It is significant that any attempt to shed light on the dynamics of spiritual cross-cultural fertilization now taking place between the religious traditions of the East and West roots itself in a historical posture; Eastern spirituality was not “discovered” in the tumultuous decade of the 1960s. It simply gained media visibility, emerged as a spiritual component of a dramatic counterculture movement, and entered into a new institutional phase at that point. The transmigration of eastern spirituality is a process that has roots deep in the 19th century. American interest in eastern spirituality is not a passing fancy. It is an expression of a long-term preoccupation that has only now come of age.

While the interest in eastern religion shown by Christian elements in the West is not new, the attitudes are. Western cultural imperialism is in its twilight hour. No sensitive Westerner can any longer look upon the religious traditions of the non-Christian world as cultural artifacts of “primitive” civilizations. As the philosopher F.S.C. Northrop has suggested, we are living in an age in which we can no longer speak as though we enjoy some privileged frame of reference. This is especially so in the area of human religiosity. Any appraisal of religion at mid-century must be characterized by respect, openness, and sympathetic understanding. In the Catholic tradition this heightened sensitivity was given official sanction in Nostra Aetate, or the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, in which Catholics were exhorted to “acknowledge, preserve, and promote” the spiritual and moral goods found among non-Christian religions. This is a step long removed from the Unam Sanctam mentality of another age.

In America, the Protestant encounter with the East antedates that of the Catholic. While the American Board of commissioners of Foreign Missions was sending scores of Protestant missionaries to carry the Gospel to the mysterious “Hindee” of the East, Catholic clergy were being sent to the United States as Missionaries!

Although missionary contact with Eastern cultures by American Protestants began as early as 1812, and, although some American intellectuals (the Transcendentalists) showed an early interest in the metaphysics of the East, it was not until 1893 that the first “official” meeting of the East and West took place. In the early Fall of that year an unprecedented ecumenical gathering convened in Chicago amid enthusiastic claims that this was to be the greatest spiritual event of all time.

In May of 1893, Chicagoans awaited the opening of the World’s Columbian Exposition commemorating the discovery of America by Westerners 400 years earlier. Initiated by an act of Congress and costing nearly $10 million to construct, the Fair was intended as a spectacular international tribute to the energies of scientific and technological growth. Electricity had come of age, the Ferris wheel made its debut, and over two hundred and fifty acres of buildings were constructed to house the fruits of American industry, progress, and development.

As a response to fears that the Fair would unduly emphasize material advancements, a group of liberal Protestant clergymen, headed by Charles C. Bonney, a Chicago educator and legal expert, developed plans for giving religion an “appropriate place” at the Exposition. Plans were established to promote a series of separate denominational religious conferences beginning in May of 1893, at which representatives from the various faiths would explicate the particulars of their religions. These religious conferences would then culminate in a seventeen-day “World’s Parliament of Religions”, to which representatives of all the world’s great religions were invited. Each of the seventeen days was to be devoted to a specific theme of ethical, theological, historical or moral importance. Administrative responsibilities for organizing and coordinating the mammoth undertaking were placed in the hands of an enterprising Chicago minister, Rev. John Henry Barrows.

Barrows and his ad hoc committee spent almost two years in Herculean preparations, soliciting participants and support for the Parliament of Religions. Thousands of letters were exchanged with representatives of the various world religions. The dream became a reality on September 11, 1893 in the Hall of Columbus in the Art Institute of Chicago, when Cardinal Gibbons solemnly lifted his hands, silenced an overflowing crowd, and intoned the “Our Father”.

Support for the World’s Parliament of Religions was widespread. Initial Catholic hesitancy was largely overcome by the enthusiasm of Archbishops Ireland and Feehan, and Bishop John J. Keane, Rector of the Catholic University of America.

Opposition to the idea came primarily from conservative Protestants, who believed the proceedings would compromise the verities of the Christian religion by putting all religion on “one plane;”, making it appear as though they were being treated as of almost equal value. For this reason, the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to participate. Worse yet, others feared that any courtesy shown non-Christian religious leaders would be mistakenly construed as indicating widespread American interest in the propagation of Asian faiths.

My own research into the motives behind the opposition point to one particular anxiety; the fear on the part of Evangelical conservatives that the Parliament would retard Christian missionary activity abroad. This could happen in two ways: first, by implicitly legitimating non-Christian religions as explained above; secondly, many conservatives were well aware that the Parliament would afford representatives of Asian faiths their first public opportunity before an American audience to challenge missionary conceptions of what actually constituted a “heathen” religion. Furthermore (and as events would subsequently prove true), Americans might be exposed to adverse reports on Christian missionary activity delivered by articulate, well-educated non-Christians.

In considering this opposition it must be remembered that the amount of scholarly, objective literature on eastern religions available in the 19th century was extremely limited. The knowledge Americans had of Buddhism or Hinduism, where it did exist, was almost inevitably based on distorted and self-justifying missionary accounts of “idolatrous” religion. The cultural stereotype of eastern religions that has been so pervasive in the West was a direct product of the cultural imperialism and missionary mind of the 19th century.

Taken as a whole, opposition to the Parliament was actually sparse and generally limited to conservative circles. Liberals, academicians, and intellectuals showed enthusiastic support and interest in the idea of promoting good will and mutual understanding of the great religions of the world. Even an inveterate critic of religion such as Robert Ingersoll believed the proceedings would help do away with prejudice and provincialism.