publications.

CHAPTER 6

The Philosophy of Friendship and Its Place in Constructing Interreligious Encounters

Abstract  This chapter will explore the role of friendship can play in making sure that relationships built on hospitality can endure the tensions that originate from creedal differences. I will focus on concrete ways friendship can be used to construct a healthy relationship among religions, particularly in Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion. To do this, I intentionally appropriate the definition of friendship by Reformed theologian Jurgen Moltmann. According to Moltmann, friendship “is therefore a deep human relation that arises out of freedom, consists in mutual freedom, and preserves this freedom” (Moltmann in The Changing Face of Friendship. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, p. 31, 1994). I would add that, in the context of interreligious encounters, friendship affirms the role of God as a witness to the friendship as well as the source for its possibility. Friendship, like hospitality, is another relational tool that can be used for constructing enduring and healthy interreligious encounters. The relevance of friendship as a relational tool among religions is hinged on the recognition of humans’ desire to engage one another and live in community, which has been stressed for centuries by various peoples and cultures. In the anthropological discourses of the west, the idiomatic

© The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_6

83

84  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

heritages of African societies and their rich religious traditions have been affirmed as a necessary quality in human life, especially in the context of community (see Thomas 1910, 24–46. See also Sanneh 1983, 29). A rich discourse on friendship as relationality can be found in the works of philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Nietzsche, Buber, Derrida, and many others. In Lysis, Plato contextualizes his treatment of friendship in a conversation between his mentor Socrates on the one hand and Hippothales, Menexenus, and Lysis on the other. Though the conversation ends abruptly without an expected conclusion, one can deduce that first, the desire for friendship is innate in everyone and it manifests itself toward the good (Plato 1991, 12, 16, 17). Second, authentic friendship transcends utilitarianism (23). Third, friendship evokes consistency in embracing the good toward each other (13). Fourth, friendship is concrete and not abstract. While embracing these characteristics of the type of interreligious friendship for which I advocate, I include a fifth quality: Authentic friendship is a gifted virtue from God to fallen humanity. By “authentic,” I refer to friendship that is devoid of exploitation, intrigue, self-centeredness, or hidden motives. This fifth point will be the basis for the theological discourse in an upcoming section that reflects on the life and ministry of Jesus as an invitation to friendship. Aristotle introduces other characteristics to the nature of friendship. In explaining these, he leads his readers to a broad understanding of how friendship ought to unfold in society. For him, it is reciprocal and involves unconditional love of the other for the other’s sake and not based on other intentions (Aristotle 1991, 33). It entails mutual goodness, and it is advantageous to both the parties involved (35). These qualities address the nature of interreligious friendship encouraged within this chapter, and their lacunae will be pointed out where necessary. One immediate weakness in Aristotle’s treatment of friendship is his failure to see the possibility of engaging in friendship with many persons at the same time (37). This limitation reduces friendship to the level of strict intersubjectivity. The type of friendship now necessary among religions is one that opens up to the grace of relationality making it possible to engage everyone truly and fully without reservation. Similarly, Derrida attends to some lacunae present in Aristotle’s work on friendship. Sandra Lynch notes that there is a strong link between the approach to friendship adopted by Derrida and the context which shaped Aristotle’s ideas on friendship (Lynch 2002). The characteristics

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

85

of Aristotelian friendship were greatly influenced by the nature of politics in Athens during his time. He lived and wrote when women and slaves had almost no voice or recognition in the life of the polis, so his world was for freemen only. This point helps clarify why Aristotle would argue against the ability of women to enter into friendship. The nature of the polis was that freemen were few, and this, too, affected his view that friendship can exist only between two persons. Lastly, his notion that friendship is for the sake of friendship can be linked to the good of the polis because those who govern have a shared interest in preserving the common good—not their personal interests—if civil life is to be sustained. The viability of friendship as a tool for constructing dialogical encounters transcends the philosophical opinions of such ancients as Seneca, who taught that friendship always originates from self-sufficiency. For him, only those with all the luxuries of life can engage in friendship (Seneca 1991, 120–121). This view is reflected in the church’s theological position regarding other religions and Christian churches. The church’s claim that it has the complete means for salvation, which are absent in other religions, reflects an attitude and a perception that thwarts God’s invitation to discover other paths to salvation outside of its own tradition. In the interest of deep interreligious encounter, a more appealing understanding of friendship is articulated by Buber. While defending his relational philosophy (as articulated in his writings, especially his work I and Thou), and against Levinas’ critique, he writes: Levinas is quite mistaken in assuming that, for me, the I – Thou relation culminates in “a purely spiritual friendship.” On the contrary, that relation appears to me to reach its greatness and authentic energy when two human beings not very akin to one another spiritually, who belong rather to different, even opposing, spiritual families, face one another in such a way that even in the course of the sharpest controversy, one of them knows, focuses on, identifies, recognizes, accepts and confirms the other as that particular person; in such a way that each one, in the common situation in which he finds himself (even if the commonality of the situation is that of the struggle in which they face each other), imagines the experience that the adversary has of that same situation, the manner in which he lives it, the whole psychic process peculiar to him. (Levinas 1996, 36–37)

86  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Buber’s description of the I–Thou relation highlights the preservation of difference, whether existential, epistemological, psychological, ideological, or even creedal. These differences do not prevent relational encounters; rather, they serve as legitimizing factors for affirming the legitimacy of each agent in the relation. They free the relation from slipping into the domain of narcissism. This notion of difference is not found in the contributions of Aristotle. Again, Aristotle is more concerned about the life of the polis. To entertain difference in friendship is to threaten the life of the polis. This absence of difference limits what friendship ought to be among religions. Religions are not homogenous entities. Their rituals, belief systems, creeds, and sense of identity frustrate any attempt to gloss over their differences. In this sense, Aristotle’s view may be found wanting. However, there are other positive qualities in his definition of friendship as will be shown below. Though Derrida introduces the notion of difference as a constituent part of friendship, by locating the discourse of it within the context of politics, he frustrates its viability in the context of religion. The qualities of republicanism—fraternity, equality, and freedom—have limits to their practice within the political sphere, unlike in the religious space, where they are motivated by love and faith in a divine other. However, one can argue that in contemporary society, the religious space cannot escape from the prying eyes of the state. This tension that arises from the relation of the state and religion is an aporia, or impasse, which, one can argue, shapes Derrida’s views. His treatment of Aristotelian and Nietzschean descriptions of friendship among the Greeks is telling (Derrida 1997, 62–65). The juxtaposition of these two views and situating them within the context of the state is aimed, not at finding a synthesis, but at recognizing the places of convergence and divergence in friendship. One may wonder where the convergence lies between the views of Aristotle and Nietzsche; it lies in the prophetic voice of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, who, while rebuking the false practices of Christian morality in modern Europe, speaks truth to his hearers by saying: “Do love your neighbor as yourselves, but first be such as love themselves” (see Smith 1994, 69). John Smith reminds us that these words of Zarathustra are meant to purify friendship from the pretensions of love of the other based on a false sense of self-love (68–69). It is also the recognition of the possibilities of freedom and difference in the enactment of friendship and strips away from friendship a sense of

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

87

utopia shaped by a false understanding of constant accord among friends. It opens up the possibility for friendship slipping into the realm of hostility and the freedom to end the relationship. Friendship, for Derrida, is between humans who have imperfections. However, it is also between humans who strive to be authentic in the relationship. However, appealing Derrida’s narrative may be, there is a lacuna in his treatment of friendship, at least within the context of religion. The pessimism of Nietzsche fails to account for the possibility for transformation through faith in a higher being. It also neglects to realize that Aristotelian friendship is possible and has been achieved in the lives of mystiques. Aquinas’ interpretation of Aristotelian friendship justifies the claim that friendship is realizable because it is a gifted and a graced possibility. Human nature, though filled with imperfections, is capable of transcending its limitations when it responds adequately to the grace of God. In Christian scriptures, the injunction of Jesus Christ to his disciples to love those who hate them negates the anthropological limitations advocated by Nietzsche. Extending love to those who may not share the same views or values of one involves constant and deliberate volition on the part of the one who loves. It entails taking seriously the legitimate freedom of both parties, but most especially, it affirms the freedom of the other to either reciprocate or reject the gesture. Buber stresses this difference even in such realms of faith expressions. For him, endurance of an I–Thou relation can be preserved even when there are religious differences. In the context of religious pluralism, friendship, when modeled according to the I–Thou relation articulated by Buber, can shield members of different religions from the temptation to regard the religious other as inferior, either as a person or in relation to their religion. The core of this type of friendship lies in the understanding that the human person is an embodiment of relation. As Buber beautifully states, “… the self…can only exist, as an I, as taking an interest in a Thou or as an I grasping an It” (Buber 1958, 4). One discovers oneself in the context of relation. Buber is in agreement with Cicero who argues: And so I should say that friendship takes its beginning from our very nature rather than from our sense of inadequacy, that it is due to an inclination of the heart together with a feeling of affection rather than to a consideration of the advantages which we might derive from the relation. (Cicero 1991, 90)

88  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Furthermore, since religions are practiced by humans, they fall within the sway of relationality. Religions attain their fullness and their relevance to human society only when they are open to the possibilities revealed through and within relationality. Friendship serves as an appropriate model for shaping interreligious encounter because it shields the relation from all vestiges of classism either on the part of the religious persons or in relation to their respective religious traditions, a point stressed by Buber in his description of the I–Thou relation. Equality and reciprocity are necessary conditions for authentic friendship. The former goes beyond the dignity of the human agents in the friendship by encapsulating the entire content of the friendship. In other words, the religious traditions of the persons involved in such friendship must be considered a legitimate part of their lives and not separate from the friendship. This point is stressed by Aristotle as he reflects on the nature of friendship. For Aristotle, though perfect friendship is only between two persons, there is a triangular approach to it. Friendship involves the loved and the lover as well as the object of love, which is the reciprocal goodness inherent in both the loved and the lover (Aristotle 1953, 205–206). David B. Burrell, while reflecting on Aristotle’s view, introduces faith to the relationship (Burrell 2000, 21). Faith is to be understood as believing in the power of God to make the agents of the friendship to be faithful to each other. Burrell’s view is particularly true when one considers the fallen state of humans as a factor limiting the potentials of humans to enter into authentic friendship (21–22). While reading Aristotle, Aquinas also introduces Christian elements to friendship by reasoning that, in Christian friendship, the object of love is God. Remember, Aristotle limits true friendship to the few, but by demonstrating this triangular approach to friendship, he affirms the public nature of it, which is the preservation of the polis. The primacy of the state is overthrown in Aquinas’ redaction of Aristotle’s work and replaced by the love of God—the summum bonum (the ultimate good), meanwhile Aristotle denies true friendship between divinity and humans based on inequality. Again, true friendship, for Aristotle, is possible only among equals (Aristotle 1953, 211). Aquinas circumvents this Aristotelian objection by showing that the very act of God’s self-communication with humanity is itself the grounds for friendship. Rather than mutual equality, the basis for Christian friendship is the

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

89

corresponding human response to the primal communication of God’s happiness to humanity. Reciprocity in divine friendship, argues Aquinas, is possible because of God’s benevolent gesture that makes reciprocity a graced possibility for humans (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2.1.109.2). The caution, advocated by Derrida, ought not to be lost even when friendship is seen as a graced gift from God. Human freedom can work against this gift. Aquinas affirms the potentiality toward relation in humans as reflective of the will of God for them. In other words, to be human is to have the disposition for relationality. However, such relational disposition is aimed at an ultimate end: union with God (1.44–45. See also Burrell 2000, 45–46). Mutual equality negates all pretensions of one having authority over the other and entails that each one in the friendship be regarded as an equal. However, such equality does not deny the fact that each one can influence the other. Such influence is always mutual. The question remains; can a religion truly engage in interreligious friendship when it advocates the claim that it alone possesses the authority to determine what is legitimate in other religions, and without amiable engagement? This is the dilemma the Roman Catholic Church must resolve if it is to truly encounter other religions on the level of interreligious friendship. There is definitely a difference between mutual discernment in arriving at a shared understanding of how God continues to work in every religion and the isolated declaration of what is true and false in another religion. Whatever is arrived at through the latter is a particular perspective that most often does not reflect the whole reality. The church is obliged to juxtapose its understanding of other religions with what they expressly say of themselves. Reciprocity, as a condition for authentic friendship, involves complete openness and willingness to encounter the other. It concerns the actual practice of transparency and the absence of hidden agendas that militate against the sharing of experiences even when such experiences highlight differences that may be conflicting. The possibility to be reciprocal reduces the tensions that may arise from ideological differences for those engaged in the act of friendship. Reciprocity is possible because first, there is the ground rule that, in friendship, the bond of mutual trust holds sway. Mutual trust involves a coherent choice to encounter each other even when such encounters reveal one’s weakness. It entails a sense of maturity and confidence in the goodwill of the partner. Second, upholding the theological view that friendship is a graced gift from God, all are invited to share the gift received reciprocally.

90  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Reciprocity should not be understood on the basis of the content of self-disclosure; rather, it is within the context of the depth of trust and openness toward each other. Therefore, it is wrong to think that, in interreligious friendship, the partners must ask the same questions or deal only with issues similar to their respective traditions as Aristotle seems to indicate. For example, within a Christian and a Muslim friendship, one may be interested in the Christian teaching on purgatory, the other in Sufism. A very viable characteristic effect of friendship is that it can help retrieve an authentic mutual self-awareness that otherwise may not be possible when any person, religious or secular, lives in isolation. In the context of religious pluralism, interreligious friendship can help those of different religions to discover new insights about their own religious traditions, as well as understand more deeply the traditions of the religious other. According to Mali, this entails mutual openness to learning from each other (Mali 2013, 169). This is particularly important because most religious people today lack a robust understanding of other religions. Such ignorance has sometimes been supplanted by myths, and, at times, such myths help to perpetuate negative perceptions. It is not enough to argue that friendship helps to foster harmony among religious persons. Interreligious friendship can also become a means of engaging in constructive criticism of a religious view that does not reflect the ideals of the religion. Derrida’s insight on freedom is pertinent here, that is, freedom as the possibility to articulate differing opinions. Through friendship, religions can freely challenge each other to live according to the ideals of their respective traditions. The beauty of such criticism within the context of friendship is that it is done out of love and not with ulterior motives. At the same time, friendship does not equate to lack of objectivity. Rather, objectivity becomes truly grounded when there is openness and willingness to be transparent before the other, as in Socrates’ advice to Hippothales in the Lysis: “One must speak candidly always with a friend and not be pretentious by simply singing the praises of the other” (Bolotin 1979, 110). Friendship helps to foster this approach among religious persons when they decide to engage. However, there is a clear distinction between scatting criticism originating from negative apologetics and the constructive criticism that comes from mutual discernment and reflection. While the former always leads to resentment, and sometimes violence, as noted by Derrida, the latter leads to growth.

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

91

Friendship makes the religious other ever present in one’s consciousness. A notable implication of this consciousness of the other is that one is not free to live and operate as though one has a monopoly on valid religious expressions. In other words, the presence of the other invades and shapes how one perceives one’s own religious tradition. Following Aristotle’s thought, friendship among people of faith ought to be shaped by the common concern of discerning the good for humanity by focusing on the source of that good which is God. This focus on God eradicates the temptation to idolize one’s religion both at the expense of the gift of relationality and at the religious other. In societies faced with religious violence, examples abound of religious persons attesting that friends in the dominant religions courageously risked their lives to save them from violent attacks. These confirm that friendship makes a difference in moving hearts and fostering peaceful relations in society. When people become friends, they enter into a deeper realm of understanding and appreciation for each another. Their respective religious beliefs are no longer viewed as threats, but as a legitimate part of the relationship. Differences are embraced for what they are and sometimes new interpretations on the issues that separate them as a result of the encounters. A major and consistent argument in this work is that relationality is constitutive of the human condition. Philosophical, religious, and cultural arguments have been presented to show how humans are truly relational. Friendship, though relational, is not devoid of choice. In agreement with Derrida, I affirm that, although humans have the propensity for relationality and can only attain their full potentials and destiny within the context of relationality, friendship should not be equated to some imposition from which humans cannot escape. Rather, friendship is possible because the agents in the relation choose to engage each other. Further, the choice of friendship is made possible by the initial or existential urge to be relational. The implication for interreligious encounter is that each religion deliberately chooses to engage. However, such a choice originates from the innate faithfulness to God’s relational identity in religions. For Ihievbe Traditional Religion, along with Christianity and Islam, the choice to engage each other in friendship is not an added burden that is alien to their creedal beliefs. Instead, the choice originates from their theological anthropology, which affirms that the origin of human freedom is from God and is ordered toward preserving and fostering harmony in society. Nevertheless, it will be misguided

92  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

to pick and choose what religious tradition one wants to engage. Here, I disagree with Aristotle and Seneca who advocate some type of selective friendship. I concur with Buber and Cicero that every religion ought to be innately open to the possibility for encounter, and when the opportunity arises for friendship to be established, the religious should embrace it as a graced opportunity. I conclude this section by stressing the fruits of the gift of friendship as experienced by James L. Fredericks, a Roman Catholic priest and a pioneer comparative theologian in the global north as he reflected on his friendship with the Buddhist theologian, monk, and philosopher, Masao Abe: My faith, tutored by the Catholic sacramental imagination, teaches me to watch for epiphanies. We should live life always ready to take off our shoes. In a world where the Word is always becoming flesh, my deepest spiritual instincts beg me to recognize in Sensei’s Otherness yet another wondrous trace of the divine. Do I not see in the face of my friend the presence of a Mystery that both summons and beatifies? Is not this Mystery the same Otherness that led Anthony into the desert and Juan de la Cruz to an ascent into Nada? As a child, I was taught that the redwood trees prayed to their Creator—and that I could hear them pray if only I would quit the trail and listen hard enough. If this is true of redwood trees, how much more must this be true of my Buddhist friend? Sensei certainly invites me to quit the trail. If only I could listen hard enough, I would hear in Sensei’s voice a hymn to the Creator. (Fredericks 2003, 224)

6.1  Christology and Interreligious Friendship Though the New Testament authors were primarily concerned with sharing the experiences of their intimate relationship with Jesus, which proved to them that he is the Christ, they were also preoccupied with the pragmatic demonstration of an experiential knowledge of Jesus. Who Jesus is for them originates fundamentally from their lived experiences. Even in their ritualistic gatherings, the celebration of the breaking of bread among themselves was primarily a retelling of Jesus’ relational connectedness with them as a community. The anamnestic memory of Jesus was essentially their relational connectedness with him made present. As noted by Zizioulas, communion among Christians during the early stages of Christianity was different from the sense of communion among either Jews or secular groups. Christian belief that, in the Eucharistic community, there was no distinction or classism, made the Christian sense

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

93

of communion a reliving of the relational connectedness Jesus developed with his followers, and ought to be the basis for their continuous work as his disciples (Zizioulas 1985, 151). When the kerygmatic understanding of their sense of community in communion with and in Christ was threatened by cultural practices of circumcision (Acts 15:1–12; 11:1–18), greed (dishonesty of Ananias and his wife Sapphira—Acts 5:1–11), and materialism and classism (tensions between the rich and the poor in the Corinthian Christian community—1 Cor. 1–14:1–40), early Christians were quick to remind themselves of the central role Christ plays in shaping and guiding them as a community that adheres to, reflects upon, and continues the intimate relationship they have with him. Primarily, they practiced a sense of communion where trust, openness, and willingness to be vulnerable were held in high regard by the members. The entire ministry of Jesus can be summarized as a call to an actual practice of friendship (Bedford 2006, 35). This claim is hinged upon the account of the farewell discourse between Jesus and his disciples in John’s gospel. The salvific element in Christ’s ministry, as understood within Christian salvation history, is not distorted by this hermeneutic approach to Christology; rather, the place of friendship in Jesus’ ministry helps to highlight divine love and care for fallen humanity (Ringe 1999, 67–68). Using Edward Schillebeeckx’s insights on the “intrinsic element of interpretation within experience” (Schillebeeckx 1980, 19), early followers of Jesus understood their experiences of the encounter with him as one with a savior who has come to re-order their strained relationship with God. In other words, if Jesus is to be seen as God, his divinity is expressed as one of relational encounter (Carmichael 2004, 164). This is an important point in John’s gospel and its literary structure demonstrates this point (see Johnson 2004, 158–171). To start, John professes the divinity of Jesus through a timeless faith history where Jesus is identified as the source of creation. In doing so, John demonstrates that Jesus’ divinity is revealed through his creating power. Yet the gospel narrator does not stop there as the author intends to show the messianic identity of Jesus. The messiah will right the dis-ordered relation between God and God’s people. To justify this portrayal of Jesus, the entire ministry of John the Baptist is employed as a prophetic witness to the identity and ministry of Jesus. Just as the prophets in Israel played a fundamental role in calling Israel to encounter God through ordered relationships, especially when Israel was found wanting in living out the conditions of the covenant at Sinai, John the Baptist is presented as the new prophet who calls his listeners to embrace Jesus, who is God.

94  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Moltmann reminds us of the paradox of the identity given to Jesus by those who were out to discredit him. He was called “a friend of sinners and tax collectors,” (Mat. 11:19) as though it was a sign of weakness on his part. He argues that Jesus’ friendship with the marginalized of society is “because of his joy in their common freedom – God’s future” (Moltmann 34). It is interesting that Moltmann introduces the freedom of the marginalized as the reason for the friendship. He sees this as an opening into the new way for friendship advocated by Jesus; the future God destines for all, especially the followers of Jesus. The accusation against Jesus that he is a friend of the marginalized “reveals the depth of the truth of Jesus. As friend, he reveals God’s friendship to the unlikeable, to those who have been treated in such unfriendly fashion” (35). As God loves Jesus, he has given to him all that he has (Jn. 3:35). This understanding of love of the Son by the Father, and the concretization of this love in the incarnation event, will be an enduring theme in the Johannine Gospel. By setting the stage for the plot of the events narrated in the gospel, Jesus’ entire ministry can be said to be an expression of this divine love that exists between the Father and the Son. In turn, such love will be extended to the followers of Jesus and serve as the basis for interpersonal and communal relationships among his early followers. In faithful discipleship to Jesus, the early followers give to each other all that they have and have received in their attempt to form and live in communities of love (Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37). By hinging communal love to divine love, a central theme in the Johannine tradition, the author retains the centrality of love both as the corrective measure for tensions in the community and as a concrete expression of true discipleship (1Jn. 3:11–24; 4:7–21). In the Johannine Gospel, divine love for humanity is also understood as divine care for humanity or divine hospitality. Divine love is presented as a concretized expression of divine care which, in turn, is the type of care for the other that should exist among the followers of Jesus (Howard-Brock 1994, 336). This point is not alien to the entire biblical tradition of God’s relationship with Israel and people of faith. God’s love for God’s people is an expression of divine care for the marginalized, the oppressed, the slaves, the widows, and the voiceless. God encounters those without power and becomes their power, their voice, their friend, and their protector. In Jn. 15:12–17, Jesus addresses his disciples and gives them his commandment, one that he has constantly told them to live by as a reflection of their relationship with him. Here, he instructs them to love one another. Without making love an abstract concept, he enjoins them to love just as he has loved them. His love for them is patterned on the

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

95

revealed love that exists between his father and himself. If they say they are his followers, they in turn must love just as he has loved, and to understand how he has loved, they are to reflect on the way he has lived out his ministry. Since he has loved them unconditionally even unto death, his “death in friendship has made them friends forever” (Moltmann 35). Again, Jn. 15:12–17 presents a radical approach to the God–human relationship. Jesus calls his followers friends because of the open relationship he has with them. There is no secrecy in it, and it is not hierarchically based, a radical approach to the understanding of the divine–human relationship by the religious people of his time. God was seen as the creator, provider, sustainer, and protector of the chosen people. This was a hierarchical relationship sealed on Sinai, and an attempt to present a counter understanding of it was outside the boundaries of recognized orthodoxy, even though the Torah bears witness to friendship between Yahweh and Abraham as noted by Burrell in his work, Friendship and Ways to Truth (2–3). To elevate his followers to the level of friends constitutes a fundamental approach that his followers are to follow in their dealings with God, with each other, and with those outside their group. Furthermore, guarding against their misunderstanding of this as an impossible effort on their part, Jesus reminds them that this is possible because he has chosen them to be his friends. This does not mean that Christians are given a special status in relation to non-Christians; rather, it reveals the style of God’s relational engagement with humanity. The focus should be on Jesus and not on his followers. That God, in Christ, has chosen his followers to be his friends and has instructed them to love others and themselves just as he has loved them reveals a new way of encountering God and a new way of understanding how God encounters humanity. This understanding was to be the basis for structuring the Eucharistic community for the early Christians, and whenever this view was distorted by other ideologies, the followers of Jesus were reminded by his first followers of the teachings and practices of Jesus. In other words, Christian life is to be shaped and conditioned by the concrete examples of Jesus’ earthly life. Moltmann reminds us that this understanding of Jesus’ friendship with his followers is central in shaping the identity of the early followers. It plays out more among the ascetics and hermits of the early church who are referred to as “friends of God” (Moltmann 36–37). Sometimes, theologians and Christian leaders fall into the temptation of understanding the ministry and identity of Jesus not in itself, but as an ancillary tool for justifying the relevance of their ecclesial agenda. This pericope (Jn. 15:11–17), when read with a bias for ecclesial significance,

96  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

becomes the ground for the bias for missio ad extra. Knowing that Jesus Christ is the one who has called and chosen his followers to be his friends reflects a sense of divine freedom in deciding whom God engages. In Christian theology, recognition of Jesus as the primal actor in divine encounter with humanity has not always been consistent. The magisterium, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, has not always been able to balance divine freedom in matters relating to salvation and the relevance of the church. Both the structures of authority in the church and the content of faith in Jesus Christ have been put on parity as necessary conditions for salvation, thus limiting the freedom of God to decide who is chosen as the friend of God. A cultural bias for synthesis and order, both in mental reasoning and in lived experiences, has often led Christian theologians to de-emphasize the possibility of complexities as a legitimate way for encountering the divine (see De Béthune 2010, 124). This pericope (Jn. 15:11–17) legitimizes the possibility for God being free to choose those worthy of divine friendship. The condition for such an election is to love just as God has loved. The question, then, is how has God loved? God in Jesus Christ loves unconditionally, opening himself to ridicule by relating to those who are outside of the community of the chosen: prostitutes, idolaters, the sick, oppressed, and those whom conventional wisdom has defined as abnormal. By welcoming these people, Jesus Christ shows that should his followers take his message seriously: They must love unconditionally, trusting that he who has called them to love is the one in charge of determining who is holy, who is sinful, and who belongs or does not belong. Let me conclude this section with a quote from Burrell: “Friendship in Jesus does not rest on agreement so much as on an embracing good which is promised to each so long as they are willing to submit to the rule of learning from the Word of God and of testing their understanding of that word with one another” (Burrell 34).

6.2  The Nature of Dialogue in Friendship in Islam Islam’s emphasis on God’s unity does not eradicate the viability of a tangible discourse on divine encounter with humanity; rather, relationality finds meaning and expression in the engaging and yet transcending unity in God. Relationality among humans is conditioned by God’s oneness (Mahmutćehajić 2011, 9). Hence, division among humans or mistreatment of the other is a negative response to a life modeled on the

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

97

life of God. Furthermore, human relationality is not external to human nature; rather, it is constitutive of the essence of every human person (Quran 2:186; 2:152; and 50:15). To understand the relevance of relationality in Islam, one must understand the nature of the relationship between the self and the absolute otherness of God. Islam does not glorify the self as though it is a self-sufficient being; rather, the self is always understood as an engaging self. It shares this uniqueness with other persons who set the boundaries for identity within the context of encounter (Mahmutćehajić 4–5). Thus, the self derives its meaning from relationality. In other words, without the presence of God in the self, it will be isolated. The possibility for encounter is a gift that proceeds from God’s creative power and intention. There is strong emphasis on the role of God in shaping the collective and individual destinies of humans, which plays itself out in relationality. The inability to exhaust knowledge of the divine, the “otherness” of the other in the encounter by the self through submission to the will of God, and the journey with the other in the desire to live out God’s will are all affirmed in Islam (5–6). Knowledge of the other is always limited and never static. Even knowledge of the self is conditioned by relational engagement and open to continuous revelation and surprises. Relationality and justice are intricately linked together because all encounters with the other, however different the other may be, should reflect the forthrightness God expects from humans (Quran 2:115). Even in the context of religious differences, such differences find their meanings and expressions in the unity of God. As noted by Mahmutćehajić, in Islam, “difference is a gift from God” (Mahmutćehajić 11). Difference is the necessary condition for encountering the other. By affirming difference, Islam attests to God’s transcendental nature. However, though God is different, God encounters creation through the divine attributes (names). These attributes (names) are God’s own way of inviting all of creation to encounter God. All differences in the created order are reconciled in God’s transcendental unity. By proclaiming this fact, the Quran reveals to Muslims God’s divine privilege to be the sole judge of all of creation (Quran 10:109), which forms the ground for tolerance in Islam. Though the other may be different, the morality of her/his actions will be affirmed or condemned by the all-knowing God, who has reserved for God the power to make holy the actions of all humanity. Revelation of how to submit to God has been given to humanity through the Prophet

98  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Muhammad (may Allah’s peace be upon him); however, the final arbiter for deciding faithfulness to divine will is the prerogative of God (Quran 16:125). Part of the Sufi theological approach affirms the uniqueness of God’s revelation (Chittick 1989, 103). Revelation is not reserved only to one religion. The demands of a life of submission to God’s will are found in many religions. Moreover, the only conditions for judging the validity of a religion are the religion’s affirmation of the transcendental nature of God; the inability on the part of humans to exhaust the content of God’s revelation; and the requirement of a religion to bring about the flourishing of all lives. This approach to religious pluralism, and a pragmatic approach to encountering people of different religions, shaped the Islamic sense of tolerance throughout its encounters with Christianity, Judaism, and other religions during the Middle Ages. Al-Ghazali, a Sufi, argues, as noted by Burrell, that love for God is the possibility for humans to enter into friendship among themselves (Burrell 50). This is based on a strong conviction that God loves God’s creatures, and grounding oneself in that love can lead to transformative friendship both with God and with fellow humans (52). Again, reciprocity in friendship is viewed as a gift from God “who is the source of all things” (53). Concrete examples of healthy interreligious friendship are seen in the history of Islam. Extensive research among the different religious traditions inhabiting the birthplace of Jesus, Nazareth shows a vibrant interreligious friendship among Christians and Muslims. As noted by Chad F. Emmett, these interreligious friendships transcend religious affiliations or biases (1995, 231). By engaging in friendship, Muslims and Christians in this city have been able to embrace a healthy perspective on their respective religions, and critique, in a mature way, the historical mistakes and polemics they have had toward each other (see 225–283). Openness to each other, irrespective of the religious affiliations, is reflected also in the interreligious encounters among the people of Ihievbe, Nigeria. The desire to relate with the other is a natural human quality that ought to be encouraged. For Muslims in Ihievbe town, encountering the religious other is part of what it means to be faithful to the teachings of Islam. For example, during religious feasts people exchange gifts and congratulate each other. Visitors are received and prayers are offered for each other, irrespective of one’s religious affiliation. People express strong belief that their collective faith in God is one, despite the way it is expressed in the different religions. Emmett’s description of a similar practice of

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

99

interreligious relations in Nazareth justifies the argument for the possibility of using friendship as a constructive way for engaging in dialogue among different religions. If it is possible in the community of Ihievbe, Nigeria, in the city of Nazareth, and in Spain during the Middle Ages, it is definitely possible anywhere in the world. The history of Muslim relations with persons of other faiths speaks to positive conciliatory gestures emanating from trust and respect for the creedal beliefs of the other religions. The friendship between Prophet Muhammad and the Negus (King) of Ethiopia is an example of this. As Clinton Bennett describes, Prophet Muhammad sent his Muslim followers who were fleeing persecution from Mecca to Ethiopia. The Christian ruler of Ethiopia willingly gave protection to the Muslims whom he regarded as brothers and sisters because of their expressed Islamic faith. In response to this hospitality shown toward his Muslim brethren by the Christian ruler of Ethiopia, Prophet Muhammad instructed his followers to respect the neutrality of Ethiopia during the Islamic conquest of lands and peoples beginning from Arabia (Bennett 2008, 141–142). The treaty between Prophet Muhammad and the Jewish community of Medina justified the basis for religious tolerance during the early beginnings of Islam. In this treaty, the prophet recognized the right of the Jewish community to practice their faith without the implicit expectation on their part to convert to Islam (143–144). The prophet’s pragmatic approach influenced many of his successors who saw the religious other as a significant partner in society. Even the practice of taxation of non-Muslims living in Muslim territories prior to the era of nation-states must not be seen simply as means for subjugating the religious other; rather, this was a pragmatic way for addressing the tensions linked to religious pluralism in a socially and culturally pluralistic society. For many of the Muslim rulers, including the Ottoman rulers, the payment of such taxes demonstrated submission to God by the taxpayers. In return, Muslim rulers recognized the rights of their non-Muslims subjects to practice their faith undisturbed (144). Christianity and Judaism flourished in many of the Muslim territories because of this pragmatic approach. During the interviews conducted among Muslims in Ihievbe, the sheikh (resident theologian) was quick to point out the many instances of religious tolerance in Islamic history as justification for the view that Islam is essentially a religion of tolerance. The entire community, as demonstrated by the responses of those interviewed, attests to the fact that their ability and willingness to live peacefully is a faithful witness to the interreligious living of Prophet Mohammed.

100  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

6.3  The Place of Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion In order to appreciate the viability of friendship as a dialogical tool, the nuance surrounding the relevance of relational connectedness within Ihievbe Traditional Religion is worth exploring. For Ihievbe people, there is a strong sense of filial connection as they believe that they have one ancestral father and mother, Ọbo and Iyaba. While the historical accuracy of this belief may not be easily proven since written documents are not available, accounts of their connection with their proto-ancestors are preserved in their folklores, proverbs, and ritual worship. This is a common reality among African cultures as each community preserves its identity and history in folklores and proverbs that they pass on from one generation to another. However, as noted by Benjamin C. Ray, the heritage passed on among African cultures, and other societies that possess strong oral traditions, is dynamic and embellished in order to reflect solutions to the problems faced by the community in the present, as well as the possibilities of the future (Ray 2000, 20). This embellishment does not mean destruction for the original narrative; rather, it renews the narrative and makes it relative to the community. From a cultural point of view, Ihievbe people believe in an existential obligation to embrace hospitality and friendship as modes of being, a view reflected in their founding story. They affirm the roles hospitality and friendship played in shaping the destiny of their founders. In comparison with their neighbors, especially the Yorubas and the Binis, the focus of their founding story is not based on the great kingship of the ruling dynasties (21). For the Ihievbe people, who are literally sandwiched between the powerful kingdoms of Benin and the Yorubas in Ile-Ife and Oyo, the source of their survival as a people is, unsurprisingly, preserved in the stories of their founders, Ọbo and his wife Iyaba. Their cordial relationship in the lands they inhabited prior to founding Ihievbe town serves as a reminder to their descendants that such a way of living will guarantee their survival as a people. Where else can this be celebrated if not during the ritual festival of initiation into adulthood of the young men in the community whose primary destiny is to ensure the continuity of the community? According to John S. Mbiti, “Rituals and festivals are religious ways of implementing the values and beliefs of society” (1991, 143). Observing the rhythm and process of Ugoghon Festival among the Ihievbe people, along with the meaning derived

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

101

from the festival by the people, Mbiti’s view is confirmed. This festival preserves their core value as a people who relate among themselves and with others cordially. Whether this is always true is a different matter; however, the cultural narrative of the people is one that is shaped by cordiality and connectedness. On another note, when misfortune befalls someone, the general perception is to investigate its cause by first determining whether or not the person has broken the sacred bonds of friendship she/he has with her/ his neighbors. When this is proven to be the case, the person is expected to make amends and offer prayers to the deity of the religion to which the person adheres, so that to order and healing are restored to the persons and to the community. This is a common practice among African societies (177–179). For example, among the Dogon of Mali, ritual offerings are offered to the supreme deity, the divinities, and ancestors to restore harmony and peace to one who is faced with misfortune. By restoring harmony in the community, it is believed that social harmony will also be restored, thus creating the possibility for peace and harmony in the life of the person (Ray 47–48). Interestingly, in Ihievbe Traditional Religion, the deity Esu has unique roles in making sure believers are faithful to the ideals of their communal existence. Esu is responsible for misfortune and tests believers in order to prove their faithfulness to the code of living. An adherent of Ihievbe Traditional Religion begins her/his day by praying to the deities and the ancestors, seeking protection from the pranks and temptations of Esu. Though Esu is a deity responsible for evil, its role as the enforcer of rules for healthy community relationships is fundamental for preserving the community’s commitment to relational connectedness. Esu’s function in Ihievbe Traditional Religion is very similar to that of Eshu in the indigenous religion of the Yorubas of Nigeria. Eshu serves as the eye of the deities over human society and as the appropriate medium for encountering other deities, as well as Olodumare, the supreme deity (13–15). Also, for the Asante of Ghana, the deity Ananse plays a comparable role in the life of the community. All these deities serve as witnesses to the actions that cause disharmony and disorder among members of these communities and teach the people how to live in harmony and peace. Ray notes that, among the Asante people, “Ananse’s name is attached to all stories that contain the wisdom and way of life of the people. These stories serve as moral guidance for the members of the community and enjoin them to embrace a life

102  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

of harmony” (16). In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, there is no shrine erected to Esu as a deity; however, its presence is felt constantly in the community. Esu has the ability to read one’s secret thoughts and to punish when the hidden thoughts are intended to cause harm toward another person. When relationships are broken, adherents to Ihievbe Traditional Religion are expected to offer prayers and perform the required rituals to the ancestors of the town. If the offender is not an adherent to the religion, the person is expected to follow the rituals of her/his religion. Every member of the town recognizes the role of the ancestors in fostering harmony in the community. Each person also understands that their collective wisdom as a people comes from the ancestors. Children are taught to be responsible and peaceful or incur the displeasure of the ancestors. Members of Ihievbe community celebrate their unity and love for each other during the Ugoghon Festival. Though it has its roots in Ihievbe Traditional Religion, the festival was made relevant for other religions in the town. When specific ritual actions linked directly to Ihievbe Traditional Religion are performed, the members of other religions perform similar rituals as permitted by their own religious traditions. The religion celebrates collective and individual friendships during the Ugoghon Festival because friendship is embraced as a gift to the community. This serious commitment to friendship explains why those who have broken this sacred bond are expected to purify themselves before they can partake in the celebration. Failure to do so will lead to grave consequences. Those at fault will become subjects of Esu, and misfortune will become their reality. Mbiti highlights the paradox surrounding friendship as good relationship and enmity as bad relationship within the context of communities whose worldviews emphasize close relationships among their members. In such communities, Ihievbe included, everyone is supposed to be cordial toward each other and establishes bonds of friendship, which makes real the possibility for suspicion, hatred, and belief in witchcraft (Mbiti 1989, 203–204). This observation of Mbiti is particularly true of the Ihievbe people, who strongly believe in witchcraft. Misfortunes are sometimes believed to come from neighbors who engage in witchcraft. Priests of the shrines, especially that of Akakamiya Shrine, are consulted to find the root cause of their misfortune. These paradoxes are not eradicated in such communities; rather, they create the possibility for an intense awareness of the obligation to live morally.

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

103

Despite some missionary activities by Muslims and Christians that have trivialized certain norms in Ihievbe culture and attempted to delegitimize the traditional religion, the people in general still believe that constructing healthy relational bonds reflects their cultural worldview. The need for friendship as a legitimate religious and cultural expectation is reflected in how Ihievbe people view human existence. Relationality among humans is equated to the concept of a forest. For them, a tree cannot take the place of a forest, just as a person cannot live without building bonds of friendship. This emphasis on friendship as a way of fostering peace in the community is epitomized in the meaning and reasons for the celebration of the Ugoghon Festival. Ugoghon Festival celebrates the collective friendship/brotherhood of the young men who are initiated into the class of adults and made responsible for duties that the community may assign to them. As noted by an interviewee for this study, this festival celebrates the virtue of friendship as taught by their ancestors. Such friendship is so intense that it can be equated to a new form of brotherhood. Those participating in the celebration are reminded of the sacred duties of living in harmony. The celebrants, through this festival, are seen as friends whose friendship is equated to the bonds of fraternity. Members of a particular age-group have responsibilities toward each other, the first of which involves caring for each other when the need arises. Since they are like brothers, they have the duties and privileges siblings enjoy among themselves. Furthermore, a member of a particular age-group is forbidden to marry the daughter of a fellow agegroup member because such marriages are considered incestuous. This explains the strong emphasis given to the sacred bonds that exist among the members of a particular age-group, regardless of biological relation. Importantly, there is a subtle distinction between friendship and fraternity in the social structures of Ihievbe. While certain aspects of this festival affirm fraternity among the participants, the entire festival is more about the celebration of friendship. This conclusion proceeds from the understanding that the community intends to celebrate the goods derived from friendship as demonstrated in the life of their ancestors. Where necessary, I will point out the distinctions. The marriage restrictions on the participants demonstrate the intensity of the bond between them. Unlike in the context of fraternity where marriage restrictions apply to all the members of the families, for the participants in this festival, the restriction does not apply to their siblings. In other words, the siblings of the participants can marry each other, whereas, in the context of kinship, all the siblings are forbidden to marry each other up to the sixth generation.

104  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

During the Ugoghon Festival, initiates are expected to journey with each other throughout life and participate in important events that concern each member of the group. Thus, members have a special role to perform for marriage ceremonies, naming ceremonies of a member’s child, and at times of grief. However, there is a taboo that every member of an age-group must avoid, which involves participating in the burial rituals of a deceased member. Ihievbe Traditional Religion forbids members of an age-group to see the dead body of a member. This restriction is observed also by Muslims and Christians in the town. According to the priest of Akakamiya Shrine, this restriction exists because members of an age-group are considered so close to each other through friendship that the death of a member is believed to have psychological effects; that is, the intensity of the sense of loss can lead to the death of the grieving members of the same age-group. The death of a member is interpreted as a loss of an essential part of the age-group. Conversely, this restriction does not apply to kinship relations. One is allowed to attend the funeral of a deceased sibling. Though the actual initiation into a particular age-group is celebrated during the Ugoghon Festival for young adult males, women who belong to the same age-group are considered members and have the same responsibilities and privileges. The town does not have a specific rite for initiating women into a particular age-group because women are expected to marry before their male colleagues are recognized as adults. While the age for initiation into a group for men ranges between eighteen and twenty-four years, women are usually married off between the ages of fifteen and sixteen. However, women from Ihievbe town are accorded the same privileges as their male counterparts, even when these women are married to people who belong to other tribes or towns. When these women die, their remains must be brought back to the town to be buried accordingly. Even in death, friendship is celebrated by the community. Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches that the fruitfulness of a life includes the number of friendships one has cultivated in a lifetime. Thus, it is expected that, during the funeral ceremonies, one’s friends actively participate in the ceremonies, assure the deceased’s will is honored, and carry on the unfinished business of the deceased. This includes helping to care for the widowed wife or husband of the deceased, along with the children, should they lack material means to fend for themselves.

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

105

The ritual of kola nut breaking is another noticeable appreciation of friendship that is practiced in Ihievbe Traditional Religion. Again, even though Muslims and Christians in the town are not expected to perform certain rituals that are specifically linked to Ihievbe Traditional Religion, all Ihievbe people recognize and perform the ritual of kola nut breaking because of its close link to the veneration and celebration of the life of their ancestors. Wande Abimbọla notes that this veneration of ancestors is a common feature among the cultures of Africa. The Yorubas of Nigeria, for example, celebrate their ancestors while the majority of them are either Christians or Muslims (see Abimbọla 1991, 53–54). As a hospitable gesture, every visitor who enters a person’s house is offered a glass of water, and prayers are offered to the ancestors and the deities to protect and bless the guest. However, when a visitor is offered kola nut along with alligator pepper, the dynamics of the relationship that exists, or is about to exist, between the host and the guest surpasses mere civility. It depicts either the intent to enter into a bond of friendship or the actual ritualistic celebration of friendship. While a host may offer kola nut and alligator pepper to a guest to reflect their friendship or their desire to become friends with the guest, the guest can also offer kola nut and alligator pepper to the host as a sacred symbol reflecting the desire to become friends. The host is obliged to both accept the gifts and agree to enter into sacred friendship with the guest or reject the gifts to show that there is no fraternal bond between them. Refusal of the gifts of kola nut and alligator pepper is considered very grave and must be made public to the community since it reflects a state of tension and hatred between the host and the guest. Both the host and the guest are expected to reconcile through the elders of the community, who will require them to offer prayers and perform rituals to the deities in order to restore the peace. I should point out here that kola nut is not presented during every encounter between a host and a guest. Ihievbe culture allows for the sharing of a meal as a hospitable gesture. However, when kola nut is offered the meaning of the gesture is known to the Ihievbe people because it is symbolic of the gesture of friendship that is linked to the ancestors. Kola nut serves two purposes for Ihievbe people: It signifies hospitality and an invitation to engage each other as friends. It is very common among Ihievbe people to be received many times without being offered kola nut.

106  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

The ritual of kola nut breaking among Ihievbe people can serve as a pragmatic means for engaging in interreligious dialogue. Furthermore, since the ritual is also prominent among other tribes in Nigeria, it is credible to explore the possibility of using it as a way of fostering dialogue among the different religions in Nigeria. In the religious setting, when members of the different religions are gathered together, the common recognition of the significance of kola nut as part of their cultural expressions can help the gathered group to encounter each other with honest candor, as well as having the determination to be faithful to each other and the dialogical process. While maintaining their religious affiliations, participants in this ritual of kola nut breaking engage in a ritual aimed at deepening their commitment to each other. Such religiously pluralistic settings do not distort one’s religious identity; rather, they help one to enter into a deeper level of relating with the religious other in a setting that is both sacred and alien. It is sacred because of the shared understanding of the role and significance the ritual has in the life of the people. It is alien because it cannot be claimed exclusively by one religious tradition. Interreligious encounters involve going outside of one’s comfort zone and trusting in the workings of God even in alien territories. It involves believing in the universal workings of God that transcend religious particularities.

6.4  Interreligious Friendship and Religious Identity For many centuries, the Roman Catholic magisterium has held a cautionary attitude toward Roman Catholics encountering other religions. Many older Roman Catholics in Ihievbe and other parts of Nigeria still remember how, prior to the Second Vatican Council, missionary priests frowned against their reading the bible without the aid of approved commentaries. During the years I worked and studied as a member of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Province of Nigeria, I encountered many Roman Catholics who told me stories of how their pastors taught them that reading the bible alone without the proper guidance from their pastor was not the church’s approach to encountering the Word of God. Even in matters relating to dialogue with other religions, the magisterium reflects its cautionary approach, especially when it involves the laity. This explains why the magisterium has maintained that only those knowledgeable enough in their Roman Catholic faith

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

107

should engage in such dialogues (Gioia 1997, 576). The fear that such dialogical encounters might lead to relativism, syncretism, or even confusion seems to guide the magisterium’s approach (DI 4–5). Such a cautionary method, although relevant at times, can also militate against fruitful dialogical encounters, especially when human caution takes precedence over the liberating work of the Spirit, who invites humanity, from a Christian perspective, to embrace the religious other (see Arinze 1990, 171–172). It is an unfounded fear to think that interreligious friendship will lead to a diminished religious fervor (178). In fact, the opposite is the case. Interreligious friendship leads to a deeper reflection and appreciation of one’s faith as well as that of the religious other (167). It is worth pointing out that, while the church has often acknowledged the contributions Christianity can make in interreligious dialogue, when done in friendship, the reciprocal contribution of the other religions to Christianity in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular, is quite scanty. Cardinal Francis Arinze’s discourse on the mutual growth and understanding between the church and other religions reflects this observation. While arguing for the universalism of the church’s approach to interreligious dialogue in matters related to “doctrine, race, culture, administrative machinery, language and worship,” he sees the contribution of other religions only from a cultural level (ibid.). This is reminiscent of the approach adopted by Gaudium et Spes when dealing with the relations between the church and the world (GS 40–45). This section deals with the different ways the Roman Catholic Church contributes to institutions and individuals outside its boundaries. Forty-four deals with what and how the modern world contributes to the Catholic Church when there is mutual dialogue). As well as Paul VI’s treatment of dialogue with other religions in his encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam (107–108). Mutual commitment and significance in a dialogical encounter between religions and persons of faith touche every aspect of one’s faith, especially when there is an understanding that such an encounter is a response to God’s invitation to humans to embrace each other as a witness to their fidelity to the divine. Cultural practices, when accepted as legitimate means for encountering one another, can become efficient tools for fostering dialogue. Such encounters can go beyond the boundaries of cultural discourse and become ways for exploring more deeply the rich heritage in the religions participating in the dialogue through their adherents. This said,

108  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

the church has a duty to reflect upon how dialogue with other religions has, can, and continues to shape its own self-understanding in all aspects, which must not be limited only to social or cultural insights. Rather, it should include doctrinal, theological, and administrative dimensions of its life as a community of believers. Moltmann’s reflection on friendship with God can serve religions in their desire to engage each other in friendship. Since friendship with God is demonstrated through “request and answer”, it is appropriate for religions to engage God in prayer through their encounters with one another and to discover where and how God is leading them to embrace their vocation in the world (Moltmann 37). Pope Saint John Paul II’s interfaith prayers in the town of Assisi are a clear example of this.

6.5  Critique of the Roman Catholic Church’s Call to Mission The fundamental question worth asking in the context of interreligious dialogue is: Can a religion truly respect the boundaries of other religions while teaching that salvation derives its meaning only through its own teachings? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that “salvation comes through Jesus Christ and the Church of Christ which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church with the Bishop of Rome as its head” (LG 8). This position has shaped the dialogical encounters of the church with other religions and Christian churches and is confirmed by the dogmatic teaching of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, who write: “…the church both prays and works so that the fullness of the whole world may move into the people of God, the body of the Lord and the temple of the holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the head of all things, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator, the Father of the Universe” (17). While affirming the close ties Christianity has with Judaism, and confessing the intimate relation Jews have with God by virtue of the Sinaitic covenant, the church teaches that there is “only one way of salvation,” which is in Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church (Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews 1985, 7). Even though the document where this view is articulated is meant to be addressed to Roman Catholic educators and catechists, the question still remains: How does one understand this view of the church in light of its relations with Judaism?

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

109

It is of great importance that the church has set aside all ideological agendas in relation to Judaism by recognizing the enduring relation Jews and their religion have with the revealed God of the scriptures. Also, recognition of the origins of Christianity within Judaism by the church’s magisterium should be appreciated and applauded. However, this awareness has implications from which the church cannot shy away. To recognize the fact that Judaism as a religion is a faithful response to divine invitation to live religiously, which has an enduring quality and significance to it, entails engaging in a critical reflection on what and how the church views its divine mandate to engage in evangelization. To argue, as has been done by the magisterium, that the validity of Judaism does not justify the claim that there are “two parallel ways of salvation,” and that the only complete way to salvation resides in Jesus Christ through the church, does not do justice to the quest for fully understanding how Judaism can be truly legitimate and be a valid way to encounter God outside of a link to Christ and the church, without having, in itself, the ability to lead its followers to salvation (ibid.). To resolve this contradiction, the church ought to engage in a theological reflection that aims to critique its own theological heritage, which was formed at the expense of other religions during the era of Christendom. It is logically inconsistent and a betrayal of what true interreligious friendship entails, at least as has been articulated by the magisterium over the years since the Second Vatican Council (for a detailed treatment of the various times the Roman Catholic Church has articulated the elements involved in interreligious encounters between itself and other religions since the Second Vatican Council, see Gioia 1997). When confronted on the inconsistencies in its teachings on other religions, although the church states that its teaching on other religions in such documents as Dominus Iesus is meant to guide its members in matters relating to the creedal beliefs of the Christian faith, it still does not resolve the charge of having a double standard. Without denying the right to teach and proclaim the teachings of Jesus Christ to the world, it is a different matter for such teachings to deny the very legitimacy of other religions. Authenticity involves being aware of how one’s religious views affect those of another. In the case of religions, authenticity involves being willing to critique a religion’s views, especially when they deny the legitimacy or other aspects of pre- and non-Christian religions. Focusing on concrete attempts to move from universalism to communion in particularity, it is important to present some observations of the church’s identity as lived out by Roman Catholics in Ihievbe town.

110  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

From the way this community engages other religions and their commitment to collaboration with the other religions present in the town, one can conclude the following: First, this community sees salvation as a gift coming directly from God to humanity and not as a gift given fully and solely to one religion. They do not see any contradiction in affirming salvation as coming from God and their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. While the West has a worldview that has been shaped by the desire for simplicity and unity, dynamism and complexity are considered by many non-Western societies as valid ways for divine encounter with human societies. This is the case with Ihievbe people. For them, God’s omnipotence does not prevent God from encountering humanity in multiple and valid ways. Perhaps this view would have been easily accepted by the church if it had developed its theology within the context of religious pluralism. The Roman love for precision and simplicity that has influenced the theological approach of the church must be recognized for what it is if the church is to be effective in appropriating a broader theological approach that recognizes the complex ways God continues to engage human society (see Daggers 2008, 104–125). Again, the close link between Christianity and the imperialistic and colonial powers of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment periods led to a strategy of bringing every religion and culture under the Christian hermeneutics, as pointed out by Jenny Daggers (109). Hence, Christianity, as the religion of the imperialists, was presented as the only valid and legitimate religion. Cultures different from those of the European imperialists were presented as barbaric, demonic, and in need of Christianization. Such an agenda is foreign to the worldview of Ihievbe people, thus making them able to appreciate the particularities of all religions and cultures. A second conclusion one can make from observing the dynamics between the Roman Catholic Church in Ihievbe and the other religions involves the people’s sense of religiosity, which includes fidelity to their faith traditions and communion with members of other religions. Again, the fear of religious relativism or syncretism, which the church’s magisterium has presented in the document, Dominus Iesus, does not arise here. These religious people, as seen from their responses to the survey and interview questions presented in part five of this work, do not regard other religions as valid institutions on the mere grounds of civility; rather, they truly believe in the workings of God through these religions. Their sense of communion of religions originates from their belief that God’s dealings with human society through these religions present

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

111

in their town transcends any human intellectual quest to define the boundaries of authentic religiosity as presented by the church in general. In other words, they truly believe that salvation can be attained through the other religions. The particularity of the religions lies in the ways the religions articulate God’s dealings with humanity. Many of the survey responses and interviews reveal the people’s understanding of God as transcending the particularities of the religions. Instead of this approach leading to religious relativism with regard to membership in the religions, it has become a source of enlivening the members of the different religions. The people view their membership in a particular religion from a pragmatic perspective. Membership in a religion is conditioned, not because the religion is the only legitimate response to divine invitation, but by the particular situation and life experiences of the one converting to a religion. Third, commitment to interreligious encounters must be reflected in one’s own religious affiliation. This is demonstrated by the many acts of interfaith encounters performed by the people of Ihievbe. When they pray together, each one responds adequately according to their particular religious tradition. They have a strong sense that the God they pray to is the one universal reality that has and continues to engage humanity through different religious traditions. This does not deny the uniqueness of each religious tradition. Each time, during the course of interviewing the members of the different religions, I made effort to understand how they can reconcile exclusivist claims of their religion in matters of salvation with their practice of interreligious communion. I observed that the people would rather focus on God rather than on the particularities of their religions as generating conflicts in interreligious settings. When I asked the Muslims in the town how they could reconcile their faith with interreligious dialogue in friendship with members of other religions, they reminded me of how Prophet Muhammad interacted with members of other religions and how God’s wisdom transcends human attempts to determine what is and is not holy. The Roman Catholics in the town reminded me of the many passages in the bible where Jesus interacted with those who did not share his Jewish faith and how the Christian religion is grounded in the precept of love for everyone. Traditionalists in the town stressed the pragmatic nature of religion and how knowledge of true religiosity is known only to God. All these approaches can serve the church in its desire to continue the evangelizing mission it has received from its founder, Jesus Christ.

112  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

The church can embrace interreligious friendship with other religions and still be faithful to its evangelizing mandate. The fact that Christianity was founded within the confines of Judaism justifies the argument that Christian evangelization is possible within the context of interreligious brotherhood/sisterhood. However, what needs to change is the theological heritage that tries to present Christianity or Roman Catholicism as the finality of God’s revelatory encounter with humanity. This heritage has a weak scriptural basis. The passages in scripture typically used to justify this position must be read in the context of the close link between early Christianity and Judaism. Evangelization, in the context of religious pluralism, can be done with a sense of respect and recognition of the workings of God in the world. It can put new emphasis on living out the life of Christ and not simply repeating such theological propositions as taught by Pope Boniface VIII. I recall how in 1998 I had the opportunity to visit Ihievbe for the first time on my own. I spent some time visiting with the catechist, the late Sir Andrew Isunoya, K.S.M. During our conversations, I wanted to know the strategy the community was using to proselytize the people they encountered. The catechist told me that, over the years, the Roman Catholic community has found out that the best way to evangelize is to live out the Christian message. Rather than use words, which sometimes tend not to convey adequately their love for the faith, the community prefers to live out its faith and by so doing demonstrate the Christian way of life to others, which has proven to be an effective tool. While I do not deny the place of words in carrying out the work of evangelization, I suggest that Roman Catholics worldwide can begin to take seriously the advice given by Pope Paul VI on how to live out the Christian message and show the world what the faith as a live reality means and looks like (Paul VI 1975, 21). To buttress this truth, the global community is charmed by the simplicity of Pope Francis. His lifestyle has become a pragmatic expression of the dictates of the gospels that Christians become agents of God’s generosity and solidarity with the poor in our world. When a pope refuses to live in the papal palace, share his meals with the poor of society, ride in a simple car, spend time with those incarcerated, and invite the church to become a church of mercy, these speak louder than any eloquent sermon or encyclical that can ever be written on how to be a Christian in a world held captive by materialism.

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

113

When Christians, Muslims, and Traditionalists truly live out their faith in the context of desire for peace, hearts will definitely be converted. Even when words are used to explain the tenets of the religions to others, it must be done within the context of lived faith. Such an approach can help to reduce the vestiges of theological positions that have crept into the different faith traditions and which originate from the human desire to dominate the sphere of religiosity. When one has experienced another person living out her/his faith convincingly, one is prone to be respectful of the other’s faith regardless of their different beliefs. We can easily fall into the temptation of denying the authenticity of another religion when we are not truly engaged that religion. A surer way to encounter and appreciate other religions, even when one is involved in the work of evangelization is by journeying together with people of other faiths in the common human venture of relating with God and with fellow humans. Evangelization must never be seen as a competition or judged simply by the number of converts one makes. After all, the core of evangelization involves willingness to share with others the joys one experiences as one embraces a religious faith. It does not deny the other’s freedom to listen to or reject the message being presented.

References Abimbọla, Wande. 1991. “The Place of African Traditional Religion in Contemporary Africa: The Yoruba Example.” In African Traditional Religions in Contemporary Society, ed. Jacob K. Olupona, 51–58. Saint Paul, MN: Paragon House. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. http://www.newadvent.org/ summa/2109.htm. Accessed September 1, 2018. Arinze, Francis. 1990. Church in Dialogue: Walking with Other Believers. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Aristotle. 1953. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. J. A. K. Thomson. London: Penguin Books. ———. 1991. Nicomachean Ethics. In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 28–69. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Bedford, Nancy Elizabeth. 2006. “Speak, ‘Friend,’ and Enter: Friendship and Theological Method.” In God’s Life in Trinity, eds. Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 33–43. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Bennett, Clinton. 2008. Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations: Past and Present. London: Continuum.

114  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI Bolotin, David. 1979. Plato’s Dialogue on Friendship: An Interpretation of the Lysis, with a New Translation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. Trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Burrell, David B. 1994. “Friendship with God in al-Ghazali and Aquinas.” In The Changing Face of Friendship, ed. Leroy S Rouner. 43–56. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. ———. 2000. Friendship and Ways to Truth. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Carmichael, E. D. H. (Liz). 2004. Friendship: Interpreting Christian Love. London: T&T Clark. Chittick, William C. 1989. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-’Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cicero. 1991. De Amicitia. In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 77–116. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Daggers, Jenny. 2008. “Christianity, Feminism and the Religious Other: Beyond Eurocentrism.” In Church and Religious ‘Other’, ed. Gerard Mannion, 104–125. London: T&T Clark. De Béthune, Pierre-François. 2010. Interreligious Hospitality: The Fulfillment of Dialogue. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1997. The Politics of Friendship. Trans. George Collins. London: Verso. Emmett, Chad F. 1995. Beyond the Basilica: Christians and Muslims in Nazareth. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Fredericks, James L. 2003. “Masao Abe: A Spiritual Friendship.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 3: 219–230. Gioia, Francesco, ed. 1997. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (1963–1995). Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. Howard-Brock, Wes. 1994. Becoming Children of God: John’s Gospel and Radical Discipleship. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Johnson, Luke Timothy. 2004. “Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the New Testament.” Interpretation 58: 158–171. Khalifa, Rashad, trans. 2000. Quran: The Final Testament. Authorized English Version with Arabic Text. Fremont, CA: Universal Unity. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1996. Proper Names. Trans. Michael B. Smith. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lynch, Sandra. 2002. “Aristotle and Derrida on Friendship.” Contretemps 3. http://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/3July2002/lynch.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2017. Mali, Joseph F. 2013. “Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Model for Dialogue.” In Can Muslims and Christians Resolve Their Religious and Social Conflicts?

6  THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ITS PLACE … 

115

Cases from Africa and the United States, eds. Marinus Iwuchukwu and Brian Stiltner, 145–171. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Mahmutćehajić, Rusmir. 2011. On the Other: A Muslim View. Trans. Desmond Maurer. New York: Fordham University Press. Mbiti, John S. 1989. African Religions and Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Heinemann. ———. 1991. Introduction to African Religion. 2nd ed. Oxford: Heinemann. Moltmann, Jürgen. 1994. “Open Friendship: Aristotelian and Christian Concepts of Friendship.” In The Changing Face of Friendship, ed. Leroy S. Rouner, 29–42. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Paul VI. 1964. Encyclical Letter: Ecclesiam Suam. In http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.html. Accessed September 15, 2016. ———. 1975. Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_ exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi_en.html. Accessed September 13, 2016. Plato. 1991. Lysis. In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 1–27. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews. 1985. Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_ jews-judaism_en.html. Accessed September 14, 2016. Ray, Benjamin C. 2000. African Religions: Symbol, Ritual, and Community. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ringe, Sharon H. 1999. Wisdom’s Friends: Community and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Sanneh, Lamin. 1983. West African Christianity: The Religious Impact. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Schillebeeckx, Edward. 1980. Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord. Trans. John Bowden. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Second Vatican Council. 1964. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. Accessed June 22, 2017. ———. 1965. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. Accessed August 28, 2016. Seneca. 1991. “On Philosophy and Friendship.” In Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship, ed. Michael Pakaluk, 117–124. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

116  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI Smith, John E. 1994. “Two Perspectives on Friendship: Aristotle and Nietzsche.” In The Changing Face of Friendship, ed. Leroy S. Rouner, 57–76. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. The New American Bible. 1987. Wichita, KS: Devore & Sons, INC. Thomas, Northcote Whitridge. 1910. Anthropological Report on the EdoSpeaking Peoples of Nigeria. Part I: Law and Custom. London: Harrison and Sons. Zizioulas, John D. 1985. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

CHAPTER 7

Expressions of Relationality and Alterity in Contemporary Pluralistic Cultures: A Case Study of Ihievbe Community

Abstract  This chapter addresses the cultural significance of relationality and alterity among the Ihievbe people as grounds for validating the use of hospitality and friendship as dialogical tools. This chapter presents the importance of social harmony in Ihievbe worldview. Since social harmony among the Ihievbe people is made possible by the role such virtues as hospitality and friendship play in the community, I argue that a workable dialogical model can truly be constructed by using these two virtues. Finally, this chapter extrapolates from the results of the surveys and interviews a sense of Christian salvation history that affirms and attests to religious diversities as understood by the Catholic community in the town. In Ihievbe worldview, the interconnectedness of reality is undisputable. Every act, event, object, person, and encounter are tied to each other. In this context, identity is not understood as an isolated construct, and individualism that denies connectedness is rejected by the people. Even in their verbal exchanges, the common undertone that guides the people is their sense of togetherness. The individual’s place in society is always understood in relation to the wellbeing of the community. This does not mean that alterity, as a characteristic mark of differentiation, is glossed over; the opposite is the case. Alterity is preserved within the delicate

© The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_7

117

118  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

bond of connectedness, and appreciation of alterity is found in the names given to children. As a cultural practice, one of the names given to the younger member of a set of twins reflects both the cultural appreciation of connectedness and the affirmation of the unique talents of each one of them. The name Azegbeobor reflects this dynamism and demonstrates the need to always affirm connectedness in society, as well as the gift of community enrichment through individuals’ talents. The name literally means: One’s destiny is assured when one collaborates with others. By giving this name to the younger among a set of twins, the community recognizes that each has unique destinies and talents as individuals (see Dogbe 1980, 781–798). Furthermore, a name not only demonstrates connectedness among members of the community, but it also reflects the link between human community and the divine. In this worldview, each name given to a child is linked to the divine. As is the case with many Africans, connectedness among members of a community can only be legitimized when it proceeds from recognition and acknowledgment of the bond that exists between the divine and the community. In other words, the source of human relationships and God’s relational presence in the community are the same. This explains why, when the bonds that hold the community together are damaged by acts considered to be taboos, community members must first make amends with the deities and ancestors for the process of restoring harmony within the community. In the words of Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, our names “describe in a succinct manner the various ways in which God relates to human beings – to give life, save, protect, guide, empower, and so on” (Orobator 2008, 21). Also, the hierarchy of deities reflects the importance of relationality in Ihievbe worldview and the African worldview in general. The supreme God encounters and engages the community through the many deities and ancestors (22). However, there is a balance between the rights of the individual and the obligation to engage in relational togetherness. The individual does not inhabit a world isolated from others. One of the idiomatic expressions of the people conveys and preserves this understanding: upke so ya na re kia, or “one will always need the legs of others while embarking on life’s journeys.” While affirming the place of connectedness, this idiom also attests to the belief that the individual can never be eradicated in the life of the community. Another saying in Ihievbe also buttresses this point: oya no rume no ehirun se no gbiron no mie miyo roho obo se oyo we

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

119

ogha wu, ogha rebo ton okho obo opka re okha me tire ton, or “one who claims he can live without others, when he dies he will not be able to bury himself because one hand would always be above the ground.” No matter how one espouses individualism, there are limitations to such a position. This philosophy that favors relational connectedness can serve as the grounds for encouraging dialogue among religions in a pluralistic context. Just as individuals are in need of the community for them to flourish, religious communities need to engage each other if they are to flourish and adequately serve the needs and aspirations of their members. The fact that members of each religion encounter those of other religions attests to the belief that ideas are constantly being shared among them. Such sharing of ideas fosters education and an appreciation of issues that may be of concern to a particular religious tradition, a view that seems to explain why Ihievbe people, though they belong to different religions, do not see boundaries of religions as obstacles that frustrate encounter. Through relationship, religions, and their adherents see themselves as living out their connectedness as a people. In Ihievbe worldview, the relational presence of the divine is all-encompassing. The distance of God from its creatures is not a metaphysical one where divinity is alien to human realities; rather, divine–human encounters are believed to be concrete and manifested in the daily lived experiences of the people (see Pobee 1979, 26). God is both present and hidden. The hidden presence of God calls for an Ihievbe person to treat her/his neighbor as an epiphany of the divine. To be hospitable in this context transcends mere civility. Anthropologically, one can argue that the existence of man and woman concretizes the objectivity of relationality. Judeo-Christian Scripture situates this relational disposition of humans in God. In God’s own image, God made man and woman (Gen. 1:27). Though many cultures, including Ihievbe culture, have not always reflected the mutual and equal recognition of a woman as is proclaimed by the God of the Judeo-Christian religions, such equality is a condition for true relationship between man and woman (Gen. 2:20–24). This scriptural basis for reciprocal and mutual relational recognition of one another by those involved either in a relational encounter or relational dialogue calls for Roman Catholics to take seriously the need to construct dialogical models that constantly affirm equality with people belonging to other religions, who are first humans, before their affiliation to a religious

120  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

tradition. This challenge extends also to the Roman Catholics in Ihievbe who must challenge their male-dominated culture, as they construct not just a dialogical model for interreligious dialogue, but also one that becomes a constitutive part of how they relate with every person they encounter. Hospitality and friendship can serve as such a model since, in hospitality, the purpose is not to construct hierarchical structures of encounter that preserve discrimination, but to openly receive the guest whose humanity calls for our attention. Friendship is also instantiated in the desire to explore the wealth of interpersonal encounters and does not originate from the desire to subordinate the other. Unlike a dominant Roman Catholic reading that views salvation history as the intervention of God in human history and can sometimes be construed as the existence of two worlds (one sacred and the other profane), Ihievbe worldview is not dichotomous. Furthermore, a Roman Catholic reading of salvation situates the revelatory work of God in the process of human salvation in the Christ-event. The fullness of salvation is realized only through Christ’s Paschal mystery to which the Roman Catholic Church serves as a necessary witness. Other religions are viewed, and their salvific roles are credited to the merits of Christ’s Paschal mystery concretized in and through their link to the Roman Catholic Church. This linear historicity that has been understood by Christians to define the intervention of God in human events beginning explicitly in the incarnation event should be addressed in light of the Ihievbe understanding of God’s presence in their midst. God comes to the Ihievbe people through an infinite beginning known only to the consciousness of the ancient ancestors; hence, any view of God’s intervention that creates a dichotomy in Ihievbe historicity is a paradox worth resolving. Within Ihievbe worldview, salvation is equally open to all ab initio down to the end of ages. Thus, in this context, interreligious dialogue is validated not in the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to the plenitude of truth, but in the many works of God revealed in various ways among the different religions. In the history of many African societies, Ihievbe included, when a deity becomes the source of discord, and the demands of the deity, known through its priest/priestess, threaten the very existence of the society, the deity in question is abandoned. This pragmatic approach to religion is depicted in the popular novel, Arrow of God, where the author, Chinua Achebe, describes how a deity is discarded by the Igbo people of Umuaro when the ritual demands of the deity, through its

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

121

priest Ezeulu, threatens the survival of the people (though the plot of this novel is fictional, the reality depicted in the novel describes that of the African people. God, no matter how lofty He may be, is always a God for the people. When the demands of God are unbearable, an alternative is sought. The constant dual religiosity or syncretism that has characterized many African Christian societies is a reminder that Christian theology has failed in some areas to address the realities of these people). Conversion to Christianity in the context of the story is not based on the soundness of the missionary’s message on Christ, but on the pragmatic role, Christ plays in relation to their previous deity (Achebe 1974, 213–216). Relating this to the discourse on interreligious encounters in Ihievbe, the Roman Catholic approach to other religions must be pragmatic and encourage harmony among the cultures and religions it encounters. The theological approach that recognizes other religions as deficient in their possession of the truths of salvation falls short of recognizing the other in their own rights. Every activity aimed at either evangelization or interreligious engagement by the Roman Catholic Church in Ihievbe should always preserve and recognize the role of hospitality and friendship play in Ihievbe culture. The unity inherent in Ihievbe culture goes back to its origin as a community, so any attempt to trivialize this unity because of the desire to increase the number of Christians, or to show the superior claim to truth by the church, will be counterproductive. Hospitality, in the Ihievbe context, does not begin and end only with the human affiliates of the religions; it goes deeper than that. It includes openness of one religion, in its essence, to another religion. Thus, for example, it is not enough for Christians to be open and hospitable to Muslims without having doctrinal openness toward them, otherwise, this can be viewed as hypocrisy. Interreligious openness, in the Ihievbe context, is openness in its totality, embracing every aspect of the religions engaged in dialogue with one another. Prior to the existential changes introduced into sub-Saharan Africa by the colonizing powers of Europe, this form of interreligious openness existed among the different African Traditional Religions. Islam and Christianity introduced views of religious superiority of one religion over another that has led to many wars of religion today in many parts of Africa, However, this form of openness still exists among the traditional religions, a reality that many Western theologians have wrongly termed as syncretic. In my opinion, in so far as religion can be interpreted as humanity‘s attempt to relate with the

122  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

divine, and by so doing, sow reconciliation and peace, the approach is to learn from one another the inspirations, knowledge, and experiences that can be used to attain perfect harmony. If an Ihievbe person sees this in Christianity, in Ihievbe Traditional Religion, or in Islam, her/his concern is not to adjudicate, on the basis of mere propositional claims, on which one is better than the other. Rather, the focus would be on the pragmatic applications of the claims of the religion on her/his life in the context of the community. Such an approach creates a psychological comfort zone for reception and acceptance of multiple religious practices in the community, and more likely occurs when the religions have one concrete goal: the betterment of the human condition. Gavin D’Costa raises an important point when he asks what the aim of dialogue with other religions ought to be in the context of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to the centrality of Christ in human salvation. He asks if dialogue is aimed at understanding the workings of the Spirit, whose primary work is to draw all to Christ and reveal Christ’s presence even in other religions (see D’Costa 2009, 69–86). While I do not agree completely with his conclusions, his question, nonetheless, calls for a review of the church’s claim to the workings of the Spirit. He argues that, though the Trinity and its workings in other religions is a Christian construct, and while one can argue that other religions cannot be known categorically, there are aspects that can be known through the encounter with other religions and their adherents. However, it is one thing to state what Christ has done in the Christian understanding of salvation history and another to state the parameters in which God can be known and revealed and how God can work in human history. The former is justifiable within the context of a Christian hermeneutic on human history, but the latter is an overstretch and it places human knowledge of God above God’s free will. Even if God, as understood by the church, has revealed God’s self as Trinity, founded the church, and given the church a path to salvation, there is no closure to God’s presence in other religions. There is no claim to the workings of God as Trinity and the Spirit as having the sole mission of revealing Christ to adherents of other religions. The absolute and total freedom of God, if it is to be appreciated, necessitates the argument that the work of God in other religions cannot be explained only through one theological lens—Christology or PneumatoChristology. This respect for God’s total and absolute freedom compels the need for other religions to explain in their own terms how God, as

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

123

they understand it, works, and how it has revealed itself to them. Hence, when God’s absolute and total freedom is recognized, there will be no innate contradiction between God’s revelation as absolute oneness in Judaism and Islam, and as Trinity in Christianity.

7.1  An Ihievbe Sense of Social Harmony as Grounds for Interreligious Dialogue In the twenty-first century, humanity, in general, is beginning to appreciate the need for social harmony, especially in communities faced with violence originating from religious differences. Plurality of religions is fast becoming the norm in many parts of the world. As people migrate, they tend to carry along with them their religious practices. Many communities are struggling to make sense of these differences and understand the cultural and religious worldviews of the strangers in their midst. While some seek to understand and embrace the presence of the religious other in their midst, others are threatened by their presence and actively seek to discourage religious diversity. This latter approach has most often led to religious violence, and thus reveals the ugly side of humanity. Among the Ihievbe people, peace and social harmony as a community is both a gift from God and the outcome of deliberate effort and striving on the part of the people. The structure of Ihievbe town helps to make social harmony a reality. While the entire age-group structure in the town is aimed at fostering social harmony, an Ihievbe person has an existential obligation to be an agent of peace, which is traced back to their collective understanding of the desires of their ancestors. Social harmony is thus seen as a direct product of their fidelity to the intentions of the ancestors. Knowledge of the intentions of the ancestors comes through either the divinations done by the priests and priestesses of the respective shrines in the town or the wisdom of the elders, who are seen to be closer to the ancestors. The relevance of social harmony is linked to the people’s faithfulness to God’s will, which, for the people, as shown through their responses to the survey and interview questions, is a gift that reflects God’s positive role in the life of the community. In other words, to have social harmony, the people must be faithful to the commands of God. Social harmony becomes the visible manifestation of a moral life. Since social

124  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

harmony is tied to religious fidelity to God, interreligious dialogue, as part of one’s faithfulness to God as understood in any of the religions, is relevant in preserving the peace among Ihievbe people. To be religious and refuse to become an agent for social harmony is to deny the very core of what authentic religiosity entails. It is not surprising then to find a strong emphasis on living harmoniously as part of religious fidelity by those surveyed and interviewed. The viability of the different religions present in Ihievbe town is linked to the ability to promote and sustain social harmony. Even though one claims allegiance to a particular religion, the cultural obligations to be agents of harmony transcend any form of discord that could originate from such religious claims that aim to perpetuate hatred toward the religious other. To engage in interreligious dialogue in a society like Ihievbe, one does not need to begin to look for a common denominator that all the religions would be willing to acknowledge; rather, the cultural worldview of the people is already a common hermeneutical framework that unites them. Religions would need to acknowledge this fact and build on it as they encourage constructive dialogue. Abhorrence of discord and violence as a cultural quality of the people is a viable means for sustaining dialogue. Thus, Christians, Muslims, and Traditionalists can engage in dialogue with the understanding that they are called to encounter each other amicably and with the desire to attain new perspectives and knowledge of their own religious traditions, as well as those of their neighbors. Dialogue is fruitful when the participants have a clear understanding of their commitment to be agents of peace. Social harmony as a cultural marker is possible in Ihievbe because there is the accepted presupposition of innate equality among the members of the community, and this equality extends also to the religions of the members of the community. This view is reflected in the approach adopted by the respondents to the survey and interview questions. The majority of respondents expressed the view that all religions have a common objective, which is to bring about the glory of God on earth. This means that there is a common objective for religions through which one can argue that no religion is superior to the other, at least in the context of the three religions present in Ihievbe. Also, to argue that the three religions present in the town have one aim of bringing about the glory of God on earth makes it absurd for one religion to present itself as the only legitimate way of encountering God. Further, it would be a complete contradiction to use religion as a means for perpetuating hatred and

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

125

violence in society. This may explain why religious violence has not materialized in Ihievbe town since people view religion, primarily, as a means for sustaining peace and strengthening the bonds of community. The example of how interreligious living is being practiced in Ihievbe town can be emulated by other societies and cultures that are themselves pluralistic in nature if theologians and cultural anthropologists study the dynamics of these societies. The study should focus on those cultural and/or religious qualities that hold the communities together. These qualities can become the starting point for reflection as theologians try to articulate a message of peace that will be received by the people. Even in multicultural societies today, there are some dominant qualities that either cut across the cultures present in the community or which have been created in a hybridized way that has been received by the community. Those dominant qualities can help in the dialogical encounter. For example, in places like Benin City in Midwestern Nigeria, people from many different cultures have made the city their home. They also practice their different faith traditions. However, even though they come from different cultures, there is the common reverence of the ritual of kola nut breaking. This ritual can become the means for engaging in dialogue and be adapted to the different religions as a means for reminding the community of the sacredness of encounter. When the members of the different faith communities encounter each other in a setting of kola nut breaking, the significance of the ritual is not lost on them. Since they have a deep sense of respect for the ritual of kola nut breaking and all that it involves, they would then be more than willing to engage each other with an attitude of trust and openness. As noted by Anthony Ekwunife and Olikenyi, the significance of Kola nut breaking and sharing among the Igbos of Nigeria, for example, is paramount to their identity as a people. Kola nut is linked to life; hence the Igbos say when the host brings kola nut to be shared by all in the gathering, “onye wetalu oji wetalu ndu – he who brings kola, brings life” (Olikenyi 2001, 121; see also Ekwunife 1990, 110). This approach may be more viable than simply meeting to discuss theological propositions. In other words, trust is needed for a productive dialogue. The cultural ritual of kola nut breaking in such instance helps to build trust and leads to fruitful dialogue. The viability of the use of kola nut to foster dialogue and encourage friendships among members of religions in cultures that have this ritual meal is hinged on the view that kola nut sustains the life of the community. This sustenance should not be understood literally since the kola nut cannot

126  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

literally sustain one who is hungry. Rather, its significance is based on the role it plays in sustaining the life of the community, which is contingent on the preservation of healthy friendships. Olikenyi notes that the presentation and acceptance of kola nut by the host and the guest “reaffirms the friendly relationship that exists between them” (Olikenyi 121). Openness of heart toward the other that ought to characterize friendship is demonstrated by the ritual gestures of kola nut breaking and sharing. According to Igbo customs, the host first of all eats a piece of the kola nut that has been prayed over and offered to the guest to show that nothing exists between them that would cause harm to the guest (122). For some Igbo cultures, the host is expected to put the entire kola nut in her/his mouth before it is broken and shared to show that the gift is freely given with an open heart. This practice can be transcribed to the encounters of religions. The gift of hospitality and friendship among religions ought to be conditioned by openness of heart and lack of animosity or preconceived biases toward each other. On another note, the fact that there is no dichotomy between the sacred and the profane in Ihievbe cultural worldview helps to contextualize the importance of preserving social harmony in the community. One cannot truly be religious and still be an agent of discord in the community. For the people of Ihievbe, the virtuous life is materialized in every aspect of one’s communal and private life. To compartmentalize it is to live falsely. With this said, it is logical then to argue that, for the Ihievbe people, to live morally is to be constantly an agent of peace and harmony in both the religious and secular contexts.

7.2  An Ihievbe Reading of Christian Salvific History as Grounds for Validating the Religious Other Ihievbe people, like all the tribes and peoples of the African continent, are very religious. Their sense of religiosity extends to all areas of their lives as a people and as individuals. The close link between the spiritual and the profane is manifested in the daily rituals of acknowledging the presence of the ancestors and deities in their midst. For adherents of the indigenous religion, the ritual practice of offering libation to the ancestors as a necessary first act an adult individual performs at the start of the day attests to this point. The ritual of offering libation to the ancestors goes beyond the simple recognition of the ancestors and the deities; it

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

127

makes present and concrete the union and close proximity of the sacred space inhabited by the deities and ancestors in relation to those occupied by the community, and it bridges the distance between the divine space and that inhabited by the community. Salvation is to be understood through this outlook on the role and close proximity the deities and ancestors have with the community. All those surveyed among the three religions were asked to explain their religion’s teaching on salvation with specific reference to its extension to those of other faith traditions. For the Roman Catholics surveyed, the responses to the question showed some interesting trends. While only 1% of the respondents restrict salvation only to Roman Catholics, 97% of the respondents consider salvation open to members of all religions who live good lives. These responses show a community that sees salvation as a gift to all humanity, with the sole condition for attaining this gift being the moral life. For the Roman Catholic community, as well as their counterparts from other religions, the moral life is understood concretely. It has to do with fidelity to the will of God, as understood through the respective religions, and being good to one’s neighbors. As for Muslims in Ihievbe town, while none of those surveyed believe that salvation is restricted only to fellow Muslims, 67% of the respondents believe that those who live the moral life and follow their religions faithfully would be saved. Again, there is a clear understanding of salvation as being open to those outside the boundaries of Islam, as observed in their responses. The responses of those who belong to the indigenous religions show a similar trend as seen among Muslims and Roman Catholics surveyed. None of the respondents believe that salvation is restricted only to members of their religion. 97% of them believe that salvation is open to all persons who live morally. Based on conversations with those interviewed and my knowledge of the cultural and religious worldview of the people of Ihievbe, one can state the following with regard to salvation: It goes beyond God’s intervention in secular history aimed at redeeming humanity from its fallen nature. This view is a Christian one. For the people of Ihievbe, salvation involves a continuous interaction between the sacred and the profane. The agents of salvation are the deities and ancestors who work as intermediaries between Oghena and the created order. From a cultural point

128  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

of view, the role of Jesus Christ as an agent of salvation is understood as comparable to that performed by the ancestors. However, the people are open to new hermeneutics on salvation, as seen in their open attitude toward the salvation of those not within their religion and/or culture. Salvation, from Ihievbe cultural worldview, involves the constant intervention of God, through the deities and ancestors, in the life of the community and the individuals that make up the community. Salvation does not have an eschatological dimension to it; rather, it entails the working presence of God here and now in the lived experiences of the people. Names given to children reflect this view. Children are called Ohiriomo to signify the concrete intervention of God in the life of the family. This name means: Children are a blessing from God to those who pray to be saved from childlessness. Children who are conceived after intercessory prayers to the ancestors and deities are believed to be gifts from God, who has saved the families from the perils of childlessness. The fact that the respondents from the three religions surveyed articulate a hermeneutic on salvation that is not restrictive can help foster interreligious dialogue among these religions. The cultural approach to salvation as a constant intervention of God in the life of the community through the ancestors and deities can also help to critique the Roman Catholic Church’s claim on salvation as originating solely from Jesus Christ and the church. Even though Roman Catholics in Ihievbe do not challenge this claim of the church, their willingness to acknowledge salvation as a gift from God that is also found in other religions, without necessarily having a link to the teachings of the church, demonstrates the continuous influence of the cultural worldview in shaping their understanding of the church’s position. The cultural reading of salvation cannot be understood as God intervening in human history through a singular event, as taught by the church. Such a view would be considered illogical from an African perspective and especially from an Ihievbe cultural perspective. Ihievbe people, like Africans in general, believe that their world is saturated with God’s constant intervention. Achebe, in his novel Things Fall Apart, articulates this view succinctly in his description of the encounter between the European Christian missionaries and the fictional village of Mbanta (see Achebe 1994, 18–19). The basis for this fiction is the real-life experiences of the colonized and evangelized people of Africa. In Achebe’s story, the people of Mbanta laugh at the claim of the missionaries who tell them to abandon their ancestors and deities because they

7  EXPRESSIONS OF RELATIONALITY AND ALTERITY IN CONTEMPORARY … 

129

are mere idols. The response of the people is telling because it reveals the deep conviction of the people based on their experiences of the deeds of the ancestors and deities in their lives as a people and as individuals. For them, it is foolhardiness to think that their religious heritage is simply an illusion. They have experienced God’s work in their lives, kept God’s precepts, and reverenced the deities and ancestors from time immemorial. Their belief in the deities and ancestors is not human invention. It is real and must be seen as such. This story buttresses the argument being made in this session. Salvation cannot be understood only through the Christian perspective; rather, salvation has been experienced by followers of other religions and their experiences are real, true, and authentic, and deserve to be treated as such. However, since the respondents surveyed are willing to consider the salvation experiences in Christianity as an authentic account within the Christian worldview, it serves as a legitimate topic for dialogue among the religions. For the Roman Catholic/Christian counterpart in the dialogue, the temptation to trivialize the claims of the other religions must be rejected. Instead, an authentic attempt to understand and appreciate the perspective of the other dialogical partners ought to be the goal. The Roman Catholic partner can benefit from how, for example, indigenous religion understands God’s constant presence in the life of the Ihievbe community. This perspective helps to reveal the complex presence and workings of God in human community in general. It reveals and acknowledges the freedom of God, who cannot be limited by one hermeneutical reading on God’s willingness to engage creation. Again, from the responses to the question on salvation, it is worth noting that the Roman Catholic respondents did not simply present the standard church’s approach that views all salvific works of God in other religions as proceeding from the merits of Jesus Christ and the witness of the church; such an approach can only lead to monologue. They preferred to see salvation as linked to God’s freedom to encounter humanity and religious institutions as God pleases. This approach preserves the fruitful dynamics of dialogue because it allows for all parties to approach the topic of salvation from their particular perspectives while being willing to agree that salvation proceeds exclusively from God’s free intention to engage God’s creatures. This approach also does not trivialize the perspectives of any of the religions because it frees the conversation from the intended and unintended human attempt to gain control. By acknowledging the legitimate claim to salvation from the respective

130  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

religions, the Roman Catholic respondents demonstrate a mature approach to religious differences while at the same time being willing to express their faith in the tenets of the Christian religion. It should be pointed out also that such a mature approach was also demonstrated by the respondents from the other two religions. The relevance of attesting to the fact that salvation cannot be monopolized by one religion is of great importance to the role dialogue plays in the context of religious pluralism. The claim that one’s religion is the only legitimate way to be saved has encouraged fanatical approaches to evangelization by many religions. Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians have fought and continue to challenge the legitimacy of other religions and their claims to be channels of salvation. The responses of those surveyed in Ihievbe town show that religions can overcome such fanatical tendencies and articulate views that are faithful to the core teachings of their religions, without being cynical toward those who have different belief systems.

References Achebe, Chinua. 1974. Arrow of God. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers. ———. 1994. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor Books. D’Costa, Gavin. 2009. “Roman Catholic Reflections on Discerning God in Interreligious Dialogue: Challenges and Promising Avenues.” In Criteria of Discernment in Interreligious Dialogue, ed. Catherine Cornille, 69–86. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Dogbe, Korsi. 1980. “Concept of Community and Community Support Systems in Africa.” Anthropos. Bd. 75. H. 5/6: 781–798. Ekwunife, Anthony N. O. 1990. Consecration in Igbo Traditional Religion. Enugu: Jet Publishers Nig. Ltd. Olikenyi, Gregory Ikechukwu. 2001. African Hospitality: A Model for the Communication of the Gospel in the African Cultural Context. St. Augustin: Steyler Verlag Nettetal. Orobator, Agbonkhianmeghe E. 2008. Theology Brewed in an African Pot. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Pobee, John S. 1979. Toward an African Theology. Nashville: Abingdon.

CHAPTER 8

Ethnographic Findings Justifying the Relevance of Hospitality and Friendship as Tools for Interfaith Dialogue

Abstract  In this chapter, I analyze the surveys and interviews conducted among Roman Catholics, Muslims, and Traditionalists in Ihievbe town. I shed light on the viability of hospitality and friendship as dialogical tools among religions. I critique the paradoxical elements in the Roman Catholic magisterial teachings on other religions and present the obstacles that such elements create with the intent to foster authentic interreligious encounters among religions. I delve into the history of dialogue with other religions and show how progress continues to be made, in order for all who read this work to appreciate the relevance of interreligious dialogue for our time. Authentic dialogue presupposes actual interaction. It involves a deeper encounter that calls for openness to the content of the dialogue, the parties to the dialogue, and the dialogical process. A fruitful interreligious dialogue originates from commitment to one’s religion and the desire to encounter those of other religions who share the human aspiration to encounter and enter into relationship with the divine. “Religion,” as noted by Cardinal Francis Arinze, “has the ability to promote a meeting of hearts, the fashioning of true friendship across religious borders” (Arinze 1997, 13). Through interreligious encounter, adherents of different religions realize that there is a common aspiration shared by humanity to want to encounter the holy, the divine, and work toward © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_8

131

132  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

a better world. Through friendship, religious differences begin to be viewed not in abstraction, but within the context of relational encounter. Wars of religion are fought most often because there ceases to be any true relational encounter among the adherents of the respective religions. The other religion and its adherents simply become obstacles. The adherents are denied a human face and presence. But when interreligious dialogue is encouraged and friendships are established, the face of the other, wherever she/he may be found, becomes an invitation to encounter. Religious differences become opportunities for dialogue and mutual deliberations. Importantly, interreligious dialogue cannot be equated to religious proselytizing. Religious proselytizing hinges on the assumption that the religious other is in need of salvation and, whatever her religious affiliation, is deficient in comparison with that of the proselytizer. To conflate dialogue with proselytizing is to engage in inauthentic encounters and hypocritical friendship rooted in exploitation of the religious other. By contrast, interreligious dialogue is grounded in the presupposition of the legitimate claim to be of the religious other and the different religions involved in the dialogue through their adherents. Such a presupposition is not affirmed simply by one of the dialogical partners; rather, it is rightfully upheld by all parties. In the context of interreligious dialogue, no one religion has the monopoly to salvific truths. All religions are appreciated and have legitimate rights to bring their particular insights into the discourse, which can be discussed and appreciated for what they are by the parties involved in the dialogue. A specific dilemma continues to challenge the Roman Catholic Church in its interactions with other religions, as well as other Christian churches. While there is a theological basis for affirming interreligious dialogue as a constituent part of the Roman Catholic Church’s identity, there also exists the doctrinal position that affirms the fullness of salvific truths found within the church. In other words, the dilemma lies in finding a compromising stance that affirms both interreligious encounters and the role of the Roman Catholic Church as providing the fullness of salvific truths that cannot be found fully in either other Christian churches or other non-Christian religions. While reflecting on the need for interreligious dialogue, Cardinal Francis Arinze, former head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, affirms the role of the Holy Spirit, from the Christian point of view, in shaping and opening hearts and minds to the contents of such dialogue and sometimes leading to conversion. However, for him,

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

133

should such conversions involve Roman Catholics converting to another religion, they will be considered “unlikely” (72). There is a sense that such conversions will be appropriate when involving non-Catholics becoming Catholics, and not the other way around. Interreligious dialogue presupposes differences both between the parties to the dialogue and the religions represented by these parties. Monologue begins when such differences are glossed over, and one religious group sees itself as the only legitimate religion worth embracing and appreciating. Notably, in the context of interreligious dialogue the content of the discourse is not simply the presentation of one’s religious truths without affirmation, criticism, or inquiry by the religious other. Interreligious dialogue does not equate to religious relativism, where the parties to the dialogue have no commitment to their respective religious truths. In interreligious dialogue, acknowledging differences involves an affirmation of the uniqueness of the different religions and openness to the other and their hermeneutical stance on their religious truths. It means broadening the understanding of one’s religious truths. Put succinctly, “Religious believers therefore…should in all sincerity meet one another as they are, present themselves without any masks, and strive to understand and accept one another, enrich one another, and work together to build a better society” (54). Furthermore, in the context of interreligious encounters, a broader hermeneutic can be explored to understand such religious claims that present one religion as having a monopoly on salvific truths. Other religious truths that are considered dogmatic by different religions can be critiqued within this context without, in any way, attempting to trivialize them. The above reflections on the relevance of interreligious dialogue affirm the raison d’être for the surveys and interviews carried out among the religious people of Ihievbe. Recognizing the legitimate right to exist by the different religions among the Ihievbe people, the survey questions are designed not to affirm one religion over the other, but to understand how the religious people of this town have been able to encounter themselves and construct their respective religious identities. Even though the primary focus of this work is to understand and further affirm openness to religious pluralism of Roman Catholics in Ihievbe, the fact remains that identity is never constructed in isolation. We cannot understand who the Roman Catholic community is unless we recognize the proximity of the other religions and how each one sees itself in relation to the other.

134  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

In framing the survey and interview questions, the primary focus is to show how, in a religiously pluralistic society, religious identity is an ongoing process, which is conditioned by both internal and external factors operating within and outside the boundaries of the religions that inhabit the pluralistic communal space. Hence, the respondents are asked to explain who they are as religious women and men in relation to other religious women and men in their community. Furthermore, the research questionnaires show the respondents’ understanding of their own religious traditions. Interestingly, the survey questionnaires help to explain what Peter Phan calls “multiple religious belonging” (Phan 2004, 60–81). In a religiously pluralistic world, it is not surprising to find that many religious persons embody in their religious hermeneutics a collective religious heritage derived from their experiences and encounters with different religions. In the case of Ihievbe town, Roman Catholics, Muslims, and Traditional Religionists appropriate religious truths found outside their professed religious traditions. It would be erroneous to condemn such a phenomenon considering the history of the religions in the town. Though the different adherents proclaim one religion or another as their choice, the fact remains that they have a disposition that is favorable toward a syncretic appropriation of the religious truths of other religions. What is peculiar to Ihievbe, and many other religiously pluralistic societies in Nigeria, is that such a favorable disposition toward other religions is not made out of leisure. Rather, it is a culturally determined reality, as well as the recognition of some common grounds shared by the respective religions. For Ihievbe people, the holy is not found in only one religion, so there is a favorable disposition toward any religion that advocates the sense of the holy. An understanding of the common ethical values proclaimed by Islam, Christianity, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion on issues of the moral life and the reverence of the divine makes it possible for the religious person in this community to be open toward each religion’s teachings. Hence, rather than see the other religions as rivals, Ihievbe people hold that each religion serves an important role in their collective life. For them, there is a pragmatic dimension to every religion, and they acknowledge a particular religion partly because of the relevance of such a religion to a person’s life. It is not surprising to find that many Ihievbe people, seeking to address a particular life condition, attend and participate in the rituals of another religion.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

135

8.1  Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Roman Catholics in Ihievbe Town Approval for this research was sought from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Duquesne University. The IRB approval was granted on May 16, 2011, valid until May 16, 2012, under 45CFR46.101 and 46.111 on an expedited basis under 45CFR46.110. The protocol number for this IRB approval is Protocol #11-61. In Ihievbe town, like many other parts of Nigeria, early Christian missionaries adopted a missionary strategy that cast indigenous cultures as deficient in comparison with European cultures, many of which had close ties with the respective, indigenous religions. It is in the very nature of colonialism to depict the colonized as subhuman and having nothing of substance to contribute to human civilization. While a few missionaries embraced the cultural ways of the people and tried as much as possible to inculturate the Christian message, many of the missionaries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who evangelized Africa were no different from their colonial partners from the same countries in Europe. Examples abound of missionaries refusing to baptize Africans using African names even when they had religious meanings. They insisted on using European names that had absolutely no meaning in African cultural contexts. The Christian God was portrayed as salvific, redemptive, and liberating, with Christ presented as coming to free the devil-worshiping indigenous people from their bondage to the devil. It should be pointed out that the papal directives given to missionaries stated clearly that they ought to recognize the customs and worldviews of the hosting cultures as pathways for encountering the gospel; except in instances where certain cultural practices were in direct opposition to the gospel message (see Alexander VII 1659). This directive, as well as promoting the erection of the local clergy, was not always followed by the missionaries who encountered African cultures and societies (Isichei 2004, 175–176). For example, the cultural and religious expressions manifested through clapping of hands and dance movements by the people were generally frowned upon by European missionaries. Even today, one can find among some Ihievbe people nostalgia for the European type of liturgy practiced during the early stages of the introduction of Roman Catholicism to the town. Such a liturgy

136  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

is characterized by silent participation devoid of expressions of emotions of joy, contrition, gratitude, and/or celebration. Should there be music, it must be that which is already found in the hymnals introduced by Irish Roman Catholic missionaries. Not until recently did the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Benin City, the metropolitan, see that has jurisdiction over the Diocese of Auchi, revise its liturgical hymnal to reflect the cultural liturgical songs of the cultures of the people. The above reflection is aimed at putting into perspective the first question asked in the survey questionnaire for Roman Catholics in Ihievbe town. Considering that many missionaries made tactical/theological mistakes in describing the cultures of the evangelized people as barbaric and the people themselves as heathens, it is appropriate to see how such stigmatization has influenced the Christian identities and heritages present in such cultures. As many African theologians have opined, such stigmatization continues to haunt many indigenous African Christians who are faced with the option of either rejecting all their cultural pasts or embracing their cultural heritages as part of their Christian expressions. The survey responses show that there are vestiges of this struggle for religio-cultural identities. Of the one hundred respondents to question one of the survey eighteen percent of the respondents see Ihievbe culture as originating from the devil. Though these respondents are in the minority, such a response cannot be easily dismissed. It shows and calls for the need to articulate a religio-cultural identity that expressly argues for the indigenous culture of Ihievbe people as sacred and as a channel for God’s relational encounter with the people. To inhabit a culture while simultaneously perceiving it as evil indicates a deep struggle and could explain a collective malaise within the culture. Rather than view such paradoxical perceptions of a culture, there is need to understand how and why such an attitude to the culture reflects the internal struggles in the culture by the people. As noted earlier, the massive conversion of one of the villages in Ihievbe was motivated by the social realities faced by the people in the face of the forced Islamization of their way of life. Do the responses to the question reflect something of a continuation of the resistance against the changes that occurred in Ihievbe a century ago, or is it a continuation of the colonizing policies implemented by both the secular colonizers and their Christian missionary agent? Furthermore, one could also wonder if such a response is simply the respondents’ rejection of their cultural heritages based on their personal experiences. While these different explanations have legitimate

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

137

grounds and are worthy of further explorations, it is historical fact that the methodology used by both the colonizers and some of the evangelizers to justify their policies and presence among Ihievbe people was xenophobic. It would be contradictory to subjugate a people and at the same time educate them on the actual equality of the people to the colonizers. Hence, to justify not only their presence, but also to carry out an effective subjugation of the people, the mantra of cultural inequality, where the culture and religious practices of the colonizers are presented as superior and having access to the legitimate God purportedly brought by them, became the norm. Those who are subjugated necessarily have to be presented as inferior and of the devil. A fundamental question has to be asked: What will be the outcome of interreligious dialogue when the actual introduction of one or many of the religions engaged in dialogue within a cultural locus is not always conducted through legitimate means? It would be erroneous to give a simplistic answer that unreservedly denies any fruitful outcome of interreligious engagement. Though a people may be subjugated, within the cracks of oppression arise legitimate identities. Identity is never derived simply through linear conclusions; rather, it arises through and within the complexities of human relational encounters. This is also true of identities constructed through interreligious dialogical encounters in a religiously pluralistic society. A legitimate justification for such an understanding of how identities, whether religious or secular, are shaped is found in the other responses of the respondents to the first question of the survey. Forty-four percent of the respondents acknowledge a progressive openness of Ihievbe culture to the realities of globalization. Question two is aimed at understanding how the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town views salvation, especially as it is understood in a religiously pluralistic context. The question is an attempt to perceive how the teaching of the church on salvation has been contextualized and nuanced by the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe in relation to the other religious teachings on salvation to which they have been exposed in their community. Though the Roman Catholic Church teaches salvation to be God’s gift to all of humanity, the actual fulfillment of this gift depends on human responses to divine invitation. There is a link also to the realization of this gift within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church. Its doctrinal position is that the Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of salvific truths because the “Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church” (LG 8). This Church of Christ is understood

138  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

as the fullness of Christ’s presence and the elements for attaining salvation. Consequently, the Roman Catholic Church concludes that a relational connection with itself and with Christ are necessary conditions for salvation. Salvation is understood as within the divine plan for humanity, revealed in Christ and Christ’s Church. The phrase worth keeping in mind here is “divine plan.” What this means is that the Trinitarian God has destined fallen humanity to be saved only through the revealed incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. Christ in turn has formed a community of believers, a priestly people, a people set apart to continue his work of salvation by bearing witness to Christ’s salvific witness on earth. The structure under which this chosen priestly people live out God’s plan is the Church. This is the grand plan of salvation for humanity. However, the reality of religious differences calls into question this salvific plan for humanity. The Roman Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on understanding how the salvific plan is realized in the context of religious pluralism is to show that, though there are religious differences, salvific unity is never destroyed since such unity is known to and preserved by the Trinitarian God. In other words, one can be a Muslim, a Jew, a Protestant, a Hindu, or an Ihievbe Traditional Religionist, and yet be connected to the Church of Christ, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike Karl Rahner’s confident conclusions that all these religious others are “anonymous Christians” who, as it were, have an existential ignorance for failing to know who and what their true identities are in relation to Christ, the magisterial position is one of hope, faith, and trust in a Christ who has come to save all of humanity (Rahner 1993, 393). Hence, the magisterium holds that while membership in the Roman Catholic Church is in different forms, some memberships are explicit and manifested through common worship, creedal assents, and under one authority (LG 14). Other types of membership are implicit and can be either through common belief in Christ or expressing sometimes a common moral ethics (15). However, there are other types of membership whose descriptive connection with the Roman Catholic Church are known only to God and will be made manifest at the end of times (16; GS 22). Furthermore, the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation in Christ is for all humanity, whether implicitly or explicitly. The Church, on its part, bears witness to this truth and derives its relevance through the mission it has received from Christ its head and founder. Salvation in Christ is materialized through the witness of the

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

139

Church (DI 22). Two conjunctions are of utmost importance here. The first situates salvation within the workings of Christ’s actions; hence, salvation is possible only in Christ Jesus. The other conjunction refers to the path Christ has destined for humanity‘s salvific process. Though all humanity will be saved in Christ, this will be materialized through His church (ibid.). The fundamental usefulness and necessity of the Roman Catholic Church in the salvific process is thus preserved. Hence, the Roman Catholic Church is referred to as the “universal sacrament of salvation” (LG 48; DI 20). Both Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are important elements in shaping the divine plan of salvation for humanity. By asking the respondents about their understanding of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching(s) on salvation, I want to highlight the role of interreligious encounters in shaping ecclesial understandings of salvation. The content and process of salvation in other religions do not necessarily equate to how the Roman Catholic Church views salvation. So, this question is aimed at understanding, from the Roman Catholic perspective, who will be saved. It is also aimed at seeing how a Roman Catholic’s privileged salvific stance plays itself out in the context of religious pluralism. Historically, to confront the religious other, many missionaries involved in evangelization in colonized territories presented the Christian faith as the true faith because Christians have the true God and know what God’s will is for humanity. Among Christians, Roman Catholics held and still hold the view that the fullness of the truths for salvation resides in their ecclesial boundaries. Conversion to the Christian faith or the Roman Catholic Church was understood by many of the converts to be coming into the fold of the privileged. Interestingly, from the survey, there is a rejection of this privileged position by Roman Catholics. Only one percent chose the option of restricting salvation to Roman Catholics alone. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents understand salvation to be open to members of all religions, which reflects a strong understanding of salvation being a gift from God to all humanity in so far as humans live faithfully according to their religious beliefs. These responses demonstrate an open attitude toward the religious other. Without denying that salvation is accessible to Roman Catholics, the community is unwilling to hold onto an exclusivist position. Question three situates the discourse in the context of knowing how much knowledge this community has of the Roman Catholic magisterial teaching on interreligious dialogue. The official position on dialogue

140  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

with those outside the Roman Catholic Church has evolved over the centuries. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the propositional attitude toward dialogue with other religions was encapsulated in the statement: “error can never be right.” This was the prevailing attitude that shaped how the Roman Catholic magisterium viewed other Christian churches and other religions. Pius IX, while announcing his intention to convoke a general council, reminded Christians not in union with the Roman Catholic Church to abandon their erroneous views and return to the Roman Catholic faith under the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff (see Latin text, Pius IX 1868). Also, Pius XI, in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos, rejects any attempt made by other Christian churches to build unity among Christians. Quoting Lactantius, Pius XI reminds Roman Catholics and the other Christian churches that truth can only be found within the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church. Christian unity simply means the return of the other churches to the Roman Catholic faith and abandoning the erroneous doctrines that led them to separate from it (1928, 11). Historically, the negative attitude toward Judaism planted the seeds of anti-Semitism which, up till this day, has fueled violence against those of the Jewish faith. The Holocaust is a clear example, in part, of the outcome of animosity against Jews by Christians over time in Europe. The persistent survival of Judaism, Islam, and the indigenous religions of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific Islands has necessitated a reevaluation of the theologies of religions. A clear break from the rigid negation of the other religions to one of semi-openness to them is reflected in the conciliar documents Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae (NA 2; DH 2). It is important to point out that, in the context of the historical precedence prior to the Second Vatican Council, the stance of the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium as contained in the conciliar documents pertaining to other religions is novel and groundbreaking. To acknowledge that other religions have the capacity to be pathways to salvation is revolutionary, especially if one is to compare such a stance with those taught by the Roman Catholic Church, both during the Councils of Florence and Trent. Though the Council of Florence was aimed at bringing about union with the Orthodox Churches and the Council of Trent was aimed at addressing the doctrinal and theological differences that came out of the Reformation, a dogmatic stance was taken concerning those outside the confines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Florence categorically

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

141

condemned Jews and Orthodox Christians who resisted the type of union sought for by the magisterium. The proposition “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church there is no salvation) was taught by both councils to refer to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church in faithfulness to the dogmatic proclamation of Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302 CE. The Council of Florence affirms the Roman Catholic view that heretics, Jews, Schismatics, and Pagans were destined to suffer eternal punishment for not being within the Roman Catholic Church (see the declaration of the council in Wiles 1992, 9. See also a summary of the conditions necessitating a shift in the Roman Catholic Church’s perception of other religions and Christian denominations from Trent to Vatican II in Fletcher 2006, 267–281). Nonetheless, it is important to state that in Nostra Aetate, the position of the Roman Catholic Church toward these religions is paradoxical. While it acknowledges the right of these religions to exist, it defines the orthodoxy of the truths taught by them based on the understanding of Christian truths. These religions are viewed as salvific not in their own rights, but on the understanding that they possess “rays” of the truths of salvation. Only the Roman Catholic Church is said to possess the plenitude of salvific truths (2). It has been almost fifty years now since the magisterium began to teach that salvation can be attained through other religions. Though such a teaching was groundbreaking, in light of present realities, one wonders whether the Roman Catholic position has evolved to reflect the trends of dialogical encounters. Recent magisterial positions, which are said to reflect the teachings and spirit of Vatican II’s teachings on interreligious engagements, do not always succeed. For example, the curial documents Dominus Iesus and Dialogue and Proclamation both emphasize the claim of Christianity to the plenitude of truth, and this plenitude lies in the definitive and final revelation in Jesus Christ. Thus, for example, the claim of Islam to ultimate divine revelation is negated and only appreciated if it reconciles with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on Jesus Christ. Also, proclamation is seen to take precedence over dialogue (DI 2). This point is buttressed by John Paul II in the encyclicals Redemptoris Missio and Fides et Ratio, wherein the relationship between freedom and truth is found in Jesus Christ (John Paul II 1998, 5). Consequently, any theological hermeneutics on the salvific role of other religions must essentially proceed through a Christ-centered lens as filtered by Roman Catholic doctrinal stance.

142  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Dialogical encounter with the other by the Roman Catholic Church has been like an encounter with a pendulum. While attempts are made at encountering the religious other, there are also attempts at upholding the primacy of Christianity. Such paradoxical conjunctions with the religious other have shaped the Roman Catholic Church’s approach to dialogue. The Roman Catholic Church has placed itself in a dilemma by trying to affirm both the relevance of other religions and the finality of revelation in Christ. To circumvent this dilemma, Vatican II settled for the view that other religions possess elements of truth and as such cannot be viewed as having the same legitimate claims to the truth as does Roman Catholicism (see Knitter 2002, 76–79). However, in the religious sphere, the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold the position that every person has a moral and religious obligation to seek the truths of Christ as revealed and manifested in its teachings (DH 1). At this point, it is relevant to recapture the Buberian contributions on relationality as a counter-argument against the position of the Roman Catholic Church and as a way of fostering and encouraging authentic dialogical engagements among the different religions and their adherents. To recognize the other is not based on the intentionality of the subject over the other. The distance between the subject and the other must never be eradicated, or else the outcome is the totalization of the subject over the other. Authentic relation can occur only when the distance between the other and the subject is preserved (Buber 1998, 52–53). For the Catholic Church to truly recognize religious freedom, other religions must be allowed the freedom to be who they are. Not to allow the other to retain its alterity is to instantiate violence against the other. Alterity can never be reduced to an alter ego. Rather, in the words of Emmanuel Levinas, “the other is what I myself am not” (Levinas 1987, 83). To engage in productive dialogue, it is not enough to affirm the place of dialogue; rather, one must also come to the context of dialogical encounter with a clear and open heart, free from either doctrinal, theological, or sociological biases. Quoting Gregory Baum’s response to Dominus Iesus: …Dialogue is a conversation based on trust and mutual acceptance, in which the partners feel free to reveal their own problems and unresolved questions. Dialogue is an unguarded conversation. Dialogue is an exchange that transforms both partners, leading them to a better self-understanding, revealing to them the prejudice mediated by their own

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

143

tradition, and making them aspire to a more authentic and enlarged possession of their own religion…interreligious dialogue would be a form of manipulation if its aim were to make Christians of the participants. The proposal that dialogue and convert-making can go together is unethical. (see Hederman 2004, 61–62)

To engage in dialogue, one must take seriously the hermeneutical distance that exists between parties. To conflate difference into a grand narrative of unity is to shift from dialogue to monologue. The ways in which the parties involved in dialogue reach their conclusions from the content of the dialogue are not always the same. Furthermore, though distancing is foundational in the dialogical project, it does not equate to isolationism. It is a constituent condition for human identity. Situating relational distancing as part of the human condition, Martin Buber writes: THE THOU MEETS ME THROUGH GRACE – it is not found by seeking. But my speaking of the primary word to it is an act of being, is indeed the act of my being. The Thou meets me. But I step into direct relation with it. Hence the relation means being chosen and choosing, suffering and action in one; just as any action of the whole being, which means the suspension of all partial actions and consequently of all sensations of actions grounded only in their particular limitation, is bound to resemble suffering. The primary word I – Thou can be spoken only with the whole being. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take place through agency, nor can it ever take place without me. I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou. All real living is meeting. (Buber 1958, 11)

Dialogue is an existential reality, a birthright that every human being must claim. In the religious sphere, it leads religions to encounters and mutual discovery, and understanding of new hermeneutics previously unexplored (see Hederman 74–75). One can say that the Roman Catholic Church’s approach to interreligious dialogue is a paradoxical one. On the one hand, there is a deliberate push for dialogue and recognition of other religions as shown in the many dialogical encounters spearheaded by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue that was established in 1964 by Paul VI. On the other hand, the same magisterium seems to be uncomfortable with the path to which such dialogical encounter is heading. Hence, there have been calculated attempts to emphasize some doctrinal positions with hermeneutics

144  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

that are considered to be frustrating authentic dialogue with other religions. Some theologians who take seriously the dialogical mission of the church and propose new ways of understanding the church’s identity and mission in relation to other religions have been censured by the magisterium. Considering the paradoxical approach to dialogue by the Roman Catholic magisterium, survey question three is aimed at uncovering how the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town has articulated a synthesis, if any, of the church’s approach to dialogue. Twenty-five percent of the respondents understand the church’s teaching on interreligious dialogue as part of the church’s identity, and that it is the duty of all Roman Catholics to be involved in the interreligious project with the practical purpose of achieving peace among members of different religions. As the curial document Dialogue and Proclamation states: Interreligious dialogue…reaches a much deeper level, that of the spirit, where exchange and sharing consist in a mutual witness to one’s beliefs and a common exploration of one’s respective religious convictions. In dialogue, Christians and others are invited to deepen their religious commitment, to respond with increasing sincerity to God’s personal call and gracious self-gift, as our faith tells us, always passes through the mediation of Jesus Christ and the work of his Spirit. (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 1991, 40)

Though dialogue is understood by the Roman Catholic magisterium to be part of the church’s mission, it is understood through a Christocentric lens (The original document is in Portuguese. See Secretariat for Non-Christians 1984, 22). Another option to the question states categorically that Catholics should not engage in dialogue. Only three percent of the respondents chose this option, indicating that an insignificant number of respondents hold this view. However, there is a legitimate precedence for this option in the history of the church. Before the Second Vatican Council, the church’s approach to the religious other has always been focused on conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Roman Catholics were specifically forbidden by Pius XI to engage in dialogue either with other Christian churches or with non-Christian religions. Rather than dialogue, the church’s magisterium preferred a return or conversion to the Roman Catholic faith (see Morali 2010, 122–142).

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

145

In many magisterial documents, dialogue is presented to resemble proclamation and conversion. Dialogue and proclamation are taught by the magisterium to be two parts of the one mission of the church, which is aimed at converting the human heart to the reign of God. Reading this teaching closely in relation to the centrality of Jesus Christ in God’s plan, such conversions can be said to be the fulfillment of the reign of Christ who is the manifestation of God’s reign over humanity. Thus, dialogue, as understood by the magisterium, can be said to reflect an anticipation of the reign of Christ in the world (see Secretariat for NonChristians 37. See also Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 1999, 6). This understanding is logical if one asks the question: To which God does dialogue convert us? For the magisterium, this God is the Trinitarian God revealed to humanity by Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of the Father, a revelation fully understood within the Roman Catholic Church. As such, every dialogical encounter, though it may have other aims, has the central aim of calling humanity or the participants to a relationship with the Trinitarian God fully expressed in relationship with Jesus Christ (Secretariat for Non-Christians 40. See also Fitzgerald 2010, 389). It should be noted that for dialogue to be fully authentic, the participants ought to share who they are with each other. One cannot engage in dialogue without opening one’s heart to the other. If dialogue is to be rooted in friendship, openness ought to be the key. Nevertheless, one should ask what the intent is for such openness: Is it for the fullness of dialogue to be realized, or is it aimed at converting the other? The magisterium also acknowledges the place of religious freedom in this process. While hoping for the religious other to embrace the riches of the Roman Catholic faith, it is expected that, should conversion occur, it ought to be within the context of free choice by the religious other (Secretariat for Non-Christians 38). Seventy-two percent of the respondents understand the church’s teaching on interreligious dialogue to include all Christians. For these respondents, God’s plan for Christians can be fully realized by engaging in interreligious dialogue. Such an attitude is vitally important for our times if Christians are to understand their place in the community of religions. To isolate oneself, as was the practice of the church prior to the Second Vatican Council, is to make one irrelevant in shaping the future direction of society. To have such a progressive attitude toward dialogue as being part of God’s mandate for all Christians, the Roman Catholic community

146  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

in Ihievbe town has embraced the spirit and aspirations of the Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes situates the Roman Catholic Church at the center of discourse on relational connectedness with either the religious other or human society in general. In this groundbreaking document, dialogue, aimed at fostering the virtues in humanity in constructing a moral society, is an obligation for all men and women. Dialogue is seen to be part of the human condition, a condition as understood by the church to be reflective of the Trinitarian dialogue. Humanity is communitarian, argued the council. Hence, for the realization of one’s full humanity, one must open oneself fully to the other (GS 32). Question four attempts to perceive how the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town understands the purpose for interreligious dialogue. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, papal magisterial teachings on dialogue with members of other religions were specifically aimed at converting them to the Roman Catholic faith (Morali 124–125) Gregory XVI in his encyclical, Probe Nostis, views other religions as faithless and devoid of any legitimacy. Roman Catholic missionaries are praised for bringing the Christian light of Christ to those living in darkness (1840). Leo XIII also follows this trend of thought in his encyclical, Sancta Dei Civitas, wherein no mention is made of the good in the other religions; instead the focus is on the need to pursue conversion to the Roman Catholic faith and exhorting the hierarchy in mission territories to unite in the evangelizing mission of the missionaries (1880). Pius IX in the allocution, Singulari Quadam, refers to members of other religions as having “invincible ignorance.” They are called to “submit to the Catholic faith.” He states also, in his encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, that salvation is only within the Roman Catholic Church. Those living outside it live in error. The concept of dialogue is equated to the idea of a mother to whom her offspring returns: Those outside the boundaries of the church are encouraged to return to its protective boundaries (1854, 7–8). Furthermore, Pius XII, affirming Benedict XV’s Maximum Illud of 1919 and Pius XI’s Rerum Ecclesiae of 1919, holds that the aim of the church’s presence in non-Christian lands is to evangelize and convert the people to the Roman Catholic faith (Pius XII 1951, 24). For him, there is no distinction between dialogue and evangelization. The former is the same as the latter. As part of the evangelizing strategies, Pius XII affirms the place and need for Roman Catholic schools as means to educate the young in the Roman Catholic faith. As a canonical mandate,

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

147

Roman Catholics were forbidden to send their children to non-Roman Catholic schools for fear that they would be taught the heretical teachings of other religions or ideologies (see Winfield and Scott 1954, 140). This was the practice of many missionaries in Nigeria and among those who evangelized the Ihievbe people. Even in flourishing Christian societies like the USA, there were instances of prohibition of Roman Catholics attending non-Roman Catholic schools. An example that comes to mind is Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati Archdiocese who, in 1904, forbade Roman Catholics in his archdiocese from sending their children to non-Roman Catholic schools under the pain of incurring censorship and committing mortal sin (The Outlook 1904, 460). The above restrictive approach to dialogue with the religious other changed during the Second Vatican Council. The council called for the church to embrace dialogue, not because it has an option to decide otherwise, but because it is part of Christ’s mandate to the Roman Catholic Church. It is one thing to acknowledge the place of dialogue in the life of the church and another to define the purpose for interreligious dialogue. The latter has not always been clear in many post-conciliar documents. The magisterium struggles constantly with the need to balance dialogue and the mission of the church to evangelize all peoples. The whole discourse by the magisterium on dialogue is hinged on the predication that there is only one economy of salvation. This point is emphasized in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. While affirming what is good and true in members of other religions, nothing is really said about the religions themselves except in the pastoral document Nostra Aetate, which, though affirming the possibility that the truth may be found in other religions, opines that the concrete knowledge of this fact is known only to God. Such a careful approach to other religions is conditioned by the above predication of situating all salvation in and through the merits of Jesus Christ. As Ilaria Morali points out, the fear of the council fathers, as reflected in the warnings by Alfred Ancel, is to avoid relativistic attitudes by Roman Catholics should the council categorically affirm that other religions are media salutis by their own rights (see Morali 127–132. See also LG 16). To avoid such a relativistic conclusion, the council held that such salvific truths and means found in other religions are conditional since they lead to and derive their efficacy from those truths found within the church. This reasoning process adopted by the council preserves not only the relevancy of the church but the doctrinal position that salvation is only through Christ.

148  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

The doctrinal documents of the Second Vatican Council state that other religions derive their salvific elements from the merits of Christ and simply serve as preparation for the reception of the gospel of Christ as preached by the church (AGD 3; LG 16). Though Nostra Aetate affirms the role other religions play in shaping the moral life of their members, the validity of such a role and the truth taught by these religions is derived from the fullness of salvific truths found in the church. Just as the council fathers affirm the possibility of “ray of that truth, which enlightens all men and women” in other religions, they are quick to state that the missionary function of the church to preach Christ to all people still holds sway (NA 2). All missionary activities, as the council fathers upheld, are aimed at one end: salvation in and through Jesus Christ (AGD 7). Again, Morali makes a salient point by showing that even the progressive approach to other religions as contained in Nostra Aetate is not to be understood as an affirmation of the other religions as the religions present themselves; rather, the church sees itself as having the capacity to judge what is good and just outside of its boundaries (Morali 129). Hence, though the magisterium affirms the truths found in other religions, the religions themselves have a valid hermeneutic only through the eyes of the church. While this attitude of the church toward other religions is novel, it is not a radical shift from pre-conciliar positions. Other religions may have rays of the truth or have some moral precepts that lead to the ethical life, yet they are not free from error. Only the church is understood by the council to be the church in which the “Church of Christ subsists,” the church which is doctrinally infallible, and the church which holds an infallible papal authority in matters relating to faith and morals. These religions, by having rays of truth (the emphasis being on rays) in the sight of the church, are depicted as having a deficiency or a sense of lack in them. Hence, such an expression used by the council is deliberate because, it again points, first to the role of the church in being the objective medium salutis; second, to the view that all non-Christian religions derive their salvific validity in and through Jesus Christ; and third, to the desire of the church that the reign of Christ on earth and the salvation of all humanity under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church be realized. In this context of affirming the good found in other religions, the council’s approach of distinguishing between the Roman Catholic Church and other religions is one that acknowledges the deficiencies or negative qualities in the other religions. In other words, the other religions, as noted by Paul VI,

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

149

cannot be equated to the Roman Catholic Church because they contain errors and have some deficiencies in relation to the fullness of the salvific truths found only in the church (1975, 53). As a result, they are legitimate objects of the evangelizing witness of the Roman Catholic Church. This position is also affirmed by the magisterium of John Paul II (see Secretariat for Non-Christians 31). At this point, while presenting the distinction that the magisterium makes between dialogue and proclamation, it is important to show whether there has been any shift in the hermeneutics on other religions as presented in the Second Vatican Council in the years after the council. John Paul II, during his long pontificate, made groundbreaking gestures toward other religions. His convening of the Assisi World Day of Prayer for Peace in 1986 is outstanding in this regard. Leaders of other major religions were invited to pray from the depth of their respective traditions for peace in the world. This gesture is symbolic. It gave recognition to the other religions’ right to draw from their own religious traditions in calling on God as they understand that reality. By doing this, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed, at least indirectly, the equal importance of all religions in their effort to bring about a peaceful world for all humanity. However, this openness to other religions has not always been reflected in the theological discourse of the magisterium of many post-conciliar popes, including John Paul II. Again, John Paul II, in many of his papal writings, situates the discourse on other religions in a restrictive reading of the conciliar teachings on other religions. The two conciliar notions of semina verbi and praeparatio evangelica are explored by him in relation to other religions. In the encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, John Paul II demonstrates the inseparable link between salvation and the incarnation, thus making the grand narrative on salvation history situated in Jesus Christ (1986, 53), a point further explored in Redemptoris Missio. The Holy Spirit makes possible the workings of the salvific word of God, which is the same word made flesh in Christ, present in the hearts of all human beings from the beginning of creation down to the ends of times. Thus, this makes all of humanity, whether within or outside the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church, recipients of the salvific acts of Christ (1990, 28). In this context, John Paul II argues that all divine grace is both Christological and Pneumatological (1986, 53). In other words, God’s salvific engagement with humanity is always from the Christian Trinitarian understanding of God. Christ himself is the “supreme and most complete revelation of

150  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

God,” the pope argues. The role of the Spirit is to serve as witness to this truth and to preserve the faithful transmission of this truth to the world by the church (5). Furthermore, since the Spirit continues and makes manifest the one economy of salvation concretized in Jesus Christ, the workings of this Spirit, either in human history or in the other religions, argues John Paul II, lead to the fulfillment of the salvific acts of Jesus Christ. Continuing the argument, the workings of the Spirit outside the boundaries of the church are not different from the Spirit’s workings within the church. Rather, the “universal” workings of the Spirit in the world and other religions are a “preparation” of the fulfillment of Christ’s salvific mission continued in the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, all that is holy and true in other religions, since it is made holy by the Holy Spirit, is meant to lead all religions to the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, John Paul II states that though the Spirit makes holy other religions, the Spirit itself has been given particularly to the church by Jesus Christ, since the Spirit itself is that of Christ. In other words, it is the prerogative of the Roman Catholic Church to discern what is holy and true in other religions and to decide if and how the Spirit is present in other religions (Morali 134–136. See also John Paull II 1990, 29). John Paul II holds that his magisterium is rooted in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as well as in continuity with the magisterium of Paul VI. Thus, though Vatican II affirmed the holy and the truth in other religions, for John Paul II, that affirmation derives its validity from the mandate given to the Roman Catholic Church by Christ to discern within other religions how the Spirit works in them and how their religious truths match those within the church. A fundamental question to be asked in light of John Paul II’s approach to other religions is: If the church has the prerogative of determining what is holy and true in other religions, can there be a dialogical encounter in which the other religion has a legitimate original claim to its religious truths without them being declared true or holy by the Roman Catholic Church? In other words, can the church truly engage other religions on the grounds of true openness and respect of the religious boundaries without prejudging them? The magisterial response by the church to this question is summarized in the curial document, Dominus Iesus. It claims that other religions, particularly their sacred texts, cannot be said to be inspired, since only the Christian Scripture is believed to be inspired. The truths and sources of holiness found in the texts of other religions or in the religions themselves derive their

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

151

holiness and veracity from the grace of Christ (DI 8). Put succinctly, the church holds that other religions can never be on the same footing with it. In dialogue, the human participants are considered equal partners in dialogue, but the content of the dialogue is never equal. In the context of the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town, one observes that this magisterial position is not completely held by the community. For the community, as demonstrated in the survey questionnaire, salvation is open to all religions and all religions have legitimate claims to salvific truths. This position does not always equate to relativism as the magisterium has always taught, especially as presented in Dialogue and Proclamation and Dominus Iesus (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 1991, 74; DI 4). To recognize other religions to be legitimate media of salvation is not the same conclusion as saying that there is no distinction among the different religions. One cannot deny the fact that the magisterial position of the Roman Catholic Church on the special status of the Roman Catholic faith in relation to other religions comes from the need to justify its evangelizing mission. For Paul VI and John Paul II, the evangelizing witness of the church is foundational to faithful witness to the mandate received from Christ: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19; Paul VI 1975, 27; John Paul II 1990, 44). Repeatedly, while affirming the place of dialogue in the life of the church, the magisterium is quick to remind all persons of the need for proclamation of the Gospel, thus making proclamation the primal mandate of the church (Paul VI 1975, 27). Though both dialogue and proclamation are said to be two arms of the one mission of the church, which is to bring about the reign of Christ, membership in the church is primarily understood to be something real and concrete. To foster this concrete reality, evangelization is seen as of great importance; without it, dialogue with other religions, seen as constituting part of the totality of the evangelizing mission of the church, is incomplete (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 1991, 76). If dialogue leads to conversion to the Roman Catholic Church, such a reality is commendable and seen as the workings of the Holy Spirit. Returning to the concern of the section above in exploring the path the magisterium has followed with respect to post-conciliar dialogical encounters with other religions, one can state the following: First, attempts have been made to explore the theological and existential

152  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

notion of dialogue as it pertains to the church’s contact with other religions. Second, the grounding theological framework has been the conciliar teachings on other religions and recommendations on how to explore such interreligious encounters considering historical realities on procuring world peace and affirming religions’ roles in this process. Third, in developing a theology of interreligious dialogue, the papal magisterium has grappled with trying to balance the relation between dialogue and proclamation. Fourth, proclamation is seen as foundational to the church’s mission; however, the totality of evangelization includes both dialogue and proclamation. What then is dialogue? What then is proclamation? For Paul VI, the need for dialogue is conditioned by the shortcomings in the world or other religions (Paul VI 1964, 64). The church, as it were, has the antidote for these shortcomings through its evangelizing witness of Christ to the world (65). Dialogue is thus seen as charity toward the erring religious other or the other who is deprived of the riches of Christ’s salvific message and actions. Dialogue is not simply an ecclesial phenomenon; rather, it is of divine origin (70). It proceeds from the Trinitarian dialogue culminating in the incarnation event, making it a reality demanding the faithful participation of the church and Christians (72). For this notion of dialogue to materialize, Paul VI states conditions for the Roman Catholic Church’s participation in dialogue with the religious other in particular or the world in general: It should proceed first in charity. The church, through dialogue, invites others to share in the riches of its experience in Christ. Second, dialogue should proceed in meekness. Though Roman Catholics are privileged to have the fullness of the salvific message of Christ, they engage in dialogue with the world and/or religious other in the spirit of humility. Third, dialogue should proceed in confidence. Both parties are encouraged to trust each other and develop bonds of friendship. Finally, dialogue should proceed in prudence. The Roman Catholic participants should encounter the religious other while always taking into consideration the psychological, theological, and intellectual state of mind of the religious other. He argues that the Roman Catholic Church has something to share in dialogue with other religions and the world, a message and experience of the salvific truths found in the ministry of Jesus Christ (80). In a later apostolic exhortation, Paul VI, while s­upporting the views of the Synod of Bishops on the place of evangelization in the life of the church, categorically claims that evangelization is the fun-

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

153

damental mission of the Roman Catholic Church (Paul VI 1975, 14). He goes on to explain that though evangelization is complex, it covers the following areas: “…renewal of humanity, witness, explicit proclamation, inner adherence, entry into community, acceptance of signs, apostolic initiative…” (24). At the heart of these aspects of evangelization, argues Paul VI, is “the clear proclamation of Jesus Christ as the source of all human salvation” (27). Following the magisterium of Paul VI, John Paul II teaches that dialogue constitutes an intricate part of the church’s mission to the world. In his words, “Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation” (John Paul II 1990, 55). He affirms Vatican II’s teaching on the Roman Catholic Church as singularly possessing the fullness of salvific truths (see UR 3. See also AGD 7). Through dialogue, he argues, the church aims to understand and bring to light the “seeds of the Word” and “the rays of truth which enlighten all men [humanity]” (John Paull II 1990, 56). Dialogue is Pneumatological since it proceeds from the Spirit who calls the church and all humanity to encounter one another, and by so doing come to understand the silent workings of God in human history—religious and/or secular. Furthermore, for John Paul II, dialogue should be conducted with an attitude of truthfulness and steadfastness to one’s own religious truths. Consequently, dialogue is about exploring collaboratively the respective religious traditions and finding agreements and solutions to common human problems. The question ought to be asked; should the content of dialogue be about exploring respective religious truths in the different religious traditions, how then must the religious other respond when the Roman Catholic partner takes seriously John Paul II’s teaching that only the Roman Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation? It seems that John Paul II would rather prefer dialogue to be about non-doctrinal issues and focus on matters dealing with social conditions. Should dialogue be thus restricted? I do not think so. If dialogue is to proceed from friendship, there should be no restrictive conditions for such an encounter. True friendship is always rooted in reciprocal openness to learning from each other. Though a further magisterial position of John Paul II through the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue presents four types of dialogue, the central position articulated by the Second Vatican Council still holds sway— only the Roman Catholic Church is the means of salvation and in it

154  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

lies the fullness and the complete truths of salvation. The four types of dialogue—life, sharing of religious experiences, action, and theological exchange—are to be viewed through the above doctrinal position (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue 1991, 42). Proclamation, on the other hand, is seen as service to others. It is a form of Christian charity and obligation in faithfulness to Christ who commands his followers to share the Gospel with all humanity (John Paul II 1990, 11). Proclamation is central to the mission of the church. For Paul VI, it is intended to evoke an inner change in the listener, which should lead to conversion of the heart (Paul VI 1975, 18). This demand, argues John Paul II, to be Christ-like, is a prerogative of the church, which it cannot do away with irrespective of the urge to abandon it for the desire to blur the differences among the religions (DI 5). In other words, to be a true church, the Roman Catholic Church must proclaim the Gospel of Christ and baptize those who respond to this Gospel in the name of the Trinitarian God. The content of this Gospel proclaimed by the church is the complete and final truths of salvation, which means that if one is to seek honestly the truths of salvation, one should take seriously the proclamation of the Gospel as taught by the church (6). From the above discussion, one can deduce the following: First, proclamation is primary in the church’s mission. Second, the content of the Gospel proclaimed by the church is definitive, complete, and salvific in comparison with the content of the teachings of other religions. Third, both proclamation and dialogue are aimed at bringing about the reign of God, but proclamation holds primal place in bringing this about. Fourth, dialogue may not always be aimed at conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, but it is never done without remembering its link to proclamation; and fifth, proclamation is for one purpose: the conversion of hearts, thus bringing about the reign of God that is concretized in becoming part of the new chosen people—the Roman Catholic Church. Are these conclusions on dialogue and proclamation reflected in how the Catholic community in Ihievbe town understands the purpose of interreligious dialogue? Can one conclude that this community is not truly Roman Catholic should their understanding differ from that articulated by the magisterium? These questions will be explored below. It is very important to note that, of the 100 respondents to this question on the purpose of interreligious dialogue, not a single respondent saw dialogue as diluting the Roman Catholic faith. When one compares

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

155

this response to that previously held by the magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council, this represents a clear shift. For the Catholic community in Ihievbe town, the relevance of interreligious dialogue cannot be overstated. Eighty percent of the respondents view interreligious dialogue as relevant for people to understand their own religions and appreciate other religions. Twenty percent of the respondents also see interreligious dialogue as vital for knowing God’s will for every person. These statistics suggest that the community is actively involved in encountering the other religions, especially since there have been ongoing monthly interreligious meetings among the different religions for years. Through such engagements, one can come to understand the uniqueness of one’s religious tradition. For example, by encountering the Muslims in theological discourse on the monotheistic God, a Christian can come to appreciate both the common belief in a monotheistic God shared by both religions as well as the distinct Trinitarian dimension of such monotheism as is unique to the Christian religion. Nuances peculiar to a religious tradition become apparent through authentic interreligious engagement. From the response to the survey question, the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town does not see interreligious encounter as necessarily simply for preserving the peace; rather, dialogue is understood by the community to reflect an ecclesiological reality. To become truly Christian, the community sees dialogue as fostering such a process. This position reflects the conciliar aspirations, as well as the magisterial teachings of recent popes who have called for a holistic commitment to dialogue as part of the Catholic identity of the church. The shared humanity and the collective, diverse—and yet related— social history serve as some of the bases for relational encounters, argues the Second Vatican Council (GS 12). In fulfilling the mission of the church, which includes bringing about a peaceful world, the conciliar teaching affirms the place of collaborative dialogue with other religions and institutions (21). Such a position affirms the relevance of all persons, irrespective of their religious affiliations, in fostering a common purpose in secular and religious spheres. Religiously, by grounding dialogical collaboration in shared human identity, the magisterium affirms the legitimate claim that dialogue is a human condition from which no true Christian can flee without doing injustice to her/his religious claim. Furthermore, the conciliar position on collaborative dialogue is traceable to a Christological claim on the humanity of Jesus (22). Christ is the

156  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

new humanity. Individual Christians or ecclesial institutions attain their full potential when they respond to the relational engagement enacted by Christ Himself. Thus, at the heart of the kerygmatic witness of the Christian churches is the Christian relational anthropology. One is truly human only when one is relational (24). To be truly relational, argues the magisterium, involves living in relational proximity with Christ. The next two questions of the survey administered to the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town are aimed at understanding the legitimate place of friendship and hospitality as means for constructing a dialogical model. A dialogical model originating from friendship and hospitality ought to transcend mere verbal gestures and involve concrete and deliberate channels of encounter. To better understand the fifth question in the survey, which attempts to show how the Roman Catholic community in the town views friendship as a means for constructing a dialogical model, the interreligious friendship fostered between Charles de Foucauld and his Muslim Touareg neighbors will be explored below. Certain transforming experiences in the life of de Foucauld justify the discourse on friendship as a means for constructing a transformative dialogical model. True friendship is never about seeing the other as an object or a mere recipient of the goods presented by one of the participants in the friendship. Friendship is a reciprocal exchange where mutual respect and appreciation are the bases for the preservation of the encounter. In the context of interreligious encounter between Roman Catholics and members of other religions, can true friendship be established? Such friendship is possible if and only if both partners to the relationship appreciate the otherness of the dialogical partner. What this means is worth exploring. In the context of interreligious friendship, the religious traditions of the friends must be respected. This means that the Roman Catholic partner must appreciate her/his own tradition, be immersed in it, while at the same time having a fundamental curiosity to know more. Such curiosity means that one is open to insights that the religious other may share both about her/his own tradition and about the Roman Catholic faith, as she/he perceives it. This approach is very much reflected in de Foucauld’s religious experiences and encounters with his neighbors. Filled with the initial missionary zeal to want to bring Christ to his Muslim neighbors, he began to have the conversion of heart brought about by opening himself up to relational encounters with his Muslim neighbors. As he came to know them more through his encounters, he realized that their

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

157

conviction in their faith is as real a phenomenon as his experiences within the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, though the French presence in North Africa during the nineteenth century was one of bold economic exploitation and political subjugation of the people of this region, his Muslim counterparts extended the gesture of friendship and hospitality toward him, signaling a purity of heart that ran contrary to the established Euro-centric racial biases toward the people who were depicted as heathens in need of Christian baptism (Lantham 2006, 57). By building friendship that is truly reciprocal, de Foucauld came to realize that his view on evangelization, which was reflective of the traditional Roman Catholic position, was in need of transformation. Rather than bringing Jesus to the Touareg Muslims, he came to understand that authentic evangelization entailed living like Christ and making his own life the means for Christian encounter with his Muslim friends. This aspect of religiosity is particularly important in a religiously pluralistic context. To be a friend with the religious other does not mean one has to abandon one’s religious identity. Rather, faithfulness to one’s religious heritage, while at the same time being a true friend with another, is a sign of religious maturity and appreciation of the other and oneself. de Foucauld remained faithful to his Roman Catholic faith while at the same time involved in an authentic dialogical friendship with his Muslim neighbors. His appreciation of Islam grew through this process and transcended the need to want to demonstrate to his Muslim neighbors the privileged place of the Roman Catholic faith in the community of religions. In his words, “To preach Jesus to the Touaregs is not, I believe, something that Jesus wishes, neither from me nor from anybody. It would be the way of retarding, not advancing, their conversion. The need is to get to know them, with great prudence and gentleness” (59). de Foucauld’s approach is a brave one, and it situates the place of salvation history in the context of God’s grand plan for human society. Dialogical friendship is about the moment. It is devoid of any form of exploitation of the trust of one by the other. For him to insist that what is of utmost importance is not evangelization, but getting to know the Muslim other means that his trust in God—who is actively alive and working in all religions and bringing all to this realization of his will—is paramount. To refute those who may question de Foucauld’s approach, it is important to reflect on what happens to one involved in interreligious friendship. Friendship involves a radical openness to the other in a reciprocal context. Where true friendship exists, one begins to

158  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

understand that the right of the other to be herself/himself is the ingredient for fostering the bonds of friendship. False friendship is about trying to make the other a mere reflection of oneself. In this process, the other loses her/his voice and serves only the role of conforming to the ideas and suggestions of the controlling partner. Such cannot be called friendship because friendship is and must always involve partners who are drawn together, not just by their commonly shared values, but also by their distinct and unique qualities which help to complement each other. Furthermore, de Foucauld, through his bond of friendship with his Muslim neighbors, came to realize a new hermeneutic on evangelization. Rather than equating it to proselytizing, he understood it to be the sharing of what one loves with the other, who is a friend and a neighbor. For him, the bond of friendship transcends evangelization. However, since friendship involves the sharing of one’s intimate feelings of joys, pains, and aspirations, should conversion occur through this process, such an act was and is possible only by the workings of the Spirit. For the partners in friendship, what is important is to be authentic and honest in the relationship. In interreligious friendship, one does not begin to question the legitimacy of the religious traditions of the dialogue partners. To begin to lay claim to absolute truth is to silence the voice of the religious other and affirm only a monologue. Two points, according to de Foucauld, are necessary for such friendship to blossom: First is to appreciate the religious truth of the other, and second is the affirmation of the equality of the partners (61). There is a distinct difference between appreciating the religious truths of another religion and passing judgment on those truths. The former involves allowing the religious other to be the legitimate determiner of the validity of her/his religious truths based on how her/ his community appropriates such truths. In other words, the validity of a religious truth is always reflected in how a community appropriates such a truth. It is only within a shared interaction and mutual deliberations that one can perceive and understand his/her own views on the truths of another religion. Further, even when one makes a judgmental statement, it must always be phrased within the context of one’s hermeneutical perspective. Every religion espouses a way of life, which must never be seen on the surface value as redundant or devoid of any relevance. Upon further exploration, one begins to see how such a modus vivendi preserves such a delicate worldview. It is in this context that de Foucauld affirms the need to appreciate the religious traditions of the religious other rather than making doctrinal statements on other religions.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

159

This approach seems to ground de Foucauld’s attitude toward his dialogical partners in Algeria. Without feigning to know exhaustively the workings of God, he gladly recognizes and affirms the mutual religious zeal of his dialogical partners, believing and taking seriously the Christian belief that conversion to a religion falls under the sway of the Holy Spirit. He, as a Christian, is simply called to live like Christ in his dealings with other religious men and women. As noted by Ian Latham, de Foucauld’s relationship with his Muslim neighbors can be categorized as “…the reciprocity of ‘brothers’ recognizing the worth and equality of each other, the reciprocity of ‘friends’ in their mutual exchange, and the reciprocity of ‘fellow pilgrims’…on the same path to the same end: together on their pilgrimage way to the one God” (ibid.). This reciprocal friendship was also aimed at mutual “challenge” as noted by Latham (65). Just as de Foucauld lived like Christ, his dialogical partners also lived as true Muslims following the ethical life as dictated in their sacred texts. Each time one fails to live faithfully as a Muslim or as a Christian, one is challenged by the exemplary life of the religious other whom one is called to encounter as a friend. A friend sees strengths and shortcomings we may not be aware of in ourselves, but what is most important is that a friend tries to help us to overcome our shortcomings while at the same time affirming the strengths and virtues present in one’s personality. By exploring de Foucauld’s interreligious friendship with Muslims in Algeria, this work aims to justify the claim that interreligious friendship is achievable. Such friendship is attainable when there is a deliberate attempt to engage the religious other and when one takes seriously Christ’s command to love one another. Such love for the other extends to those outside of the Christian religion. In fact, when the other has a different worldview, religious tradition, culture, and/or race, and yet she is still seen as a sister, then the one that loves concretely in the here and now has fully demonstrated and taken seriously the Christ command. de Foucauld’s deliberate attempt to foster dialogical friendship with his Muslim neighbors has yielded not just a religious community dedicated to the project of fostering interreligious friendship among religions but has proven that the interreligious project is a viable one. His approach is one of presence, where viable friendship is engaged in with members of other religions with the sole purpose of engaging in mutual exploration of the truth and a common desire to live their respective faiths. In his dealings with Muslims as friends, de Foucauld came to respect and to appreciate the relevance of their religion.

160  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

As stated above, the purpose of the fifth question is to understand the viability of friendship as a dialogical tool among the religiously pluralistic people of Ihievbe. In asking the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town, the intent is to demonstrate how their use of friendship has helped to change their attitude toward members of other religions. Since the community is small in relation to those of other religions in Ihievbe town, it will not be surprising to find viable interreligious friendships already present among the people of the town. Many aspects of their communal life transcend religious affiliations. Their collective celebration of the coming of age festival (Ugoghon Festival); their communal farmlands where every member of the community is expected to contribute their time and labor; and the communal marketplaces are examples of trans-religious moments of encounter among the people. Such moments of encounter can sometimes serve as opportunities for entering into interreligious bonds of friendship among the religious people of Ihievbe. Of the one hundred persons surveyed among the Roman Catholics in Ihievbe, fifty percent consider friendship to be a necessary human virtue that all should have if religiously pluralistic societies are to establish peace and harmony. This is particularly important because it shows a consistent trend within the community. The community not only sees dialogue as a necessary means for promoting respect and appreciation among the members of the different religions, but the need to establish friendship among members is seen as a means for communal survival as well. Fifty percent of those individuals surveyed in the Roman Catholic community appreciate the role of friendship in fostering interreligious dialogue by seeing it as being faithful to Christ’s example. For them, their appreciation of friendship in the interreligious context reflects a Christological construct. It is important for Christians to take seriously the examples of Christ, who is understood as the perfect human, light, and guide for Christians who want to take seriously the ethical life. The whole of Christ’s life radiates hospitality and friendship. Even the incarnation event is God’s gesture of friendship to humanity. By becoming human, Christ has established a fraternal bond with humanity, argues the Second Vatican Council (see GS 22). In this openness, Christ has made friendship and hospitality necessary tools for expressing the true meaning of Christian identity and witness. Even in one of the discourses with his disciples, Christ situates love at the center of his ministry (Jn. 13:34–35; 15:12, 17). A visible expression of authentic discipleship is reflected in the love of those who are different from the Christian; hence, he reminds His followers that, unlike their neighbors, their love for one another

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

161

should extend to everyone (Matt. 5:43–48; Lk. 6:27–36). Interreligious friendship involves recognizing the humanity and affirming the faith of the other even when that faith is different from one’s own. Of the one hundred participants in the survey, there was no respondent advocating the option that states that Catholics should not encounter members of other religions in interreligious friendship. There is a clear understanding in the Roman Catholic community that reflects the need for interreligious friendship. Also, the rejection of the view that denies salvation to members of other religions is an indication of the community’s willingness to engage in dialogue with members of other religions. Such willingness can foster the development and adoption of a theology of dialogue aimed at mutual exchange. The final question aims at understanding the relevance of hospitality in shaping relational encounters between the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe and the members of the other religions. The question also endeavors to see how the cultural value of hospitality among Ihievbe people has been appropriated by the members of the Roman Catholic community. Eighty-two percent of the respondents affirmed the positive role hospitality has played in their relational encounters with members of other religions. They confirm not just the religious understanding of this virtue, but also the cultural hermeneutics on hospitality by the community. Furthermore, seventeen percent of the respondents understand hospitality to be necessary in disposing Christians in general to be open to a deeper understanding of God’s will in the context of interreligious dialogue. Only one percent of the respondents stated that hospitality toward members of other religions is irrelevant since salvation is exclusive to Roman Catholics.

8.2  Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Roman Catholics in Ihievbe Town A separate group of fifteen members of the Roman Catholic community in Ihievbe town participated in the oral interviews. The reason for broadening the interview process is to arrive at an objective understanding of the mind-set of the community, as well as understand the operative dynamics in the community. The interview questions are aimed at allowing the participants to respond without the limitations that go with structured survey questionnaires. Attempts will be made both to present

162  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

the full relevant data by showing commonalities and unique particularities in the responses, and to explain the responses in the context of the interests of this work. In asking the respondents to state what, in Ihievbe culture, best describes the person and role of Jesus in their lives, the aim is to understand how much the members of the Roman Catholic community in the town have been able to engage their culture from their religious perspective. Given that the aim of this book is to articulate a dialogical model that appropriates the cultural and religious virtues of friendship and hospitality, one must first understand how much the Roman Catholic faith has engaged the cultural milieu and the faith of the people in Ihievbe. Every Roman Catholic in Ihievbe inhabits both the Roman Catholic and the cultural worldviews. To engage one’s culture is always the first productive step for entering interreligious dialogue, especially when that culture is also shared and inhabited by members of other religions. By engaging one’s culture, one recognizes the importance of affirming the locus where one’s faith journey begins. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusion will be a positive one, rather; what is important is that the process is followed through. The first two questions of this interview questionnaire intend to understand the role of Jesus in interreligious dialogue. It is important to grasp how the community recognizes the place of Jesus in the dialogical project engaged in by the community. The ministry of Jesus is laden with examples of hospitality and friendship that extend outside the so-called appropriate boundaries of his time, especially in the religious rituals and practices of Judaism. In the gospel accounts, the religious leaders of the temple and synagogues repeatedly reject his messianic identity and mission because of these visible gestures of friendship and hospitality. The Gospels present Jesus’ ministry as a contradiction to the status quo. His willingness to engage the Samaritans through the woman at the well (Jn. 4:4–42), his advocacy for a woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:1–11), his interactions with tax collectors (Lk. 19:1–10), his affirmation of the faith of the Centurion who apparently was not of Jewish descent (Matt. 8:5–13), and his retrieving of the appropriate interpretation of the Sabbath restrictions in favor of performing acts of mercy (Lk. 6:1–11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; Jn. 9:1–41) go against the status quo of his time. It is useful to take seriously the gospel accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus since these serve as the kerygmatic witness of the early Christian communities. Faithfulness to this tradition by Christians and respective Christian

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

163

churches and traditions can serve as defining markers in shaping commitment to dialogue with those outside respective boundaries. What is novel of Christian commitment to the examples of Jesus is to go beyond the expected. It involves breaking boundaries and taking risks that reflect faithfulness to the prophetic charism of the Christian religion. The results of the interview of members of the Catholic Religion in Ihievbe are presented below. The responses are paraphrased to reflect the statements of the respondents. Otherwise, direct quotes from the respondents will be presented using quotation marks. 8.2.1   Roman Catholic Respondent One Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The watchword in the culture is love for the other. This is very much in line with Christ’s command to his followers to love one another. Also, in Ihievbe, the people believe that members of the different religions profess faith in one God even though the religious rituals and belief systems are different. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus spent much time showing the need to love one’s neighbor. He expected his followers to demonstrate their love for him through their love for their neighbors. Just as in the Catholic liturgy we have the song, ‘whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me…’ we have a saying in Ihievbe culture that states that whatever causes me discomfort, I am bound to prevent from happening to another person. Concerning members of other religions, Catholics in Ihievbe believe that Christ teaches us to love everyone without discrimination. There is also a cultural injunction that mandates every Ihievbe person to have goodwill toward all those who live in Ihievbe. The ancestors are the custodians of harmony in the culture and we believe that going against this injunction is also going against Christ’s command to love one’s

164  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

neighbor. Even though we are Catholics, our ancestors still play prominent roles in our lives because they lived the moral life and are the custodians of the moral code that can also be found in the moral codes of the Catholic Church. We do not see our Catholic faith as a source of division in Ihievbe, but as a means for bonding. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: The word in Ihievbe language that describes hospitality is ihumeke, which means love for another person that comes from and resides at the center of each human person. In Ihievbe, hospitality is a concrete expression of openness toward another person. It is expected that one pays one’s neighbors regular visits and share in their happiness and struggles. Among us Catholics in Ihievbe, it has been our practice to collectively assist those in need. During Lent, we have our youths and members of both the Catholic Men Organization and Catholic Women Organization carry out works of mercy by providing clothing for the poor, helping to repair damaged homes, and harvest crops from the farm of those too sick to work on their own farmlands. These gestures have endeared the Catholic community to members of other religions. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: In Ihievbe language, the word for friendship is omomena, which means, “a reciprocal gesture of love for one another.” In Ihievbe, we believe that there should be no basis for discrimination. In the Catholic Church, we are taught that we are one with everyone. There has never been a time when the members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion have had disagreements with the Catholic community. There was a time, though, when some Protestant churches were preaching anti-Catholic message while trying to get converts. The Catholic community encouraged dialogue with the pastors of those churches.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

165

Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Some years ago, the former parish priest of our mother parish, Saint Jude Catholic Church in Afuze, organized and formed an interreligious dialogue committee that meets once a month. Everyone is encouraged to attend, and we have Muslims, traditional worshippers, as well as other Christians as participants. During these meetings, we engage one another and try to understand the different faith traditions. Some people attend with the clear intention to want to understand other religions. Some members of our Catholic community have learned how to appreciate other religions. These meetings help us to reflect together on God’s will for us all. These monthly meetings are the avenues which those in Ihievbe and other towns that participate in them, use to address issues that come up concerning interactions among the different religions. 8.2.2   Roman Catholic Respondent Two Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: In Ihievbe, the pragmatic approach to life is very much in line with that of Jesus during His earthly ministry. Life is not fixated, and one must approach situations with the view of adopting what is most practicable. Love for another person grounds pragmatism both in Jesus’ ministry and in Ihievbe culture. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? b. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: The command of Jesus to His followers to love one another is to be understood as including members of other religions. If Jesus wanted His followers to love only Christians, He would have expressed it when He defined the distinctive quality of being his disciple, which is unreserved love for everyone.

166  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: In Ihievbe, there is a general understanding that everyone should show hospitality toward their neighbors even when the neighbors are strangers. We have a common custom of inviting neighbors over for meals and during festive occasions. There is no restriction based on religious affiliations in our communal interactions. In fact, we naturally do not see one another from the religious divide. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: In most families in Ihievbe, there are members who belong to different religious traditions. This reality makes interactions with members of other religions a necessary fact that cannot be avoided. During the different feasts of these religions, members of the Catholic community usually pay visits to members of these other religions and meals are shared. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: “We need contacts that are more formal with members of other religions.” 8.2.3   Roman Catholic Respondent Three *This respondent spent thirty years living in Muslim dominated Northern Nigeria. Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: Jesus is not taken seriously by the Christians in Ihievbe because Jesus has become a common denominator in Ihievbe. There is no serious commitment to Jesus among the Ihievbe people. Unlike in the northern

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

167

part of Nigeria where the distinctive lines between Christianity and Islam are clear, in Ihievbe, there is too much of a crisscross relationship among the different religions. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus teaches that we Christians ought to love everyone. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: There seems to be self-interest in the way hospitality is practiced in Ihievbe. People seem to engage others based on what they will get from them. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: In Ihievbe, there are two ways to engage the other, the religious bond among members of the same religion and the cultural practice of age-grade system, which establishes a trans-religious context for friendship. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Christians and Muslims are not serving the same God. It is important that as Catholics we know our faith in detail before we engage in dialogue with members of other religions. Furthermore, it is important that we focus first on the things that unite us and then study in detail those things that divide us later.

168  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

8.2.4   Roman Catholic Respondent Four Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: Ihievbe cultural understanding of love resonates well with the life and ministry of Jesus. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus specifically states that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. His pedagogical example of the Good Samaritan contextualizes the new type of love of one’s neighbor that Jesus is talking about. A love of neighbor includes everyone without restriction. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Throughout my life, there has been a sense of collective existence in Ihievbe. People help those who cannot afford to pay hired labor to build their homes. This is one of the cultural distinctions of the Ihievbe people. Prior to the coming of Christianity and Islam, there has always been a sense of unity among the people that goes back to the ancestral heritage. By demonstrating our love for each other, we can imbibe this cultural sense of hospitality as Catholics. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: As Catholics, we need to be careful not to make friends with people who will convert us to other religions. For me, friendship with members of other religions should be aimed at converting

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

169

them to the Catholic Church since we Catholics are already in the light of Christ. I have friends who are members of other religions. Even though I sometimes introduce them to the Catholic faith, their refusal to belong to the Catholic Church does not destroy our friendship. It is a common practice among the Catholic community to engage members of other religions in Ihievbe during celebrations of their religious feasts. We visit them and celebrate with them in order to make them understand that we love and appreciate their presence in the larger Ihievbe community. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: In Ihievbe, we see ourselves as one, and this cultural unity is stronger than our religious differences. This might be the source of our peaceful co-existence. If there is a serious commitment to interreligious dialogue that is part of the daily dialogical encounters among members of the different religions, the instances of religious violence will be reduced in Nigeria. Unfortunately, there is no serious commitment to discussing the issues that breed tension between members of different religions. And when there is tension, there is no alternative solution to which people can have recourse except trying to destroy lives and properties of members of the other religions. 8.2.5   Roman Catholic Respondent Five Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: Love for one another in Ihievbe culture is very much in line with Jesus’ teaching on love. Even in religious practices, the sense of love as understood in our culture is never abandoned. Hence, religious affiliations do not necessarily determine the recipients of our love. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe?

170  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Response: The history of the coming of Catholicism to Ihievbe demonstrates the type of love Jesus teaches. Though the Muslim authorities in Ihievbe under the leadership of the Uko of Ihievbe arrested those Ihievbe people who wanted to become Catholics in the early part of the twentieth century, the early Catholics taught us converts to love everyone just as Jesus had instructed. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Ihievbe people were able to overcome the initial tensions that arose from interreligious marriages. Today, a visible expression of hospitality among the Ihievbe people can be seen in the interreligious marriages. Parents do not stop their children from getting married to members of other religions. Catholics, Muslims, and traditional worshippers were able to dialogue and come to a compromise on the issue of interreligious marriages. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: I do not think that people in Ihievbe make friends based on religious lines. Friendship is just a fundamental human quality that exists across religious lines here in Ihievbe. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: The fact that in Ihievbe we have been able to establish trust and respect for the different religions through engaging one another and dialoging over those issues that may cause tension means that dialogue among members of different religions is possible.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

171

8.2.6   Roman Catholic Respondent Six Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The moral values in Ihievbe culture are very similar to Christ’s examples and teachings, especially love for one another. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: The message of Jesus conditions Catholics in Ihievbe to be receptive of those who are strangers. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: The name of the founder of Ihievbe is Obo. For us when we recall his memory, we recall him as one who is without anger or guile. Hence, his name is Obo hoi muehe, which means, “Obo loves everyone.” This sense of collective memory of peace found in the life of the founder of Ihievbe makes us to be conscious of the demands of hospitality and love expressed toward strangers and among ourselves. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: We, in Ihievbe, do not engage in friendship solely based on religious affiliations. We engage in friendship based on the moral character of the other person. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe?

172  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Response: We have to look for ways of engagement that originate from each particular context. It will be wrong to think that one approach of engagement among the different religions will be suitable to all contexts of interreligious engagement. 8.2.7   Roman Catholic Respondent Seven Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The sense and need for preserving peace in Ihievbe community is instantiated by the life and message of Jesus during his earthly ministry. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: In Ihievbe culture, the sense of neighborliness entails carrying out actual deeds that express love for the other. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Expressing and receiving gestures of hospitality are human qualities that express the goodness of each person. In Ihievbe, during times of crises or joy, we join our brothers and sisters to express our support. The only time we do not participate is when the ceremony specifically involves religious rituals of which only the members of the religion can partake. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: We cannot avoid each other because we live in proximity toward each other.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

173

Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: The best way of engagement is dialogue. This means that all have to learn to respect each other and understand that each religion is relevant. The adherents of the different religions should not forget that their piety is not the only legitimate expression of religiosity. This can be realized through dialogical engagements. 8.2.8   Roman Catholic Respondent Eight Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: Love, as understood in Ihievbe culture, captures the heart of Jesus’ ministry. In Ihievbe, love for one’s neighbor is not restricted to those who are one’s friends; rather, the community expects everyone to maintain the peace by showing concrete expression of love for the other. Jesus’ ministry is about love. His becoming human and dying is a concrete expression of love for the other. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Love of neighbor is all-inclusive, irrespective of one’s religion. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: In my view, hospitality is not very apparent in Ihievbe. We are very suspicious of each other. There is resistance against openness to one another. There are many instances of discrimination here in Ihievbe. If hospitality is to be relevant in Ihievbe, members of the community, irrespective of their religious identities, must learn to love one another and take seriously our cultural values of love and trust of one another. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion?

174  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: My brother is a Muslim and my tenants as well. We love each other irrespective of our religious identities. Friendship can be authentic in interreligious encounters if we are willing to open to one another. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: In Ihievbe, everyone seems to know each other, and this might be part of why there is interreligious harmony. Furthermore, peaceful coexistence among members of different religions can be realized if there is focus on the family and children are taught to appreciate others through the embrace and love of peace. Such a virtue will remain with children who are brought up that way, even in times of disagreements. 8.2.9   Roman Catholic Respondent Nine Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: In Ihievbe, there is a sense of reaching out to the other. Acts of friendship in Ihievbe involve reaching out to a friend in need, irrespective of their religious affiliations. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves. This means that I should be present to them in times of joy or sorrow. I believe we are worshiping the same God, but in different ways. My encounters with Muslims have helped me to appreciate them and their religion. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions?

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

175

Response: In Ihievbe, when we receive visitors, we show our love for them by offering them kola nut and sharing a meal. In Ihievbe, we have common celebrations together among ourselves. There is a law in Ihievbe that mandates everyone to support each other irrespective of their religious affiliations. The elders in Ihievbe came up with this law to foster harmony in the town. The only time one can excuse oneself from such an obligation is when an event expressly involves religious rituals that only members of a particular religion can partake in; otherwise, we partake in the religious celebrations of the different religions. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: I believe that each person has a right to express his religious convictions as far as those convictions do not threaten the social harmony. I belong to secular organizations here in Ihievbe, and during our meetings, we invite members of the different religions to lead the opening and closing prayers. We do not discriminate against those who do not share in our religious beliefs. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Members of the different religions need to reflect seriously on their religions and take seriously the commitment to peace. 8.2.10   Roman Catholic Respondent Ten Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The practice of Ugoghon Festival in Ihievbe is a visible expression of love in the culture. This festival reminds one of the mission of Jesus. This celebration involves the celebration of life, community, friendship, and peace. These values are also those preached by Jesus. During the celebration of this festival, all religious barriers or doctrinal differences that promote hatred are forgotten and the people focus more on their cultural unity.

176  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: In Ihievbe, the role of the family is very central in uniting the people. The notion of family gathering together to solve problems is reflected in the message of Jesus. The sense of family in Ihievbe extends to members of other religions. Again, the celebration of Ugoghon Festival helps to foster unity here in Ihievbe. It is the celebration of life. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: In Ihievbe, we take hospitality seriously. The stranger is welcomed and supported by the host. There is a proverb in Ihievbe, otuo aruo agbon yeh, meaning that, from generation to generation, one always looks up to another for guidance. This proverb demonstrates our relational existence, and awareness of this ought to lead to appreciation of other people and foster peaceful coexistence. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: Friendship entails going closer to another. It is a deliberate attempt to engage another person and develop a relationship of truthfulness. There is a Muslim here in Ihievbe who is very friendly with our Catholic community. He comes to all our celebrations and he is a point of contact between the Muslim community and us Catholics. Over the years, there has been a noticeable transformation of his perception of the Catholic Church since our friendship with him began.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

177

Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Christians should be conscious of what builds or destroys community. We should build bonds of unity and respect for one another. Religious fanaticism always leads to violence. 8.2.11   Roman Catholic Respondent Eleven Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The role and presence of ancestors in Ihievbe culture reflect the role of Jesus today in the Christian community. Ancestors are the custodians of the moral code. Jesus is the Christian ancestor. His teaching reflects the moral code to be followed by his followers. One fundamental code of communal identity in Ihievbe, as preserved in the ancestral heritage, is the demand for peace with everyone. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: The celebration of Ugoghon Festival in Ihievbe is a demonstration of love for one’s neighbor. This celebration demonstrates communal love, which reflects the teachings of Jesus. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Among the Ihievbe people, welcoming a stranger as a guest is fundamental. I am not from Ihievbe but married to an Ihievbe man and have been living here in Ihievbe for the past thirty years. It is the way I was received by the people that made me comfortable and I regard this town as my home. The love within the culture is manifested during the different religious and secular celebrations of the people of Ihievbe.

178  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: Friendship is established through mutual determination to engage each other. The Catholics in Ihievbe demonstrate their love for members of other religions through practical gestures of love and charity. Sometimes such gestures have led to conversion to the Catholic Church. Jesus’ love of those he met teaches us Catholics how to love those we encounter. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Love of God ought to lead to a love of neighbor and an embrace of peaceful coexistence. 8.2.12   Roman Catholic Respondent Twelve Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The intermediary role of ancestors in helping one to navigate the moral code is synonymous with the role Jesus plays in the life of a Christian. The reverence of the ancestors in Ihievbe transcends religious affiliations. However, the role of Jesus is concrete. His ministry transcends religious affiliations that create notions of religious classism as seen today in the teachings of many religions as they themselves describe members of other religions. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors and demonstrate this love through concrete acts. In Ihievbe culture, there are similar norms that guide us to have universal love for everyone.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

179

Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Here in Ihievbe, hospitality is central to who we are as a people. From ancient times, we have always welcomed visitors and demonstrated such reception of the stranger through the offering of shelter and meals to the visitor. In Ihievbe language, the word for hospitality is Urlenyerle, which means, “living in harmony” (In Ihievbe language, many words can express the same idea with the aim of broadening the nuances surrounding the idea. Ihumeke and Urlenyerle both refer to hospitality. The former expresses a broader understanding of hospitality, in that it highlights the importance of hospitality in the life of the community. The latter simply refers to hospitality as a means of building harmony). Harmonious living is a collective expectation and not reserved only to one’s friends. Many Christians engage in works of charity by visiting the sick in the town to pray with them irrespective of their religions. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: From my observation, the young people in Ihievbe relate with each other irrespective of their religious identities. In Ihievbe, through Ugoghon Festival, youths become lifelong friends and do not allow religion to divide them. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Everyone should learn to tolerate one another. Christians and members of other religions ought to take seriously the fact that we are all serving the same God. This awareness can eradicate religious violence and discriminations.

180  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

8.2.13   Roman Catholic Respondent Thirteen Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: Love for one another as taught by the ancestors can describe the role of Jesus in one’s life. Jesus taught his followers to love one another and demanded that this become the defining factor that shapes the Christian identity. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: The story of the Good Samaritan demonstrates how Christians are to love their neighbors. This story also summarizes Jesus’ teaching on love of neighbor. Love of neighbor is not discriminatory. It includes members of other religions. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: In Ihievbe, hospitality transcends any form of discrimination. The word for hospitality in Ihievbe is ihumeke or urlenyerle. These words refer to the total openness of one’s heart to the stranger who is welcomed as a guest. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: In Ihievbe language, the word for a friend is omome. A friend is one I can open up to and with whom I can share my strengths and weaknesses. It will be a great disadvantage on one’s part to limit friendship only to those who share one’s religious beliefs.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

181

Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: There is no need to fight each other because of religious differences. The totality of human relationships cannot be limited to religion. We can have religious differences and still engage in harmonious encounters. 8.2.14   Roman Catholic Respondent Fourteen Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The celebration of the Ugoghon Festival among the Ihievbe people reflects the spirit of Jesus. The demands of this celebration entail concrete expressions of love and unity among the people. In the ministry of Jesus, love for the other, even when the other is regarded by popular religious opinions to be a stranger, transcends any form of religious discrimination. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: The norms inherited from the ancestors encourage unity and love. These norms facilitate peaceful encounters among Ihievbe people. Love of Jesus is not complete unless it is also expressed toward one’s neighbors. Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: Hospitality involves being there for another person. The Catholic community in Ihievbe ought to demonstrate this gesture of hospitality by being there for those in need. It is a common practice in the Catholic community to engage members of other religions, especially in times of need.

182  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: In friendship, an existential bond manifests itself in the choices made and the intention of goodwill towards one another. Empirically, the Catholic community in Ihievbe is actively involved in establishing filial bonds with members of other religions. Effort is made to know the religious other and engage her/him in relationships of trust and respect. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: There needs to be a conscious effort to demonstrate the point that the different religions have the same purpose: to better the human condition. When this point is understood, religious violence and discrimination will be reduced. 8.2.15   Roman Catholic Respondent Fifteen Question 1: What in your culture can best describe the person and role of Jesus in your life? Response: The story surrounding the founding of Ihievbe reflects a sense of coexistence that is similar to the Christian commitment to the message of peace and love as taught by Jesus Christ. Question 2: From your understanding of who Jesus is, what does he say about your neighbor? a. Does this include Muslims and the followers of Ihievbe Traditional Religion living in Ihievbe? Response: Jesus’ ministry was about establishing bonds of friendship and he went against his context to engage people from other cultures and traditions. This ought to be the example for Catholics here in Ihievbe. It is a human quality to establish bonds of love. This means that no one should discriminate against others based on her/his religious beliefs.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

183

Question 3: How is hospitality practiced in Ihievbe culture? a. How can this be used by your faith community in your encounters with members of other religions? Response: There are many people living in Ihievbe who moved here a long time ago and have made their home here. This demonstrates our spirit of love and appreciation of strangers. Question 4: How can friendship, as understood in your culture and in Christianity, be a way of relating with Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion? a. How do you and the Catholic community use friendship to relate with and engage Muslims and members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion in interreligious dialogue? Response: Friendship can become a bond of unity between members of different religions. Here in Ihievbe, members of the Catholic community always mourn with members of other religions when they lose their loved ones. Question 5: What other ways do you think Catholics/Christians can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: In Nigeria, there have never, in recent history, been tensions between Muslims and traditional worshippers or between Christians and traditional worshippers. The tension has always been between Muslims and Christians, which means that the problem is linked to unhealthy competition between these two religions. Effort has to be made to engage each other and understand that part of being faithful to one’s religion is being able to live harmoniously with members of other religions. One can deduce, from the responses of the interviewees, a strong awareness of the role love plays in fostering dialogue among religions. Many of them attest to the role love plays in their culture. This view is much in line with their cultural narrative that stresses love of neighbor as a concrete way of living according to the expectations of their ancestors. It is important to engage the responses of the third and eight interviewees especially the opinions that state that hospitality as practiced in the town is conditioned by reciprocal expectations and falls short of the practice and teachings of Jesus and the view that citizens of the town have to work toward learning how to trust each other so that hospitality

184  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

can be truly practiced. The observations of these interviewees must be taken seriously because should hospitality fall under the realm of expectation, it will become simply a contractual exchange of goods and services. Hospitality, if it is truly to become a dialogical model, ought to be driven by a desire to be there for the other without expectations and without distrust. The process of encountering the other in hospitality can be rewarding even without expectation because it signifies a faithful response to God’s invitation to engage made manifest through the presence of the other one engages. It also reflects a strong sense of trust of God and of the other being encountered. Not to trust the other in interreligious encounter is also not to trust God as being able to make possible the encounter. The foundation of any religion is trust and faith in God as the source of the message being taught by the religion. It also entails loving and trusting one’s neighbors as images of the divine. Most of the responses above attest to Ihievbe’s cultural sense of unity as a source of social peace and harmony. This understanding can serve as a necessary ingredient for sustaining harmony among the religions. As the fourth respondent noted, their cultural unity can be said to be the source of their social unity. Their cultural unity transcends their religious differences. As noted in a previous chapter, one can equate religion to culture. If this view is acceptable, then the unity found in culture ought also to be reflected in the religions. Religions by their very nature ought to sustain unity and harmony in society. When religion becomes a source of disunity, I would suggest that such a religion has stopped being a witness to God’s love for humans. This ought to be the challenge of all religions. It is a source of awakening for the adherents of the religions to engage their traditions and critique those aspects that foster disunity and violence. It is important to take seriously the initial teachings of the founders of the religions. As stated by the sixth respondent, the collective memory of their ancestor(s) leads the community to embrace everyone. This view is at the heart of Ihievbe Traditional Religion. The life of their ancestors serves as the foundation of their moral code. For Christians and Muslims, a return to the essential teachings and practices of the founders ought to be the foundation of their approach to relating with people of other faiths. The practices of Jesus and the Prophet Mohammed have been presented in this study and they show lives of relationality that go beyond the boundaries of doctrinal restrictions that have become the identity of many Christian churches and Muslim denominations in contemporary society.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

185

Dialogue, as noted by the sixth respondent, has helped to foster harmony among the members of the religions present in the town. This observation is very much in line with the argument for dialogue as necessary for religions to foster peace in this study. Dialogue leads the participants to new discoveries about who they are as faith persons, and to a broader knowledge on one’s religion as well as helping to dispel old biases against other religions. As noted by many of the interviewees, the place of friendship as a cultural marker in the community is undisputable. The community’s celebration of friendship as part of their heritage during the Ugoghon Festival ought to be taken seriously to show that cultural practices can help foster dialogue among religions. The celebration of friendship is a celebration of a gift from God. The community, as noted by one of the interviewees, acclaims this gift and other cultural heritages as gifts received from the ancestors who serve in turn as messengers of the deities to the community. The elevation of friendship to this status makes it a noble virtue to possess for members of the community. This ought to be the case among Christians and Muslims. Earlier on in this work, both the foundations of friendship and hospitality in the Bible and the Quran were explored to show that these virtues originate from God and can help lead us back to God when we use them to engage other religions. This seems to be the case as well in Ihievbe Traditional Religion that has shaped and defined the culture of the people of Ihievbe.

8.3  Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Muslims in Ihievbe Town By administering these survey questions to the members of the Muslim community, the intent is to explore the place of hospitality and friendship in this community’s dealings with members of other religions. Since hospitality and friendship involve relational encounters with others, it will not be a complete project to focus solely on the Roman Catholic community and fail to engage the other religious communities. One hundred members from the Muslim community in Ihievbe town were administered the questionnaire. The respondents were instructed to choose the best of the three options to each question asked. The results of the survey administered to the Muslim community in Ihievbe reveal some key facts worth reflecting upon if one is to understand the inner

186  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

dynamics operative in the community. The first question aims to determine how much the respondents have been able to engage their culture from the perspective of their religious identity as practicing Muslims. The responses of the respondents reflect a total rejection of the view that depicts their culture as evil. It is important to understand how the religious person views her/his culture in relation to the religion she/he identifies with. By having a positive approach to culture, one can appreciate an attempt to revive some cultural values that may be needed to establish religious tolerance. It would be difficult to use cultural values to promote religious tolerance where the culture is regarded as a negative influence in the lives of religious persons. Furthermore, in many parts of the world, especially in Nigeria, culture plays an important role in shaping the worldview of people even when they identify with a particular religion. By demonstrating a positive attitude toward culture, one can see the positive role cultural values play toward religious tolerance. Of the one hundred participants, fifty-four percent stated that their fidelity to Islam is possible because of Ihievbe culture. They do not see a contradiction between their culture and Islam. However, this does not mean that there is no distinction between Ihievbe culture and Islam; rather, they see their culture as a means through which God invites them to embrace the religion of peace. Peaceful coexistence as a cultural identity-marker among the Ihievbe people is an important marker of their cultural worldview. It is no wonder then that many of the respondents are able to reconcile their culture with Islam. Furthermore, forty-six percent of the respondents surveyed stated that there has been a positive adaptation of the culture in relation to the trends of globalization, thus making the culture compatible with the practice of Islam. It should be pointed out that a serious attempt was made by the early Muslim evangelizers to create an Islamic society and culture among the Ihievbe people. There was a visible resistance to this attempt. However, over time, there has been acculturation on both sides. Islamic practices among the Ihievbe people reflect some cultural practices that have been adapted. On the other side, many cultural practices reflect adaptation of Islamic practices. A concrete example is the introduction of the wearing of a turban as the cultural dress code which reflects an adaptation of the Islamic turban wearing. Some of the Roman Catholics interviewed made the same observation. One specifically stated that Muslims in Ihievbe are sometimes regarded as too liberal by their counterparts in Northern Nigeria because of their adoption

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

187

of the cultural practices in Ihievbe. However, one must not pretend that a religion can have any relevance in society by alienating itself from the culture. That Islam is relevant today in the twenty-first century, even though it originated in Arabia in the seventh century, shows that Islam is constantly updating itself and, religiously speaking, demonstrates the fact that God’s gift to humanity is always new and ever-present. Even though the tenets of Islam originate from the seventh century in a foreign land and culture, they are relevant and play important roles in defining the identity of Muslims in Ihievbe and engagement in their culture. The second question in the survey is aimed at understanding the Muslim community’s view on salvation and to what extent this reflects on their relations with non-Muslims. A restrictive understanding of God’s dealings with humanity in general is to argue for salvation only within one’s religious heritage, forgetting that the freedom of God is such that it can initiate salvation in other cultures and religions while at the same time inviting followers of a particular religion to engage him in a deeper relationship. A Muslim’s exclusive understanding of salvation is as dangerous and harmful to the well-being of society as that of a Christian. Among the respondents surveyed, none demonstrated an exclusive view of salvation. Salvation is not understood by them as reserved only to Muslims. Even though only thirty-three percent of the respondents chose the option that presented a more humanistic approach to salvation, which opens salvation to those who are ethical without any adherence to a particular religion, sixty-seven percent of the respondents view salvation as open to members of other religions who follow their religions faithfully. This response seems to demonstrate the Muslim community’s appreciation of the religious other who engages God in a different way. It is an Islamic belief that the revealed religions originate from the prophetic witnesses of the founders to God’s expectations of humanity. There are many instances of this belief in the Quran: in the early dealings of Mohammed with the Christian and Muslim communities of his time, respect and reverence for these religions was demonstrated. To become a Muslim, one must submit to Allah and declare that Mohammed is God’s prophet. Though certain Muslims have interpreted conversion to Islam as a mandated requirement for all non-Muslims, the oldest Islamic traditions and practices do not support such a mind-set. A pragmatic approach to relating with non-Muslims was adopted by

188  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

the Prophet Mohammed, who implemented the practice of jizya. Even though this practice originated among some of the Arabian tribes, the Prophet adopted it as a way of relating with the religious other in the context of an Islamic state. Jizya entails the taxation of non-Muslims living in a Muslim state and was to be understood as a way of submission to Allah even though the non-Muslims were allowed to continue their religious practices. In the beginning, Muslim states required this form of taxation from Jews and Christians whom they conquered. However, later on, other Muslim rulers extended the courtesy to members of other religions. In Nigeria during the early stages of the founding of the Sokoto Caliphate, this practice of jizya was employed in relation to the worshippers of the indigenous religions (Iwuchukwu 2013, 7–8). It is worth noting that Iwuchukwu points to other reasons that influenced this practice in the caliphate; one of them had to do with the sense of ethnic superiority by the Hausa-Fulani jihadists in relation to the other ethnic groups they had conquered. The common practice was to restrict the payment of the tax only to adult males. Women, children, monks, and religious persons were exempted from such taxations. Though this type of taxation was intended to reflect some form of ideological acceptance of Islam by non-Muslims, it was most often understood as equivalent to the usual taxation expected of subjects under the protection of the state (For the treatment of the practice of Jizya and the emerging relational engagement of Muslims and Christians in the Islamic states during the early era of Islam, see Pratt 2005, 101–118). Even though this approach eventually led to the creation of societies where non-Muslims were regarded as second-class citizens, it created the possibility for Muslims and non-Muslims to live side-by-side in many pluralistic societies. Unfortunately, such openness to the religious other is fast disappearing due to a strict fundamentalist attitude by some Muslims who have a selective attitude toward their rich heritage. The history of Christianity and Islam in Europe and the Ottoman Empire, as well as in some parts of Asia and North Africa, shows how transforming encounters occurred through this practice, and long-lasting friendships were formed. The history of Spain is a clear example. The relationship of Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the Muslim Kingdom of Granada in southern Spain demonstrates the possibility of mutual harmony in a religiously pluralistic society (For a detailed treatment on the interreligious relationship among Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Spain during

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

189

the Medieval period see Lowney 2005). The revival of learning and the introduction of Greek philosophy were made possible by the encounters among Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The revolutions of architecture, medicine, and the arts were made possible by the relational engagements of people of different religions and cultures. The advancement of human society can only be possible when there is room for respect and appreciation of the other. The survival of a religion and, most especially, its relevance in society is judged by its openness to otherness. When a religion is not open to those outside of its fold, it ends up becoming a secretive cult and reserved to the few. The appeal of Islam to many Muslims and non-Muslims is its ability to engage the sacred and the secular. Conversion to Islam in many societies is made possible by the engaging ability of Islam to address the experiences of the converts. The interreligious encounters present in Africa attest to how Islam has been able to engage and accept religious diversities. As noted by Lamin Sanneh: The interdependence between Muslims and non-Muslims in many African Societies suggests that neither side requires the disintegration of the other as a precondition of its existence. The non-Muslim Hausa, called Maguzawa, adopt Islamic religious terminology in describing their worldview without feeling that they require the baptism that Islam has long promised them. Conversely, pioneer Muslim clerics have, with equal lack of inhibition, assumed the religious language and methods of traditional diviners and shrine attendants without relinquishing their specific Islamic identity. (Sanneh 1997, 25).

The third question in the survey is aimed at exploring the Muslim community’s understanding of the place of interreligious dialogue in Islam. While the present realities in our world today may lead people to conclude that dialogue is alien to Islam, the fact remains that Islam has always embraced dialogue as a way of advancing knowledge of God’s will for Muslims. The belligerent fundamentalist Islamic sects that have sprung up in many parts of the world seem to distort the benign attitude Islam has toward religious pluralism. Islam, in the eyes of millions of non-Muslims, is being reduced to these puritanistic and nationalistic sects. Moderate Muslims must make effort to redeem their history and religion from the clout of these sects. The beauty of Islamic history is

190  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

in its rich examples of dialogical encounters among Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars. These engagements led to the flourishing of knowledge and an enrichment of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Affirming the place of dialogue in Islam, all the respondents surveyed agree that dialogue with other religions is an important part of Islamic identity. Such a response negates any attempt to view the community as an exclusive one. Unfortunately, such openness has not always been demonstrated by all Muslims in Nigeria. The same reality can also be found among Christians in Nigeria. Just as some Christians advocate dialogue with members of other religions, a noticeable number of Christians sometimes advocate an exclusivist approach to other religions. Religious violence has come to shape the Christian-Muslim encounters in many parts of Nigeria (see Iwuchukwu 3–37). Again, thirty-five percent of those surveyed understand interreligious dialogue to be part of the process of discerning God’s will for Muslims. Of the hundred Muslims surveyed, sixty-four percent agree with this view. However, only one percent of the respondents disagree. The fourth question in the survey is aimed at understanding the purpose of engaging in interreligious dialogue by Muslims. The authenticity needed in dialogical engagement is threatened when the reason for such an engagement emanates from a desire to proselytize. For dialogue to effectively lead to appreciation of the religious other, an expectation of honesty and respect of the religious views of all engaged in the dialogue must be a primary condition. The members of the Muslim community in Ihievbe, through their responses to this fourth question, seem to demonstrate a healthy approach when it comes to their understanding of the purpose for interreligious dialogue. Only one percent consider interreligious dialogue as diluting their Islamic faith. Fifty-one percent of the respondents surveyed understand the purpose for interreligious dialogue as including a way religious women and men can have a deeper appreciation of both their own religions and other religions they encounter in their communities. Importantly, forty-eight percent of the respondents surveyed also consider interreligious dialogue to be a way of discerning God’s will for the Muslim community, as well as other religious communities. Such an attitude is fundamental if interreligious dialogue is to have a productive outcome. When the members of a religious tradition see the relevance of engaging members of other religions and embrace them as friends and

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

191

neighbors, everyone ends up benefiting. I should point out, though, that it is not enough to have a friendly disposition toward other religions without engaging in concrete actions that foster engagement. The next questions are aimed at understanding how friendship and hospitality can be concretized in positive attitudes toward other religions in the context of the Muslim community’s engagements with members of other religions in Ihievbe. The responses to the fifth question reveal, repeatedly, a sense of openness on the part of the respondents to the need for constructing healthy interreligious engagements. Seventy-five percent of the respondents consider interreligious friendship to be part of the rich heritage handed down from Mohammed, a relevant point when one studies the strategic alliances engaged in by Mohammed in his attempt to secure a place for his followers who were expelled from Mecca. Two points are worth noting; the first has to do with the fact that Islam was never presented as an isolated religion. The early Muslim scholars engaged the societies of their time and appropriated Greek philosophical traditions— as well as Jewish scholarly writings and the Jewish prophetic tradition— to enrich their own religious thought process. This engagement with Jews and their intellectual tradition came to be known as Isra’iliyyat (see Nettler 1998, 3. See also Pratt 126–127). Through these open engagements with Judaism and Christianity, a form of demystification and appreciation for the religious other became part of the rich heritage of Islam. The second point has to do with a pragmatic awareness of the importance of engagement with other religions. Multiple examples abound, showing how pragmatism enhanced interreligious engagement. In 1076 CE, Pope Gregory, as noted by Pratt, wrote a letter to al-Nazir, who had requested a Bishop be sent to the Christian community in his domain. Though he was a Muslim, he saw the need to engage the Christian communities and help them in their time of need. This moment became an opportunity for textual friendship to exist between this Muslim leader and the Roman pontiff. In their correspondences, a sense of reverence for each other’s faith and the need to affirm the other blossomed (Pratt 109). This sense of openness is reflected in the responses of the respondents. Twenty-five percent of the respondents recognize the role of friendship as a human virtue that facilitates a healthy coexistence.

192  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

The final question in the survey administered to the Muslim community attempts to understand the place of hospitality in fostering interreligious dialogue. Again, none of those surveyed accept the idea that hospitality is not part of the Islamic heritage. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed consider hospitality as helpful in discerning God’s will for the Muslim community, and from an experiential point of view, twenty-five percent of those surveyed attest to the fact that hospitality has been a productive virtue among them as they engage members of other religions in Ihievbe. The practice of zakat (cleansing) or sadaqah (righteousness) among the Muslims in Ihievbe, as part of the five pillars of Islam, is worth noting. Islam’s obligation to practice almsgiving, both as a legal obligation and as a moral expectation, demonstrates a concrete sense of hospitality. In Islamic legal code (Sharia), Muslims are required to give alms and perform works of charity without any form of discrimination. Strangers and non-Muslims are recipients of such works of charity. This practice, among the Ihievbe Muslims, extends to Christians and traditional worshippers in the town. During the month of Ramadan, which commemorates a time of fasting and purification, Muslims perform noticeable acts of love for those in need in the community. Also, during Eid Al-Fitr, the celebration to mark the end of Ramadan, Muslims cook and give gifts to their neighbors and friends. The poor are fed from the food prepared to celebrate the feast. Prayers for harmony and peace in the community are offered at the Mosque. Ramadan is a time of unity and peace in Islam, a period of individual and collective purification. By praying and fasting, a Muslim is invited to reflect more on the gifts of God to humanity as present in peaceful coexistence and harmony (Yosef 2008). Again, while zakat is a required contribution by Muslims of a part of their wealth to support the charitable causes of Islam, sadaqah is expected of Muslims as a gesture of piety and gratitude to God for their lives and to support the poor in their midst (see a brief explanation of Zakat in Pratt 85). A good Muslim is encouraged to constantly perform works of charity (sadaqah), believing that such acts will be rewarded by God, who makes it possible for them to possess the ability to perform these deeds. The stranger is welcomed and appreciated as God’s gift to the Muslim community.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

193

8.4  Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Muslims in Ihievbe Town For the actual interview of the representative members of the Muslim community, the community’s leader decided that I should engage them during their Friday communal prayers. We chose this pragmatic approach because, due to the nature of their respective occupations, it was almost impossible to meet with the members on an individual basis. When I asked for the whereabouts of the female members, I was told that they had gone home to prepare meals for their families as the male members of the community engaged in Qur’anic studies after their communal prayers. To encourage full participation and to be faithful to the guidelines for the number of those to be interviewed, I asked that first, only fifteen members of the community should participate in the interviews and second, that each question asked by me be reflected upon individually and their responses be given individually. Since each person heard the responses of the other persons present, I choose to present a summary of their responses to each question asked. There were thirty-five adult males at the mosque but only fifteen of them participated in the oral interviews. Question One: What does Islam teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Christians/Catholics living in Ihievbe? Responses: Islam teaches about social harmony by reminding those who profess the religion to take seriously the laws of respect for the other, for those older than one, for those less fortunate, the sick, and those in need. In Ihievbe town, Muslims have a practice of visiting their sick neighbors, irrespective of their religious affiliations, and providing for their needs. This is a core teaching in Islam. By caring for one’s neighbors, a Muslim aims to please God who is all-merciful. Though God is transcendent, an encounter with one’s neighbor is an encounter with God. This sacred presence of God through the neighbor inspires Muslims to take seriously the corporal works of mercy. A Muslim cannot justify her/his devotion to God without participating in these works of mercy toward the neighbor. The common link of all humanity to Adam makes all forms of discrimination contradictory to the design of God for humanity; hence, Muslims have a tradition of seeing every person as deserving of God’s mercies. In Ihievbe town, Muslims take seriously this teaching in their interactions with non-Muslims.

194  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

*Note: The strong sense of hospitality in Islam shown toward visitors or those who do not profess Islam was reflected in the story narrated by one of the interviewees concerning the life of Prophet Mohammed. The Prophet once received a visitor when his family did not have enough food, and rather than not show hospitality toward the visitor, he decided to allow his family members to spend the night hungry in order to provide food for his visitor. The narrator stated that this story demonstrates the sacredness of hospitality in the lives and practices of Muslims in Ihievbe. Question Two: How does hospitality in Islam and in Ihievbe culture shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: Islam does not teach Muslims to prejudge a stranger who comes to the house of a Muslim; rather, Islam teaches Muslims to welcome the visitor with open hands and show her/him love and care. By doing this, a Muslim demonstrates her/his own total trust in God who has revealed the way of righteousness to humanity through the Prophet Mohammed. In Ihievbe culture, when a visitor is received, the needs of the stranger must be taken care of as much as the host can afford. The cultural assumption is that the stranger is the bearer of blessings that are needed to continue the harmonious existence of the community in general, and the host’s family in particular. This generous attitude toward the stranger, visitor, or neighbor in Ihievbe culture reflects Islam’s teaching on hospitality, which underscores a Muslim’s recognition of God’s generous gift in creation. Question Three: How does friendship in Islam and in Ihievbe culture shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: There is a limit to friendship. Friendship should be limited to those one intends to convert to Islam. Conversion is a form of jihad and is a way a Muslim participates in God’s work (This view is shared by three of those interviewed). Friendship cuts across religious affiliations and cannot be limited to fellow Muslims (This view is shared by the other twelve respondents). In Ihievbe town, the cultural heritage from the ancestors puts emphasis on establishing and nourishing relationships. The stories of the founding of this town show that hospitality and friendship between Ọbo and his hosts led to his being able to journey to this land and make this place his home. Ihievbe people hold sacred the duty of being hospitable and friendly toward those whom they encounter and/or those who share this land with them.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

195

Question Four: How have you as a Muslim related with Christians/ Catholics in your community? Responses: In Ihievbe town, there is a common understanding to respect each other’s religions. Muslims believe that dialogue is essential in showing the relevance of their Islamic faith. Rather than engage in religious violence, Muslims in Ihievbe engage in dialogue. The Christians and traditional worshippers also encourage dialogue. All the religions present in this town and in Afuze have meetings sometimes in Afuze where they meet to discuss their different faiths. Question Five: What other way do you think Muslims can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Responses: Violence must be rejected by all people of faith. Islam, like other religions, is a religion of peace. Muslims must take this seriously. In Ihievbe town, conversion to Islam is fostered through dialogue. Also, ethnic unity has a stronger bond than the divisions that originate from religious differences. In Islam, the Prophet Mohammed lived an exemplary life. His life in Medina was characterized by his openness and willingness to live with people of other religions. This should be the example for all Muslims, both in Nigeria and in other lands. The sacredness of life must be respected. In many societies in Nigeria, it seems that violence is always against strangers. It is important for these societies to revive both the Islamic and their respective cultural teachings on how to engage and treat strangers. The interconnectedness between the practice of Islam and the traditional religions about which Sanneh speaks concerning West Africa is very much at play in the responses of those interviewed (Sanneh 25). Many of them draw a connection between their culture and their religious tradition. They emphasized the role and place of their cultural ancestor(s) as justifying their Islamic belief. This justifies the claim that was made earlier on that religions ought to engage the cultures where they are located and embrace those cultural practices that encourage harmony and social peace. One of the responses to the question on the role friendship can play in fostering dialogue among religions expresses an exclusivist view. The response equates friendship to a form of jihad and states that friendship should be for the purpose of conversion. This view needs to be critiqued adequately and for the sake of orthodoxy, the examples in the

196  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

life of the Prophet Mohammed that show the practice of interreligious friendship ought to be reclaimed so that Muslims who hold this exclusivist view can understand to engage in interreligious friendship is very much in line with the Islamic teaching. As noted by Zeki Saritoprak, the importance of interreligious friendship in Islam cannot be trivialized in any way. The story of the relationship that existed between the Prophet Mohammed and the Negus of Ethiopia demonstrates the relevance of interreligious friendship in Islam. Saritoprak also notes that the Prophet Mohammed received part of the Quran during the unfolding of this event as a testament to divine approval of the actions of the Negus of Ethiopia and to consolidate the friendship that was to exist between himself and the Negus of Ethiopia (Saritoprak 2013, 246. For the Qur’anic verse being alluded to see Qur’an 5:83). Even in death the friendship endured. Prophet Mohammed, as noted by Saritoprak, performed a funeral in absentia for the Negus of Ethiopia whom Islamic texts refer to as Najashi (Saritoprak 246). Again, Saritoprak informs us that this friendship between the prophet and the king has remained in the consciousness of Muslims, leading Turkish Muslims to establish a school in Addis Ababa in 2003 for educating Christians and Muslims (ibid.). This experience of hospitality by the followers of the Prophet of Mohammed and the interreligious friendship that resulted from it between the prophet and the king shaped the Islamic legal code concerning relations with Christians and Muslims. As noted by Saritoprak, “the rights of the People of the Book are guaranteed by the Prophet of Islam himself. Any transgression against the rights of Jews and Christians is counted as a violation against the message of the Prophet” (249. For a detailed treatment of the Islamic legal code concerning Christians and Muslims, see Ibn Qayyim 1997). However noble these accounts are the current reality in many parts of the world is the feeling of revolution going on in Islam perpetuated by fundamentalists who refuse to engage their tradition objectively. Rather, they are motivated by many forces including the historical tensions that have existed between Christians and Muslims in the past. These forces in Islam can be engaged through a deliberate and patient engagement with the rich heritage on interreligious hospitality and friendship in Islam while hoping that their hearts will be changed when they realize that the source of their faith advocates peace and harmony in society.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

197

8.5  Reflection and Analysis of the Survey Questions and Responses for Traditional Religionists in Ihievbe Town Albeit much has been written about some indigenous religions in different parts of Nigeria, there is a lack of written material on many of the indigenous religions in the smaller towns and cultures in Nigeria. Ethnographic and religious studies have been limited to the major cultures in the country, and sometimes, gross generalizations have been made concerning these little-known cultures. Ihievbe culture is one of those little-known cultures. Much of the research on the peoples and cultures of the northern region of Edo State has been done either within the context of the Benin culture and kingdom or under the Yoruba cultures and kingdoms. However, in spite of the scarcity of written works, one can make some assumptions on the African religiosity that is shared by most cultures and peoples in the African continent. The responses of those surveyed and interviewed who profess the indigenous religion in Ihievbe affirm the assumption that many African cultures are saturated with a sense of the sacred. Ihievbe Traditional Religion, like many other indigenous religions in Nigeria, is without written texts, and belief systems and practices are passed on orally. Though there are priests of the religion, who are believed to be chosen by the respective deities, each follower of the religion has personal religious obligations. Adherents perform daily rituals and sacrifices believed to maintain relational harmony with the deities, as well as with others in the community. There are different shrines erected to the different deities who, though they have infinite powers, are creatures that themselves inhabit the spiritual world created by the almighty God, Oghena. However, there is no shrine erected to Oghena. Adherents believe that devotion to the head of the deities is affirmed through ritual worship of the lesser deities and living morally upright lives. Adherents also possess receptivity concerning other religions or divinities. The community is willing to learn about and embrace a new deity or divinity without any previous form of historical connection to their religious traditions. The community’s acceptance of a foreign deity, Akakamiya, who is worshipped by the people of Akoko-Edo in northern Edo State and whose shrine is erected in the village of Otua, is a recent

198  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

example of this receptivity. Belief in witchcraft is commonly held by the people of Ihievbe. For example, ill-luck in business ventures and bad harvests are believed to be caused by witches and wizards who place a spell on their victims. By adopting this deity, the adherents of the indigenous religion believe they can overcome such negative outcomes in their lives. The different deities have their respective shrines and priests. The priests of these respective deities are men, and some of the deities have feminine qualities. This feminine identity of many of the deities reflects the community’s belief in fecundity as one of the highest blessings from Oghena, who preserves, sustains, and continues the existence of the community. Fecundity is understood to include not only the numerical increase of the town’s citizens, but also the wealth of the members of the community. A rich harvest, the multiplication of domesticated livestock, and even academic successes are viewed as part of the gift of fecundity. The receptive attitude of the followers of the indigenous religions seems to have influenced the community’s attitude toward the major religions in the town. During our interviews, there was no mention of violence motivated by their desire to resist both the Christian and Muslim presence in the town; rather, these religions were seen as legitimate means of encountering God. Among many indigenous religions in Nigeria, there is a close link between the cultural worldviews and the religions. The religions sometimes serve as the preservers of the cultural ideals, an understandable fact because these religions were the sole faith expressions of the people before the introduction of Christianity and Islam. Engaging the indigenous religion in Ihievbe is aimed at understanding the basis of the town’s interreligious identity. Religious beliefs of the adherents can help one understand the attitude of the people and their cultural approach to religious diversity. The religion is completely indigenous and lacks the cultural, sociological, philosophical, and theological differences that have shaped either Islam or Christianity over the centuries prior to their being introduced to the town. Below are the analyses of the survey questionnaire administered to one hundred adult members of the indigenous religion. The questions are aimed to understand not only the adherents’ attitudes toward the other religions present in their town, but also how their culture influences and shapes their own religious beliefs on the relationship with the religious other. The respondents were required to choose one among three options to each question asked. We operate with the assumption

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

199

that the indigenous religion is one that is essentially relational and tolerant of other religious traditions, this survey is designed to help to prove or disprove it. The results of the survey administered to adherents of the indigenous religion in Ihievbe town reflect a strong approval for engagement with other religions and a positive recognition of such engagements. The first question aims at understanding the psychological self-awareness the adherents of the indigenous religion have of their own culture, considering the historical strategy used by the colonialists and some of the early missionaries in present-day Nigeria who considered the culture of the conquered people second-class and barbaric. The indigenous religions were categorically labeled as idolatrous and of the devil. Many generations of people in Nigeria grew up with the understanding that anything cultural is outdated and inferior to the Western culture and religions. Early Christian missionaries commonly forced the new converts to Christianity to abandon their cultural names and adopt Western Christian names even when such names had no significance to the new Christian identity of the converts. The rich hermeneutics surrounding indigenous cultural names was abandoned and rejected by the missionaries, whose westernizing policies were sometimes in line with those of their secular colonialist partners. Also, the new converts were instructed to abandon everything cultural and embrace the Western way of life. For the Isoko people of southern Nigeria, for example, the missionaries instructed them to throw away all artifacts. Even those that were simply for aesthetic appreciation were included in this injunction, thereby denying the people of their rich cultural heritage (Awolalu 1991, 113) By asking the first question, the intention is to see how deep this self-hating policy promoted by the external agents of westernization has shaped the adherents of this religion. Only six percent of those surveyed consider Ihievbe culture to be of the devil, a term first used by the European Christian missionaries to describe the indigenous cultures and religions. The link between the culture and the indigenous religion in Ihievbe is confirmed by the responses of the surveyees. Ninety-four percent of those surveyed feel that their adherence to the indigenous religion is not possible without their culture. The cultural values and norms reflect also in the values and teachings of the religion. This point is relevant if one is to understand how the entire Ihievbe people have been able to construct a society of tolerance. The culture has a strong emphasis on the sacredness of life and hospitality. Hospitality is a common virtue

200  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

among many of the cultures that make up Benin Kingdom. This fact is attested to by many European explorers who encountered the cultures and peoples of Benin Kingdom prior to the scramble for Africa by many of the European countries with imperialistic ambitions (see Pareira 1937, 135–157; Burton 1863, 273–289; Otoide 2005, 526). These values are reflected also in the indigenous religion, making adherents of this religion to be hospitable to other religions even when agents of those religions may not always reciprocate that hospitality. The second question in the survey aims at understanding the indigenous religion’s teaching on salvation. While Islam and Christianity recognize the infinite freedom of God in determining who will be saved, many theological views from these religions teach that the definitive path to salvation is found in their respective religions. In other words, these religions are considered gifts from God to humanity, who must accept the teachings found in them wholeheartedly and secure their salvation. The Roman Catholic Church has centuries-old teachings that paint the religious other as lacking the salvific elements without explicit acceptance of the church’s teachings, and recognition of its ecclesial structures. Christianity was seen as replacing all other religions before it. This supersessionist attitude is lacking in the Ihievbe Traditional religion because of the religion’s inherent understanding of religious diversity as an expression of God’s manifold blessings. This openness to the religious other and the recognition of God’s universal salvific presence among all religions is reflected in the responses of those surveyed. For ninety-six percent of the respondents, the ethical life is the basis on which humanity will be saved, a response that reflects the respondents’ view that an ethical life is more important than adherence to doctrinal propositions. This point is relevant in order to shift the emphasis on religious identity from mere doctrinal affirmations to the concrete existential living rooted in ethical consciousness present in relational encounters. Intellectualism has often taken precedence over the ethical life. If God is truly viewed as the source and meaning-giver to all religions and their claims to orthodoxy, then emphasis should be focused on the ethical life. The ethical life can and ought to be the basis for authenticating faithfulness to the traditions of any religion. When adherents of a religion fail to be ethical, it is because they have either failed to reflect the teachings of their religions in their lives, or they have stopped reflecting correctly on their respective traditions. This is the case with those instances in human history where religion was used to rationalize

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

201

inhumane treatment of those considered outsiders. Emphasis on the ethical life creates the prophetic witness for a religious tradition to remain faithful to its ideals. The third question in the survey aims at understanding how adherents view interreligious dialogue. Though the religion does not have systematic theologians as in Islam and Christianity, through a very rich source of oral tradition, the adherents are able to articulate a systematic view on how their religion engages dialogue. Rather than have a theological treatise on dialogue, adherents of the religion have an existential approach to dialogue as reflected in how they engage those of other faiths in their communities. This collective understanding of dialogue as encounter with the religious other is tied to their cultural heritage. As will be highlighted below, their ancestral heritage shows a strong emphasis on hospitality and openness toward the other, whether a stranger, a neighbor, or one from another religious tradition. Again, while none of those surveyed view interreligious dialogue as a negative path to follow for members of their religion, eighty-five percent of those surveyed state that interreligious dialogue is part of their religious tradition, which helps to foster communal harmony and peace. Though they did not explain how the connection with their indigenous religion plays out, but one can assume that the social realities faced by a people sandwiched between powerful kingdoms over the centuries meant that they have been able to maintain their cultural and communal survival by specializing in the skills of diplomacy, communication, hospitality, and friendship. Since the indigenous religion is tied to the social life of the community, it is not surprising to find that these skills have been given religious meanings to maintain their significance in sustaining the life of the community. For centuries, there have been systematic redactions of the true meaning of African Indigenous Religions by many Muslim and Christian missionaries, who portray them negatively with the aim of discrediting them and seeking converts from their adherents. In the Nigerian context, there is a psychological rejection of all that these indigenous religions stand for, perpetuated by many Christian missionaries, leading to an inferiority complex on the part of the adherents. Adherents of these religions are viewed as barbaric and “uncultured” by those who have embraced either Islam or Christianity (Awolalu 115). To be cultured has been equated with identifying with the westernized way of life, ethics, and culture. In the nineteenth century, for example, the British colonial governor of

202  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Lagos Colony equated the Ijebu people of western Nigeria to “heathens of the most uncompromising description,” because of their refusal to convert to Christianity and their continued practice of their indigenous religion. He did not stop there. In 1892, he sent troops to the town to engage the Ijebu people in war and force them to accept Christianity (112–113). These indigenous religions have a fundamental role to play in building societies of peace and harmony. In the Ihievbe social context, the indigenous religion has a necessary role to play in guiding the inhabitants of the town to engage their rich heritage as preserved both in the culture and in their religious consciousness. By preserving its link to the founder of the community, the indigenous religion serves as a vital witness to the values and ideals the community is called upon to embrace should they want to continue to affirm the place and role of their ancestors in shaping their destiny as a community that loves and encourages harmonious coexistence. The fourth question has to do with the purpose for interreligious dialogue, and its intention is to determine if the respondents consider dialogue as simply a proselytizing tool or as a tool that consolidates and solidifies the bonds of friendship among the respective religions and their adherents. Only one percent of the respondents views interreligious dialogue as diluting the faith tradition of the indigenous religion. However, ninety-nine percent of those surveyed view interreligious dialogue as serving two roles; one has to do with fostering harmony and the other has to do with understanding one’s religion better through the process of dialogue with the religious other. Through healthy and constructive dialogue, hearts are softened, perspectives are enriched, and negative assumptions are dispelled. By affirming dialogue as part of an attempt to broaden understanding of their own religious tradition, members of this religion dispose themselves to a constructive encounter with other religions. One can garner through the responses a sense that all religions serve important roles both in the lives of their adherents and in the lives of those who share a proximity with their respective members. The responses to the fifth question vary. The question is aimed at understanding how the community views friendship as a dialogical tool among different religions. Interestingly, all those surveyed reject the view that friendship with members of other religions should not be engaged in by their fellow religionists. There is a sense that the members view friendship as a virtue that should be embraced by all religions and

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

203

expressed through concrete encounters among the adherents of the religions. Sixty-one percent of the respondents consider friendship as a virtue encouraged by their religion. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents also affirm the universal nature of friendship as a human virtue that can help foster the building of harmonious societies in the context of religious pluralism. The type of interreligious friendship being advocated in this work involves an openness of the heart devoid of hidden agendas and motives. To engage in such a transformative friendship, the agents must join one another with authentic desire for connection and be ready to allow the engagement to shape and direct the end. The only precondition for such friendship is the ability to understand that the different parties to the friendship are equals and have positive contributions to make to the relationship. The view that aims to use friendship for proselytizing is rooted in the preconceptions of the inadequacies of the other being engaged, either in her human qualities or in her religious traditions. Interreligious friendship begins with the strong assumption that the religious other being engaged has a legitimate claim to her religious tradition, and that the tradition she embraces is and can be salvific for her. The intention is not to prove to her that her religion is inadequate. Dialogue is never the place for such intentions. Most of the interreligious encounters being pushed forward by many religious leaders are simply apologetics for their own religions. While there is a place for apologetics in every religion, interreligious dialogue operates with the grand assumption that all religions, as far as they promote the common good of society, are blessings from God who chooses how He engages the human society. Interreligious dialogue involves taking both an intellectual and existential risk. It involves letting go of centuries-old biases against other religions and trusting in a deeper faith that reflects the common goodness shared by all humanity. The final question in the survey has to do with the place of hospitality as a dialogical tool. Hospitality is a primal condition for any authentic relational encounter. It is the first condition for enduring friendship. By asking the respondents to state the relevance of hospitality in interreligious dialogue, the aim is to see how deep one can judge the community’s interreligious encounters. Hospitality begins with a strong desire to engage the unknown other. It involves responding to the innate human desire to be relational. For religious people, hospitality involves

204  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

a strong belief in God’s guiding grace that invites them to engage those outside their circle. It is going against societal fears of the stranger. Through hospitality, one finds that the other has unique gifts and values which can help enrich one’s own worldview. Four percent of those surveyed do not regard hospitality as a positive means for engagement. Their view reflects a strict understanding of religious exclusivism, which limits salvation only to fellow members of their religious tradition. However, a resounding majority, ninety-five percent of those surveyed, affirm the positive role hospitality has played in their engagement with members of other religions. This view reflects the community’s embrace of hospitality as a viable source for preserving and fostering communal peace. One percent of the respondents consider hospitality as helping the community of believers to engage their ancestral heritage. A link with the ancestors is most often considered as binding on the community, whose well-being and progress is hinged on faithfulness to the moral heritages from the ancestors.

8.6  Reflection and Analysis of the Interview Questions and Responses for Traditional Religionists in Ihievbe Town Fifteen adult members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion were interviewed, and interview questions were constructed in such a way as to have a broader perspective on the nature of interactions between members of this religion and those belonging to other religions. Some of the leaders of the Ihievbe Traditional Religion were among those interviewed. During the course of the interviews, some of the respondents wanted to be interviewed as a group even though the initial plan was to interview each respondent separately. In the presentation of the data below, the collective responses of those interviewed will be presented as such. Though they were interviewed collectively, a deliberate effort was made on the part of the interviewer to encourage all the respondents to contribute their responses even when one opinion reflected the group’s opinion. The responses are paraphrased, an approach adopted due to linguistic differences. Many of the interviewees speak either Ihievbe language only or both Ihievbe language and Pidgin English. I am familiar with both languages. Below are the responses of those interviewed.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

205

8.6.1   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondents One, Two, and Three Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Responses: The celebration of Ugoghon Festival contextualizes the Ihievbe cultural and religious understanding of one’s neighbor and the duties one has toward her. The festival celebrates peace, life, and communal harmony. During communal celebrations, the collective Ihievbe identity transcends other social or religious identities that fracture the communal peace. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, everyone one encounters is considered a divine visitor who bears goodwill both to the host and to the community. This makes hospitality a solemn gesture one must show toward the visitor or neighbor. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Responses: Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches that God is one. The different religions are like dialects of one common language. The different practices in the different religions do not mean that there are different Gods. This fundamental understanding on the part of the adherents makes friendship a viable and legitimate virtue to embrace. Again, the celebration of Ugoghon Festival contextualizes the place of friendship. This festival creates concrete bonds among the people of Ihievbe. The establishment and celebration of the age-groups during the Ugoghon Festival affirms a lasting bond of friendship among the members of the different age-groups who will henceforth consider themselves brothers. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Responses: In many Ihievbe families, siblings profess different faiths. Rather than view the different religions as competing for dominance, Ihievbe Traditional religionists view them as gifts from God to the human race. Should religion become a source of violence, it will definitely lead to unimaginable consequences.

206  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Responses: All religions must preach and practice love if there is to be peace in the world. It is not enough to proclaim one’s religion without making an effort to extend love to those who belong to other religions. When love is the foundation for interactions among people of different faiths, a healthy understanding and appreciation for religious differences will blossom. Religious violence is bred from a false sense of religious apologetics that tends to proclaim the legitimacy of one religion at the expense of other religions. 8.6.2   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondents Four and Five Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Responses: The notion of a neighbor signifies boundaries. Love for the other person also includes the ability to respect healthy boundaries. Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches its adherents to be fair and just toward their neighbors. The neighbor is regarded as an extended family member whose properties and rights must be acknowledged and respected. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: In Ihievbe town, people regard themselves as members of one family. There is a saying in Ihievbe language, Ihievbe-Obo ni ma khu, which means “we are the children of Obo.” This is a collective identity among the people of Ihievbe. This also includes immigrants to the town. Through their desire to dwell with the indigenes, they are considered part of the large extended family. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Responses: All religions have one purpose, to glorify God and to bring peace to the human race. This understanding makes it possible for members of the indigenous religion to become friends with members of other religions.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

207

Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Responses: In Ihievbe town, people do not relate with others because of religious affiliations. Families have members in the different religions, and this does not justify one to regard them as enemies. Religious diversity is a gift from God and should be celebrated each time somebody decides to embrace any of the religions. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Responses: Religious violence originates from a false understanding of what role religion should play in people’s lives. When people become aware of the function of religion as helping to establish peaceful co-existence, all forms of violence will ultimately be rejected. 8.6.3   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondents Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Responses: The People of Ihievbe are one. The common ancestral heritage links all the indigenes together. God is one and the human society is one. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: Hospitality is part of our collective heritage from our ancestors who serve as the custodians of the values that shape and define us as a people. Our lives must be shaped by the ideals and values lived by our ancestors. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Responses: Here in Ihievbe, friendship is not limited to religious affiliations. Living together in this town makes proximity a binding force for enacting the bonds of friendship. What makes friendship possible is an upright character. Every religion teaches their followers to be honest and moral. This teaching helps to encourage friendship.

208  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Responses: Religion is a sacred reality. Understanding this point is relevant in shaping how one relates with the different religions. The members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion believe that believers of different religions must have the comfort and space to practice and live out their faiths. Members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion engage the different religions and celebrate with their members during their different religious feasts. This helps to consolidate the friendship and respect they have for each other. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Responses: Religious members ought to engage each other and demonstrate their love for the other. A simple gesture that can promote peace is the way that the different religions engage in their respective religious meetings. They should worship with the awareness that the other religions also share the space. Ostentatious gestures, which tend to portray religious arrogance at the expense of other religions, can sometimes lead to religious tensions. 8.6.4   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondent Ten Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Response: Ihievbe Traditional Religion abhors violence against another person, especially when that person lives in Ihievbe. Everyone in Ihievbe is seen as part of a larger family. Furthermore, the universal belief in God is a reality all the religions in Ihievbe share. Ihievbe ancestral heritage stresses the importance of being hospitable to all encountered. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Response: The practice of hospitality has a religious significance. It demonstrates how one has imbibed the ideals taught by the ancestors. Hence, those who adhere to the traditional religion take seriously the gesture of hospitality. Everyone is welcome who knocks at the door.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

209

Refreshments are usually served to visitors because visitors are considered to be sent by God. Kindness toward the visitor is always reciprocated by God, who holds the community together in harmony. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Response: The celebration of friendship as an ideal virtue for building communal harmony is contained in the town’s age-group celebration. During the celebration of Ugoghon Festival, new bonds of friendship/ brotherhood are established. The members of the different age-groups regard themselves as friends whose bond of togetherness is like that of siblings. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Response: Christians in Ihievbe are considered brothers and sisters. The teachings of their religion are similar to those held by the traditionalists. Commitment to the traditional religion inspires the adherents to engage Christians as friends. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: The revival of cultural values that advocate peaceful co-existence can help to foster peace in those places where religion has become the source of disunity and violence. 8.6.5   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondent Eleven Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Response: One of the shrines to the deities in Ihievbe Traditional Religion focuses on fostering healthy relationships among the people. Traditional religionists pray for all in Ihievbe, irrespective of the religions they profess. This shrine, Akakamiya, forbids any form of violence against one’s neighbor. This shrine wants all to have good relations with people that live in the town. Furthermore, Ihievbe people are all children of Obo.

210  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Response: All religions profess faith in the same God, Oghena. This understanding of universal obedience to one God shapes how traditionalists engage members of other religions. In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, faithfulness to this one supreme God involves living peaceful lives and being agents of harmony and love. Everyone encountered is seen as a messenger of the supreme God. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Response: The bonds of friendship are sacred and cannot be broken without deep social and individual consequences. This is why, during the celebration of Ugoghon festival, all those who have disagreements must reconcile before the festival can continue. Friendship is considered as a way through which the community is rejuvenated. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Response: Again, being hospitable is a moral obligation in Ihievbe Traditional Religion. Ihievbe Traditional Religionists do not discriminate against Christians because of their religion; rather, there are many instances where collaborative work is carried out by members of the different religions. There is always the monthly meeting among members of the different religions. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: In Ihievbe town, everyone needs to remember that the values of the culture are still legitimate values that can build and strengthen the community. 8.6.6   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondent Twelve Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe?

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

211

Response: Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches its members to be helpful to their neighbors. It teaches them that being hospitable and friendly is rewarding. The lives of the ancestors are concrete examples for all to follow. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Response: In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, there is a strong emphasis on having healthy and productive relationships with people. When the followers decide to do otherwise, it is believed that they will be punished by the ancestors. To have a successful life, it is believed that one must love others and demonstrate this love through concrete actions. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Response: Ihievbe Traditional Religion is simply a religion that emphasizes good relationships. In Ihievbe Traditional Religion, there is a general belief that one should not discriminate against people of other religions because only God can judge whose religion is evil. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Response: Christians are primarily human beings who need to love and be loved. This fundamental requirement and expectation of every person ought to be respected and stressed. Members of Ihievbe Traditional religion engage Christians and Muslims believing that God wants them to act that way. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: People of faith need to be less judgmental about people who are different from them. 8.6.7   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondent Thirteen Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe?

212  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

Response: In Ihievbe town, the people take seriously the fact that they have a common ancestor, and this makes them reject all forms of violence toward each other. When religion becomes a source of discord, adherents of our traditional religion believe that obligations to the teachings of the ancestors take precedence. When someone goes against this belief and carries out violent acts against another resident of the town, that person must first be reconciled back to the community before she/ he can live within the boundaries of Ihievbe. A common meal is shared by the relatives of both the offender and the victim, along with the performance of certain rituals to help restore communal harmony and forgiveness. Social harmony extends also to those strangers who dwell in our town. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Response: Adherents of the indigenous religion believe that hospitality shown toward strangers will always be rewarded by God. There is an Ihievbe proverb which states, Ayi bhi no shan bhe akho (one does not know where one’s destiny will lead one to tomorrow). This proverb means that since one’s future is unpredictable, one is expected to be hospitable to all one encounters today. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Response: Openness to the other is the basis of friendship. Adherents believe that when they are non-judgmental toward people they encounter, they will be able to appreciate the blessings God is inviting them to receive through those they encounter. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Response: Ihievbe people consider themselves united by their ancestral heritage even when they profess different religions. This collective identity transcends any type of identity that fosters division. Also, when adherents of the indigenous religion relate with people of other religions, it is because they have something to offer from their own unique experiences, just as the adherents of the other religions have something to offer them.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

213

Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Response: Just as in Ihievbe community people believe that God is one, and the different religions address the different experiences of their adherents, religious people need to understand that the relevance of every religion is not simply based on their tenets, but on the relevance of the religions to those who follow them. Rather than see religions as rivals, people need to see them as relevant means that help give meaning to the lives of their respective adherents. 8.6.8   Ihievbe Traditional Religion Respondents Fourteen and Fifteen Question 1: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about one’s neighbor? a. Does this include Catholics/Christians living in Ihievbe? Responses: Before globalization, the people of Ihievbe had a very strong collective identity. Today, dialogue is the watchword as people try to reach compromises when there are varied opinions. Also, different religions tend to emphasize their relevance by presenting the other religions in a negative way. Ihievbe culture has been able to withstand these divisive forces and there is a resurgence of membership, today, in Ihievbe Traditional Religion. Question 2: How does Hospitality in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Christians/Catholics? Responses: Ihievbe culture places a strong emphasis on hospitality. The traditional religion helps the adherents to take seriously this commitment to be hospitable to people. The first act toward a visitor is to show her/him that their visit is appreciated by providing them food and shelter. This practice of hospitality comes from the primordial ancestors, Ọbo and his wife Iyababa (Iyaba). They were received hospitably during their sojourn away from Benin kingdom and while they were journeying to found Ihievbe. Question 3: How does Friendship in Ihievbe Traditional Religion shape your relationship with Catholics/Christians? Responses: Adherents of Ihievbe Traditional Religion do not limit friendship to those who practice their religion. Experiences have taught everyone that friendship is a good virtue that all must acquire and

214  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

practice. Friendship can be a source through which people expand their worldviews. Friendship is celebrated as a virtue by the entire Ihievbe town every three years, according to the Ihievbe computation of date, which in the Western calendar will be every four years. Friendship gives life to both the individuals involved and the entire community. *Note: Ihievbe people follow two calendar systems; the first is their traditional calendar that is lunar and is made up of a five-market-days week system. This is what they use to compute dates for local celebrations, for example the Ugoghon Festival. They also follow the Gregorian calendar. Question 4: How have you related with Christians/Catholics in your community? Responses: Christians and Muslims in Ihievbe are considered sisters and brothers by the adherents of the indigenous religion. To discriminate against them is to journey through the path of collective destruction. The survival of Ihievbe as a town and a people is based on fostering healthy relationships and strong bonds of friendship. Question 5: What other ways do you think Ihievbe Traditional Religionists can encourage interreligious dialogue in Ihievbe? Responses: Religious leaders ought to engage each other and create an atmosphere of dialogue and respect. When they fail to do this, people end up speculating about whom the religious other is, and such speculations do not always help to foster harmony and communal peace. There is a strong awareness of the moral obligation of the practitioners of the traditional religion in Ihievbe to continue to be agents of peace. This duty on their part is viewed as a sacred obligation traceable to their ancestral heritage, a point relevant to understanding the peaceful nature of the religion and its willingness to engage even other religions in their collective pursuit of peace and harmony with their communities. One can observe a strong sense of communality at play in the responses of the interviewees. They allude to the role the Ugoghon Festival plays in maintaining communal peace as well as celebrating those virtues that bond members of the community together. The fact that friendship is celebrated during the festival is telling. It goes back to the community’s collective memory of their ancestral heritage which highlights the friendship and practice of hospitality between their ancestors and the communities that accommodated them (Ọbo and Iyaba) before

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

215

they founded the town of Ihievbe. This strong awareness of their heritage is significant because it has shaped the collective determination to live their lives based on the examples of their ancestors. However, it should be noted that like other African communities that revere ancestors, obedience to the ancestral norms is not simply a social contract, there is a religious undertone to it. Fear of being punished by the ancestors plays a prominent role in shaping communal and individual behaviors. This view seems to play itself out in the responses of the interviewees. They repeatedly state the need to maintain social harmony as dictated by their culture/religion as shaping their desire to practice hospitality toward members of other faith traditions and to engage in interreligious friendship. These behavioral patterns are considered by them to be concrete signs of faithfulness to the expectations of their ancestors. One of the respondents stated that friendship is a way in which the Ihievbe community is rejuvenated. This view is not trivial because it explains how the community has appropriated its ancestral heritage. The fact that the friendship that existed between their ancestors and members of the communities who gave them refuge while they journeyed away from Benin kingdom has become the model for friendship for the community is indisputable. Repeatedly, those engaged during this study allude to the experiences of their ancestors as significant in guiding them as they live their lives in community, a significant point because it can help members of other religions to take seriously an engagement with the experiences of their founders and/or prominent figures in their religions who have epitomized the virtues of friendship and hospitality toward others. This approach will help to enact a shift from the restrictions of doctrines to a more concrete existential engagement with one’s religious tradition and allow the lives of the holy ones to be the guide for them on how to live in a complex world where religious pluralism is fast becoming the norm. One of the respondents stated that in their culture, visitors are regarded as divine visitors who must be cared for else one incurs the wrath of the deities. Again, this view is tied to the point made above, that the Ihievbe people through their worldview, like many other African worldviews, understand reality to be interplay of both the spiritual and the human world. The ancestors interact with the community and are a link between the spiritual and the physical spheres. The fact that the ancestors interact with the community by disguising themselves in order, as it were, to police the members of the community

216  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

makes the members of the community to take seriously the demands of hospitality toward their neighbors and those they encounter. This practice is not different from that of the Fang people who consider all visitors to be ancestors in disguise (Uzukwu 1988, 159). One can find similar practice within the monastic traditions in Christianity (see Olikenyi 2001, 95–101). The visitor is seen as Christ and ought to be received as Christ would be received should he come to one’s residence (Benedict of Nursia 1975, 89). The Benedictine Rule, for example, gives this view a central place in the Benedictine practice of hospitality. The guest’s presence should be seen as a blessing to the community and all effort should be made to make sure she/he is well received. The fact that the culture of the people plays a prominent role in structuring the importance placed on communal peace is worth exploring as a means for articulating friendship and hospitality as models for interreligious dialogue. In many non-Western societies, the relevance of culture as a means for structuring the people’s collective approach to life is significant. However, not all cultures are free from stereotypes. Many cultures have encouraged and promoted negative biases, and sometimes encouraged violence against those considered outcasts, without a moral basis for such attitudes. In such instances, religion needs to serve as prophetic witness, inviting people to abandon such negative attitudes and embrace an attitude of tolerance and openness. But other cultures, where openness and tolerance are deeply rooted, can play the prophetic role to religions, especially when such religions have promoted, through their teachings, a sense of exclusivity that helps to foster violence and intolerance toward the religious other. The point made by some of the respondents that religion is a gift from God and ought to be received as such should be taken seriously. This view seems to have shaped the African approach toward religions. The view that religion permeates all aspects of social life in the community is central to African cultures. However, as noted by A. Kagame, “religion is not an abstract phenomenon that must be engaged conceptually” (Kagame 1976, 304. See also Mulago 1991, 127–128). Rather, religion, for the Ihievbe people along with other African cultures, is concrete, as it shapes the daily experiences of the people. The viability of any religion is not based on its epistemological or theological sophistication; rather, it is based on how it helps to make life livable for those who adhere to it/them. The deities, as observed by Ray, derive their significance in the lives of the members of a community only when they are

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

217

experienced in the context of their lived encounters (2000, 34–35). In other words, a deity must be relevant in the lives of those who recognize its existence; else, it is denied recognition by the community. This approach to relating with the divine seems to shape the African sense of openness to the possibilities of multiple religious belongings. The deities worshipped in the religions encountered are not considered rivals simply because they are received by the community with the understanding that they have roles to play in the life of the community. Another point worth noting is the view articulated by some of the respondents who claim that cultural values can help to foster harmony among religions. They refer to culture as the location of these values, one can opine that culture also refers to their indigenous religion since in Africa, the structures and boundaries of cultures are shaped by the indigenous religions which gave identity to the different communities. The implication of this conclusion is that the indigenous religions can serve as viable conduits for fostering interreligious peace. The attempt to discredit these religions by Muslim and Christian leaders in Africa must be critiqued in light of this reasoning. The indigenous religions have preserved the values, norms, and worldviews of the African people. To properly encounter Africans who inhabit a religiously pluralistic world, one must take seriously the place and role of the indigenous religions. Furthermore, one can argue that the three religions present in Ihievbe have, at their core, teachings and aspirations for peace in the world. Just as Muslims and Christians understand their founders as agents of peace in the world, for the adherents of Ihievbe Traditional Religion, the lives of their ancestors serve as a constant reminder to be agents for peace in their lives. This can become a central focus for dialogue among the members of the respective religions as they engage in fostering interreligious living. The simple and yet pragmatic practice of ongoing encounter among the religions, through their monthly interfaith meetings, has helped to foster a sense of respect and appreciation for the different religions by their members. Such meetings have been a viable didactic means for educating members of the different religious traditions, and through them, negative assumptions and biases are corrected. This can become a model for communities that have religiously pluralistic identities. Neighborhood communities can engage in community encounters where worshipping communities can meet and enlighten each other on their respective religions and traditions.

218  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

References Alexander VII. 1659. Super Cathedram Principis Apostolorum. http://www. papalencyclicals.net/Alex07/alex07super.htm. Accessed August 25, 2017. Arinze, Francis. 1997. The Risks and Rewards of Interreligious Dialogue: Meeting Other Believers. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor. Awolalu, Joseph Ọmọşade. 1991. “The Encounter Between African Traditional Religion and Other Religions in Nigeria.” In African Traditional Religions in Contemporary Society, ed. Jacob K. Olupona, 111–118. Saint Paul, MI: Paragon House. Benedict of Nursia. 1975. The Rule of St. Benedict. Trans. A. C. Meisel and M. L. del Mastro. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co. Inc. Boniface VIII. 1302. Papal Bull: Unam Sanctam. http://www.papalencyclicals. net/Bon08/B8unam.htm. Accessed September 10, 2018. Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou. Trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. ———. 1998. The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Burton, Richard. 1863. “My Wandering in West Africa: A Visit to the Renowned Cities of Warri and Benin.” Fraser’s Magazine 67: 273–289. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 2000. Declaration, “Dominus Lesus” on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. http:// www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_ cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html. Accessed August 28, 2016. Fitzgerald, Michael. 2010. “A Theological Reflection on Interreligious Dialogue.” In Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, eds. Karl J. Becker and Ilaria Morali, 383–394. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Fletcher, Jeannine Hill. 2006. “Responding to Religious Difference: Conciliar Perspectives.” In From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations, eds. Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick J. Parrella, 267–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gregory XVI. 1840. Encyclical Letter: Probe Nostis. http://www.ewtn.com/ library/encyc/g16probe.htm. Accessed September 13, 2015. Hederman, Mark Patrick. 2004. I Must Be Talking to Myself: Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church Since Vatican II. Dublin: Veritas. Ibn Qayyim, al-Jawziyyah. 1997. Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah. Eds. Yusuf Ahmad al-Bakri and Shakir Tawfiq al-Aruri. Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm. Isichei, Elizabeth. 2004. The Religious Traditions of Africa: A History. Westport, CT: Praeger. Iwuchukwu, Marinus. 2013. “Revisiting the Perennial Religious Conflicts in Northern Nigeria, 1990–2010: Broadening the Focus of Muslims-Christian Dialogue.” In Can Muslims and Christians Resolve Their Religious and Social Conflicts?: Cases from Africa and the United States, eds. Marinus Iwuchukwu and Brian Stiltner, 3–37. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

219

John Paul II. 1986. Encyclical Letter: On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church—Dominum et Vivificantem. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/ john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_18051986_dominum-et-vivificantem_en.html. Accessed September 15, 2016. ———. 1990. Encyclical Letter: On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate—Redemptoris Missio. http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_ redemptoris-missio_en.html. Accessed September 10, 2018. ———. 1998. Encyclical Letter: Fides et Ratio. http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-etratio_en.html. Accessed September 10, 2016. Kagame, A. 1976. La Philosophie Bantu Comparée. Paris: Présence Africaine. Knitter, Paul F. 2002. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Lantham, Ian. 2006. “Charles de Foucauld (1858–1916): Silent Witness for Jesus ‘in the Face of Islam.’” In Catholics in Interreligious Dialogue: Monasticism, Theology and Spirituality, eds. Anthony O’Mahony and Peter Bowe, 47–70. Herefordshire: Gracewing. Leo XIII. 1880. Encyclical Letter: Sancta Dei Civitas. http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_03121880_sancta-dei-civitas_en.html. Accessed September 13, 2015. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1987. Time & the Other. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Lowney, Chris. 2005. A Vanished World: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Medieval Spain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morali, Ilaria. 2010. “Salvation, Religions, and Dialogue in the Roman Magisterium: From Pius IX to Vatican II and Postconciliar Popes.” In Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, eds. Karl J. Becker and Ilaria Morali, 122–142. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Mulago, Vincent. 1991. “Traditional African Religion and Christianity.” In African Traditional Religions in Contemporary Society, ed. Jacob K. Olupona, 119–134. Saint Paul, MI: Paragon House. Nettler, Ronald L. 1998. “Early Islam, Modern Islam and Judaism: The Isra’iliyyat in Modern Islamic Thought.” In Muslim-Jewish Encounters: Intellectual Traditions and Modern Politics, eds. Ronald L. Nettler and Suha Taji-Farouki, 1–14. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Olikenyi, Gregory Ikechukwu. 2001. African Hospitality: A Model for the Communication of the Gospel in the African Cultural Context (St. Augustin). Nettetal: Steyler Verlag. Otoide, Leo E. 2005. “Prelude to the British ‘Punitive Expedition’ to Benin: An Analysis of the Gallwey Treaty of 1892.” In Precolonial Nigeria: Essays in Honor of Toyin Falola, ed. Akinwumi Ogundiran, 525–536. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

220  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI Pareira, Pacheco. 1937. Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis. Trans. and ed. G. H. T. Kimble. London: Hakluyt Society. Paul VI. 1964. Encyclical Letter: Ecclesiam Suam. http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pvi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_ en.html. Accessed September 16, 2016. ———. 1975. Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi. http://www. vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_pvi_ exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. Phan, Peter. 2004. Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Pius IX. 1854. Papal Allocution, Singulari Quadam. http://geocities.ws/ caleb1x/documents/singulariquadam.html. Accessed September 13, 2015. ———. 1863. Encyclical Letter: On Promotion of False Doctrines—Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto. htm. Accessed September 13, 2015. ———. 1868. Litterae Apostolicae: Iam Vos Omnes: Ad Omnes Protestantes Aliosque Acatholicos. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/ litterae-apostolicae-iam-vos-omnes-13-septembris-1868.html. Accessed December 26, 2018. Pius XI. 1928. Encyclical Letter: Mortalium Animos. http://www.vatican.va/ holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. Pius XII. 1951. Encyclical Letter: On Promotion of Catholic Missions—Evangelii Praecones. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_02061951_evangelii-praecones_en.html. Accessed September 13, 2015. Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. 1991. Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflection and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html. Accessed September 11, 2016. ———. 1999. Letter to Presidents of Bishops’ Conference on the Spirituality of Dialogue. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_03031999_spirituality_en.html. Accessed September 12, 2016. Pratt, Douglas. 2005. The Challenge of Islam: Encounters in Interfaith Dialogue. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Rahner, Karl. 1993. The Content of Faith. Eds. Karl Lehmann and Albert Raffelt. New York: Crossroad. Ray, Benjamin C. 2000. African Religions: Symbol, Ritual, and Community, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

8  ETHNOGRAPHIC FINDINGS JUSTIFYING … 

221

Sanneh, Lamin. 1997. The Crown and the Turban: Muslims and West African Pluralism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Saritoprak, Zeki. 2013. “Dialogue Between Muslims and Christians: Qur’anic Guidance, Historical Precedents, and Contemporary Prophets in the United States.” In Can Muslims and Christians Resolve Their Religious and Social Conflicts?: Cases from Africa and the United States, eds. Marinus Iwuchukwu and Brian Stiltner, 243–263. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Second Vatican Council. 1964a. Decree: On Ecumenism—Unitatis Redintegratio. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html. Accessed September 15, 2018. ———. 1964b. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium. http:// www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_ const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. Second Vatican Council. 1965a. Declaration on Religious Freedom: Dignitatis Humanae. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. ———. 1965b. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. ———. 1965c. Decree: On the Church’s Missionary Activity—Ad Gentes Divinitus. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html. Accessed January 20, 2016. ———. 1965d. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. Accessed September 1, 2018. Secretariat for Non-Christians. 1984. The Attitude of the Church Toward Followers of Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission. http:// www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_ interelg_doc_19840610_dialogo-missione_po.html. Accessed September 11, 2016. The Church and Public Schools. September–December 1904. The Outlook. Volume LXXVIII. http://books.google.com/books?id = lEFYAAAAYAAJ&pg = PA460&lpg = PA460&dq = does + the + catholic + church + forbid + catholics + fr om + attending + public+schools?&source = bl&ots = yWT3B911vW&sig = yzj13G2ddNzXDuWpErJJUPoJYbk&hl = en&ei = UvdvTr2NBuXZiALh_LGQBw&sa = X&oi = book_result&ct  = result&resnum = 3&ved = 0CCoQ6AEwAg#. Accessed December 26, 2018.

222  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI The New American Bible. 1987. Wichita, KS: De Vore & Sons. The Qur’an: Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meaning. 1997. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Saheeh International. Uzukwu, Elochukwu E. 1988. “Missiology Today: The African Situation.” In Religion and African Culture, ed. Elochukwu E. Uzukwu, 146–173. Enugu: Spiritan Publications. Wiles, Maurice. 1992. Christian Theology and Inter-Religious Dialogue. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International; London: SCM Press. Winfield, Cecil and Clyde M. Hill Scott, eds. 1954. Public Education Under Criticism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Yosef, Adam. 2008. “Why Ramadan Brings us Together.” British Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2008/ 08/29/ramadhan_2008_feature.shtml. Accessed November 29, 2011.

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion

Abstract  In this chapter, I offer some concluding remarks as well as concrete suggestions that different religions should consider implementing as tools for celebrating the fruits of interreligious dialogue and encounters. One of these is what I have referred to as collaborative worship. I argue that if religious traditions agree that the holy can be found in other religions, then at the heart of one’s sacred space should be reserved a place of hospitality and friendship that leads to the wellbeing of the religious other. Furthermore, I call for Roman Catholics to embrace the sacred texts of other religious traditions and proclaim them during their own liturgies as a visible way of affirming the workings of the Holy Spirit in the traditions of non-Christian religions. Throughout this work, I have argued that religious traditions ought to take seriously the reality of religious pluralism and see this reality as a reminder for constant self-examination in relation to the religious other. For this self-examination to be fruitful, religions can discover and reflect upon the dynamics present among the different faith communities. Rather than advocate a strict identity that is not reflected in the lives of the adherents within their particular communities, religious traditions can begin to explore the wealth of experiences and the reflections of particular communities as they construct their own identity while trying to engage their context and the tenets of their faith tradition. © The Author(s) 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5_9

223

224  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

In this work, I also maintain that hospitality and friendship are viable tools for constructing a model for interreligious dialogue. It is worth noting that African cultural worldviews attach great importance to hospitality as observed by both Uzukwu and Olikenyi. As Uzukwu remarks, despite the external forces that have shaped the recent history of the African continent, hospitality, as a cultural marker in the continent, still holds sway (Uzukwu 1988, 158). The constancy of the relevance of hospitality in defining the worldview of African societies makes this social virtue a viable tool for constructing an interreligious dialogical model for the African context. As claimed in this work, rather than look for a universal dialogical model that cuts across all cultures, theologians can explore dialogical models that are context-based and serve the relational dynamics present in each specific culture(s). This is exactly the goal of this book. By studying the relational dynamics present among Ihievbe people, this exploration shows how the findings can be used to foster a dialogical model that is relevant to cultures and communities similar to that of the Ihievbe people, while always being conscious of the particularities unique to each cultural context. The cultural worldview of the people was critiqued to show why the people of Ihievbe attach such importance to the preservation of social harmony. To attain a broader knowledge of the role their culture plays in shaping both their secular and religious worldviews, structured survey questions and oral interviews were administered to representative members of the three religions present in the town and the analyses of the responses of the participants show a lively engagement by the people as they try to build a community of tolerance and acceptance of their differences. To ground the claim of this work, that hospitality and friendship can be used to construct dialogical models for encounter among religions, the relevance of these two virtues were explored culturally, as found in their collective memory as a people; philosophically, by exploring the contributions of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, Descartes, Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Marion, Buber, and Levinas that present relationality as a human condition from which one cannot escape if one wishes to be fully human; and religiously, by reflecting upon the role these virtues play in the ethical life as advocated by Christianity, Islam, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion, respectively.

9 CONCLUSION 

225

The philosophical contributions of many philosophers to the dynamics of hospitality and friendship in human societies show the relevance these social virtues play in social life. Faced with the human condition of being “thrown into the world,” these philosophers addressed the human reality of relationality and arrived at conclusions that are sometimes similar and different. The conclusions of philosophers like Aristotle, Cicero, Buber, Aquinas, Marion, and Levinas on relationality as part of human identity are relevant to this work. Their philosophical views make relationality an ethical and social necessity for humans-in-community. This work has shown the viability of such philosophical views for constructing a dialogical model rooted in relationality. Hospitality and friendship are different modes of relationality. While hospitality shapes the initial relational contact between the host and the guest with or without the possibility of ongoing encounters, friendship entails an enduring relational interaction. Again, by using both models for constructing a viable dialogical tool for interreligious encounters, this study shows the urgency of focusing on how religions and their members can take seriously the reality of religious pluralism. While hospitality among religions reveals the possibility for being constantly willing to receive the religious other, friendship makes permanent such encounters in the spirit of freedom and respect for each other. Levinas’ and Derrida’s introduction of care and vulnerability to relationality ought to be taken seriously by religions. Each religion teaches the need to love one another. Christianity equates this injunction to identity with Christ. Islam teaches that care of the other is a sure path of living as God expects. Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches that love of neighbor is love of the ancestors who are links to the ideals of the moral life. The contributions of Levinas and Derrida can serve religions in encountering each other as an ethical necessity. Furthermore, Levinas’ treatment of the encounter between the host and the guest as one that defies all attempts to contextualize the other in the encounter can serve religions in their encounters with each other and focus on the encounter rather than on the preconceived biases they hold. Each religious tradition is unique and filled with infinite possibilities since they are means of relating with an infinite being. To try to limit them to one epistemic finality is a denial of the freedom of God to engage humans infinitely. Again, Levinas’ and Derrida’s approach can condition religions to accepting the possibility that other religions encountered are meant to

226  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

enrich the religion’s understanding of the working presence of God in human society. This is where vulnerability becomes relevant because it is meant to lead to a realization of the need for humility when encountering another religion because, through the encounter, the divine can be rediscovered in an enriched way. Again, the viability of hospitality for shaping the dialogical model among religions is imperative in Olikenyi’s description of the “principle of reciprocity” in African societies as “an unconditional readiness to share” the joys, convictions, paradoxes, and contradictions found in one’s religion with another (Olikenyi 2001, 106). This sense of openness toward the other should be a constituent part of all religions. Religions, by their very nature, are ways of relating with God and human communities. To put restrictions on who and what should constitute such relational encounters can sometimes hamper the rich lessons a religion acquires from encountering another religious tradition. This work has shown the ways faith communities in Ihievbe town have been able to enrich themselves theologically, culturally, and socially by encountering each other unconditionally. Theologically, this study has analyzed the Christian, Muslim, and Ihievbe Traditional Religion teachings on hospitality and friendship. Since this work is focused on how religions can engage each other interreligiously, it was appropriate to explore how these social and religious virtues play out in each of the religions and how they can be re-appropriated to help construct the future of interreligious engagements in a world that is fast becoming pluralistic. Again, the emergence of religious fundamentalists who pick and choose aspects of their traditions that support their religio-political agenda has necessitated study and critique of the foundational tenets and practices of the religious founders and the early communities whose narratives have shaped each of the religious traditions. The role and relevance of Jesus’ ministry in friendship as noted by Moltmann and Burrell cannot be trivialized by Christians who derive their identity as followers of Jesus Christ. Discipleship in Christ entails taking seriously both the life and ministry of Jesus and how the early Christian communities interpreted the teachings and life of Christ in their attempt to live according to his teachings. Aquinas has shown how the Christian life is a manifestation of love for the other that is

9 CONCLUSION 

227

conditioned by the grace of God who makes real the possibilities of relationality in the world. Christian approach of unconditional love for the stranger can become a viable tool for fostering authentic dialogue among religions. However, Christians are challenged to reflect on how current theological views on other religions reconcile with the ministry and life of Christ. This reflection is necessary else, Christians forget who they are and where their heritage leads them to in a world that has become pluralistic. Muslims are faced with an onslaught of fundamentalists who have also become militaristic in their encounters with people of other faith. In Nigeria, for example, as observed by Iwuchukwu, tens of thousands of lives continue to be lost because of religious violence perpetrated by Muslim, Christian, and Traditional Religion fundamentalists (Iwuchukwu 2013, 15, 18). The above reality has distorted the rich Islamic heritage on religious tolerance and appreciation. This study has shown how, within the sacred texts of Islam, one can find multiple instances showing the need to be appreciative of other religious views. Negative apologetics that have existed between Muslims on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other have no basis in the Qur’an. This sacred book contains injunctions that protect these other religions and recognize them as authentic ways of relating with God. Unfortunately, in contemporary times, these injunctions are trivialized. Passages that inspire hatred are being interpreted without account of their historical contexts and in ways that lead to religious violence. Furthermore, the pragmatic examples from the life of the Prophet Mohammed showing how interreligious hospitality and friendship can be revived and made relevant in our times are also being ignored. This work argues for taking seriously this facet of Islam in order to make interreligious dialogue a necessary part of the faith tradition and to show that Islam is a religion of peace. Ihievbe Traditional Religion is also shaped by a rich understanding of the lives of the ancestors who demonstrate to the community the rewards one can obtain from living relationally. Ancestors serve as witnesses to the moral life as well as examples of living authentically. To attain ancestorhood, adherents of the religion must take seriously the demands of relationality and living hospitably as well as enacting healthy bonds of friendship. By entering into dialogue with these religious

228  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

traditions, this study shows that these three religions have within them means for constructing authentic dialogical models as well as examples of true encounters among religions. This work, though it focuses mainly on the Ihievbe community in Ihievbe, addresses people of faith globally who live in religiously pluralistic contexts. It advocates that people of faith engage their cultural heritages and find within them those elements that help to foster social harmony. This is important because when religious teachings begin to lead to resentment and violence toward the other, the positive elements in the people’s cultures can help to encourage a reasonable critique of such non-tolerant religious views. Also, the fact that cultural values can help to correct unhealthy religious views justifies the claim that culture is a gift from God to humans and ought to be seen as a sacred conduit for engaging the eternal truth who transcends any particular culture or religion. This work is pragmatic by proposing, at different points, ways in which hospitality and friendship can serve in the construction of a dialogical model for interreligious encounters. Collaborative worship is an example of such a proposal. This is aimed at encouraging awareness of the proximity of the religious other. It has been argued above that when religions take seriously the actual act of dialoguing and encountering each other, hearts are transformed and love for the other definitely prevails. To concretize such love for the other and provide bulwark against the temptation to reduce the other to an inferior status, religious leaders can explore the possibility of remembering the religious other while thanking God for God’s presence, as well as for the friendship that exists among them. The liturgy is the most appropriate place for such a prayer. Hence, in this work, it has been argued that when Christians, for example, constantly offer prayers of thanksgiving for the presence of Muslims in their midst (without the agenda to proselytize), it would be very difficult for the same Christians to harbor negative feelings toward the religious other and her/his religious tradition. The legitimacy of this proposal is appreciated only when respect and love for the religious other become part of the heritage of religion. Furthermore, religions can engage in regular meetings wherein members learn more about each other’s faith traditions. While these types of meetings are held between religious leaders, they should

9 CONCLUSION 

229

include the members since decisions made and mutual understanding achieved among the leaders do not always reflect the context of the members. Members of the religious communities can encounter each other regularly and build strong bonds of hospitality and friendship to withstand the factors that create bias between religious traditions. It is important to relate with each other on the local level because the realities faced in local settings vary from one community to the other. These local encounters address those specific concerns of the pluralistic communities. As has been argued above, context must not be trivialized because God always encounters us contextually/subjectively. Even how one appropriates a religious tradition is influenced by one’s context. Again, when religious traditions take seriously the practice of interreligious hospitality and friendship, they can engage in what Iwuchukwu, while appropriating the curial views on different forms of dialogue, refers to as “dialogue of action and dialogue of life” (33). Though his focus is the Nigerian context, this advice is relevant for interreligious encounters globally. Religions, argues Iwuchukwu, can “collaborate to promote a number of socially and community beneficial programs and projects” (ibid.). Also, Iwuchukwu notes that dialogue of life can lead to more religiously integrated communities in Northern Nigeria where communities are structured based on religious affiliations (34). For these dialogues to be possible, religions must first see themselves as friends and not as enemies competing to increase the number of new converts. Finally, the telos of most religions is the glorification of God and the fulfillment of human happiness in God. For those religions that do not have eschatological tendencies, the good of the human person is a central end. It becomes a grave contradiction that defies any logic to find religions serving and fueling the destruction of human life, while trying to assert a proposition in a non-tolerant way. All such pressures from religions, whether intellectual, cultural, or emotional, must be denounced and rejected categorically. Religions must take seriously both the freedom of humans to decide how, where, and when they want to worship, as well as the freedom of God to choose how he/she/it decides to relate with humanity. No religion enjoys a monopoly of this truth, not even my own Roman Catholic faith.

230  S. A. A. AIHIOKHAI

References Iwuchukwu, Marinus. 2013. “Revisiting the Perennial Religious Conflicts in Northern Nigeria, 1990–2010: Broadening the Focus of Muslim-Christian Dialogue.” In Can Muslims and Christians Resolve Their Religious and Social Conflicts?: Cases from Africa and the United States, eds. Marinus Iwuchukwu and Brian Stiltner, 3–37. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. Olikenyi, Gregory Ikechukwu. 2001. African Hospitality: A Model for the Communication of the Gospel in the African Cultural Context. St. Augustin: Steyler Verlag Nettetal. Uzukwu, Elochukwu E. 1988. “Missiology Today: The African Situation.” In Religion and African Culture, ed. Elochukwu E. Uzukwu, 146–173. Enugu, Nigeria: Spiritan Publications.

Appendix

Survey Questions and Responses A. Catholics in Ihievbe Town Question 1: From your understanding of Ihievbe culture, is it against Christianity/Catholicism? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. Ihievbe culture is of the devil: 18 Option B/Number of Responses: No. I cannot be a good Catholic/ Christian unless through my Ihievbe culture: 38 Option C/Number of Responses: Ihievbe culture over the years has become more adaptable to the demands of modernization, making it more open to Christianity: 44 Question 2: What does the Catholic Church teach about salvation? Option A/Number of Responses: Only Catholics will be saved: 1 Option B/Number of Responses: Salvation is open to all who live good lives and follow their consciences: 2 Option C/Number of Responses: Members of all religions will be saved if they follow their religions faithfully and live good lives: 97

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5

231

232  Appendix

Question 3: What does the Catholic Church teach about interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Dialogue is part of the Catholic Church’s mission and all should be involved in it according to their state in life with the aim of achieving peace: 25 Option B/Number of Responses: Catholics should not engage in Interreligious Dialogue: 3 Option C/Number of Responses: Part of knowing God’s will for Christians is to engage in Interreligious Dialogue: 72 Question 4: What is the purpose for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: In the world today, every religion must make effort to engage one another through their members in order for the members to understand their religions better and appreciate others: 80 Option B/Number of Responses: To help understand what God is teaching all of us: 20 Option C/Number of Responses: It dilutes the Catholic faith and should be discouraged: 0 Question 5: Can friendship be a tool for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. Christ teaches us to be friends with everybody: 80 Option B/Number of Responses: No. Catholics should not make friends with non-Catholics because they will not be saved: 0 Option C/Number of Responses: Friendship is a human virtue that is needed by everyone, including all religions, if our society is to achieve peace: 20 Question 6: How does hospitality help in interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: It does not help. Catholics should not dialogue with people of other religions because only Catholics have all the means for salvation: 1 Option B/Number of Responses: Hospitality, here among the Ihievbe people, as both a religious and cultural virtue, has helped to foster peaceful co-existence among the members of the different religions: 82

Appendix

  233

Option C/Number of Responses: The virtue of Hospitality disposes Christians/Catholics to be open to a deeper understanding of God’s will for Christians/Catholics as they engage others in Interreligious Dialogue: 17 B. Muslims in Ihievbe Town Question 1: From your understanding of Ihievbe culture, it is against Islam? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. Ihievbe culture is of the devil: 0 Option B/Number of Responses: No. I cannot be a good Muslim unless through my Ihievbe culture: 54 Option C/Number of Responses: Ihievbe culture over the years has become more adaptable to the demands of modernization, making it more open to Islam: 46 Question 2: What does Islam teach about salvation? Option A/Number of Responses: Only Muslims will be saved: 0 Option B/Number of Responses: Salvation is open to all who live good lives and follow their consciences: 33 Option C/Number of Responses: Members of all religions will be saved if they follow their religions faithfully and live good lives: 67 Question 3: What does Islam teach about interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Dialogue is part of Islam’s mission and all should be involved in it according to their state in life with the aim of achieving peace: 35 Option B/Number of Responses: Muslims should not engage in interreligious dialogue: 1 Option C/Number of Responses: Part of knowing God’s will for Muslims is to engage in interreligious dialogue: 64 Question 4: What is the purpose for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: In the world today, every religion must make effort to engage one another through their members in order for the members to understand their religions better and appreciate others: 51

234  Appendix

Option B/Number of Responses: To help understand what God is teaching all of us: 48 Option C/Number of Responses: It dilutes the Islamic faith and should be discouraged: 1 Question 5: Can friendship be a tool for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. The Prophet Mohammed teaches us to be friends with everybody: 75 Option B/Number of Responses: No. Muslims should not make friends with non-Muslims because they will not be saved: 0 Option C/Number of Responses: Friendship is a human virtue that is needed by everyone, including all religions, if our society is to achieve peace: 25 Question 6: How does hospitality help in interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: It does not help. Muslims should not dialogue with people of other religions because only Muslims have all the means for salvation: 0 Option B/Number of Responses: Hospitality, here among the Ihievbe people, as both a religious and cultural virtue, has helped to foster peaceful co-existence among the members of the different religions: 25 Option C/Number of Responses: The virtue of hospitality disposes Muslims to be open to a deeper understanding of God’s will for Muslims as they engage others in interreligious dialogue: 75 C. Traditionalists in Ihievbe Town Question 1: From your understanding of Ihievbe culture, is it against Ihievbe Traditional Religion? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. Ihievbe culture is of the devil: 6 Option B/Number of Responses: No. I cannot be a good traditional religionist unless through my Ihievbe culture: 94 Option C/Number of Responses: Ihievbe culture over the years has become more adaptable to the demands of modernization, making Ihievbe Traditional Religion more appealing: 0

Appendix

  235

Question 2: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about salvation? Option A/Number of Responses: Only members will be saved: 0 Option B/Number of Responses: Salvation is open to all who live good lives and follow their consciences: 96 Option C/Number of Responses: Members of all religions will be saved if they follow their religions faithfully and live good lives: 4 Question 3: What does Ihievbe Traditional Religion teach about interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Dialogue is part of Ihievbe Traditional Religion’s mission and all should be involved in it according to their state in life with the aim of achieving peace in our community: 85 Option B/Number of Responses: Traditional religionists should not engage in interreligious dialogue: 0 Option C/Number of Responses: Part of knowing God’s will for Ihievbe Traditional Religionists is to engage in interreligious dialogue: 15 Question 4: What is the purpose for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: In the world today, every religion must make effort to engage one another through their members in order for the members to understand their religions better and appreciate others: 99 Option C/Number of Responses: To help understand what God is teaching all of us: 0 Option D/Number of Responses: It dilutes the faith of Ihievbe Traditional Religion and should be discouraged: 1 Question 5: Can friendship be a tool for interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: Yes. Ihievbe Traditional Religion teaches us to be friends with everybody: 61 Option B/Number of Responses: No. Members should not make friends with non-members because they will not be saved: 0

236  Appendix

Option C/Number of Responses: Friendship is a human virtue that is needed by everyone, including all religions, if our society is to achieve peace: 39 Question 6: How does hospitality help in interreligious dialogue? Option A/Number of Responses: It does not help. Members should not dialogue with people of other religions because only Ihievbe Traditional Religion has all the means for salvation: 4 Option B/Number of Responses: Hospitality, here among the Ihievbe people, as both a religious and cultural virtue, has helped to foster peaceful co-existence among the members of the different religions: 95 Option C/Number of Responses: The virtue of hospitality disposes members of Ihievbe Traditional Religion to be open to a deeper understanding of the will of our ancestors as they engage others in interreligious dialogue: 1

Index

A African, 6, 9, 15, 21, 38, 68, 69, 73, 76, 84, 100, 101, 118, 120, 121, 126, 128, 135, 136, 189, 197, 201, 215–217, 224, 226 B Buber, Martin, 2, 4, 6, 9, 44, 46–48, 50–56, 58, 71, 73, 74, 84–88, 92, 142, 143, 224, 225 C Christology, 73, 92, 93, 122 Collaborative worship, 10, 78–80, 228 Culture, 4, 8, 9, 21–23, 25, 38, 41, 68, 71, 76, 83, 100, 103, 105, 107, 110, 119–121, 125, 126, 128, 135–137, 159, 162, 183–187, 189, 195, 197–202, 215–217, 224, 228

D Derrida, Jacques, 2, 9, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 68, 71, 84, 86, 87, 89–91, 224, 225 Dialogue, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 30, 36, 38, 40, 41, 50, 53, 74, 77, 99, 106–108, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 129–133, 137, 139–147, 149, 151–155, 158, 160, 161, 163, 183, 185, 189, 190, 195, 201–203, 216, 217, 224, 227, 229 E Encounter, 2–10, 19, 23, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43–58, 61, 62, 69–79, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91–98, 101, 105–113, 117–122, 124–126, 128, 129, 131–137, 139, 141–143, 145, 150–153, 155–157, 159–161, 184, 185, 188–190, 198, 200–203, 216, 217, 224–229

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 S. A. A. Aihiokhai, Fostering Interreligious Encounters in Pluralist Societies, Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17805-5

237

238  Index F Friendship, 2–10, 14, 16, 19, 30, 31, 33–36, 40, 41, 68, 69, 83–96, 98–105, 107–109, 111, 112, 120, 121, 125, 126, 131, 132, 145, 152, 153, 156–162, 185, 188, 191, 195, 196, 201–203, 214–216, 224–229 G Gift, 3, 4, 27, 32, 40, 44, 45, 48–50, 52–54, 70–72, 78, 89, 91, 92, 97, 98, 102, 105, 110, 118, 123, 126–128, 137, 139, 144, 185, 187, 192, 198, 200, 204, 216, 228 H Hospitality, 2–10, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24, 30–35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47–49, 51, 53, 54, 56–58, 60, 62, 67–72, 75–78, 83, 94, 99, 100, 105, 120, 121, 126, 156, 157, 160–162, 183–185, 191, 192, 196, 199–201, 203, 204, 214–216, 224–229 Humanity, 2–4, 26, 29, 36, 51, 54, 56–58, 60–62, 76–79, 84, 88, 89, 91, 93–97, 107, 110–112, 120, 121, 123, 127, 129, 131, 137–139, 145, 146, 148, 149, 153–156, 160, 161, 187, 192, 200, 203, 229 I Ihievbe, 2–10, 13–27, 30–41, 56–58, 68–72, 74–76, 78, 80, 91, 98–106, 109–112, 117–130,

133–138, 144, 146, 147, 151, 154–156, 160–163, 184–187, 190–192, 197–200, 202, 204, 205, 214–217, 224–228 Interreligious dialogue, 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 35, 36, 39, 41, 53, 67, 74, 106–108, 111, 120, 124, 128, 131–133, 137, 139, 143–147, 151–155, 160–162, 189, 190, 192, 201–203 Islam, 3–5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 24–26, 29–31, 36, 37, 41, 47, 56, 57, 59, 75, 76, 78, 79, 91, 96–99, 121, 123, 127, 134, 140, 141, 157, 186–192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 224, 225, 227 J Jesus Christ, 1–3, 9, 20, 25, 60–62, 72, 74, 79, 87, 96, 108–111, 128, 129, 138, 141, 144, 145, 147–150, 152, 153, 226 L Levinas, Emmanuel, 2, 6, 9, 44–48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 69–73, 85, 142, 224, 225 M Moltmann, Jürgen, 2, 94, 95, 108, 226 Muslim, 5, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 37–41, 54, 57, 73, 77, 78, 90, 97–99, 103–105, 111, 113, 121, 124, 127, 130, 134, 138, 155–159, 184–193, 196, 198, 201, 217, 226, 227

Index

N Nigeria, 2, 5, 15, 19–22, 25, 51, 57, 68, 73, 74, 76, 98, 99, 101, 105, 106, 125, 134, 135, 147, 186, 188, 190, 197–199, 202, 227, 229 P Prophet Mohammed, 3, 76, 99, 184, 188, 196, 227 R Roman Catholic, 1, 5–10, 21, 22, 37, 38, 40, 60, 70–72, 74–76, 79, 89, 92, 96, 106–112, 119–122,

  239

127–130, 132–154, 156, 157, 160–162, 185, 200, 229 T Theology, 3, 44, 68, 71, 79, 96, 110, 121, 152, 161 Traditional Religion, 3–5, 7, 9, 21, 25–27, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39–41, 56–58, 91, 100–105, 121, 122, 134, 138, 184, 185, 197, 200, 204, 205, 224–227