The way of ‘he’ in Nanjing

Nanjing, China—“O God, with a thousand names…” I could have invoked.

What is striking about this picture? Close to 200 eminent persons belonging to and professing different religious faiths, as well as eminent persons not professing any faith, gathered together at the 3rd Asia-Europe Interfaith Dialogue in Nanjing, China. (Two previous ones had been held in Bali and Larnaca.)

They came from 39 Asian and European countries. Diplomats and government officials outnumbered the religious leaders and civil society representatives. The majority (124 of 158 official delegates, or 78.5 percent) were men.

During the three days that they were gathered, no prayers were said, no chants were heard, no outward display of religiosity was seen. There were no common rituals (usually musts in multi-religious, multi-cultural gatherings I have attended in the past).

I must note that, in contrast, Filipinos (the women especially) are big on rituals when it comes to ecumenical faith gatherings no matter how tense and serious these are. In the Philippines we usually start off with priests, imams, pastors, nuns and lay leaders leading the opening prayers. Especially in so-called interfaith dialogues.

There was none of the above in this in Nanjing. That’s what struck me. Those are externals (internal?), you might say. Well, I thought prayer—communal and personal—was basic to all faiths, a wellspring from which understanding, peace and goodwill could flow forth. For prayer is the language of the heart. In Nanjing the language was diplomatese.



Prayer was not in the agenda in this dialogue. Talk was the thing. So was listening. And the flow of things had been pretty much decided on by the main sponsors—China and Italy. Veterans of assemblies know how these things are conducted and how closing statements and resolutions are arrived at, if you know what I mean.

And as journalists invited to attend (we weren’t participants) we could only observe. But before the big three-day interfaith event we had our own small Asia-Europe journalists’ colloquium where our topic was interfaith issues too. And we had our own intercultural bonding.

The main event began with the delegates visiting three religious sites—a Muslim mosque, a Buddhist temple, where orange-robed monks came out in full force, and the Amity Printing, a huge facility where bibles in different languages are printed. I must say that the Chinese government pulled all the stops to showcase what they have in the interfaith department.

The out-of-Nanjing trip to picturesque Yangzhou was a treat and one hoped dialogue was going on even during the boat rides on the lake. Some of us wanted to go to the Nanjing Massacre museum during the breaks but it was undergoing renovation. (The Japanese pillaged Nanjing and killed 300,000 in 1937.)

China which has a population of more than 1 billion has four major religions—Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) with membership of over 100 million. The state-approved Catholic Church has not yet merged with the “underground” church which is loyal to the Vatican. I spoke with the rector of the Catholic seminary and he told me the applicants are many. I will be interviewing him by email.

So, what were the main issues tackled? Interfaith dialogue (IFD) and globalization, IFD and peace, IFD and social cohesion and development, IFD and the promotion of cultural and education cooperation.

Globalization was closed to journalists but we managed to sneak in. We hopped over to social cohesion and development which turned out to be livelier. Filipino bishop Ephraim Tendero, director of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, managed to put into the statement, with great effort I must say, the issue of immoral loans that poor countries are forced to pay back with the blood of their people. I hope it is not stricken out in the final version.

One of the plenary speakers, Philippine delegation head Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez of South Cotabato and chair of the Interfaith Commission, left a lasting impression with his emphasis on dialogue at the grassroots. He made the word grassroots a byword and stressed the importance of implementing peace initiatives at the local community level.

For it is at the grassroots that real life happens, where strife and harmony are played out. “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another,” Gutierrez said, quoting Jonathan Swift.

An interesting footnote: It was decided that interfaith dialogue should include those who do not belong to or do not profess any religious faith. Atheists are also believers in something. Was this a concession to the “godless” communist government of China?

By the end of the week, Chinese food was coming out of our ears but I know I will miss it soon. I will also miss the stape words--peace, harmony, integration, inculturation, understanding, respect, dialogue, tolerance.

With all these words swimming in my head, I was still able to catch something from the closing remarks of Ye Xiaowen, state minister for religious affairs. He spoke about the spirit of he.

Chinese religion, he said, is immersed in the way of he which is to seek understanding though dialogue and coexist in peace, jointly address problems and achieve common development. In the supreme state of he, every one manifests beauty and goodness while appreciating and allowing all kinds of beauty and goodness to coexist in order to achieve a unified world.

Here’s to the spirit of he.