For Christians, the history of inter-religious dialogue has been long and often meandering. In Christian Scripture, we find examples of its practice, such as in the celebrated meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem. “And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one tenth of everything” (Gen 14:18-20). While Melchizedek is portrayed as a follower of God, he is a gentile believer of a different religious tradition than Abraham. “Melchisedech is a priest of that primitive religion of mankind, which was not to be limited to Israel but to embrace all peoples” Jean Daniélou, Holy Pagans of the Old Testament. trans. Felix Faber (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1957), 104. In the Apostolic era, St Paul engaged pagans on their own terms, showing the way their faith leads to faith in Christ. At least for the philosophically minded pagan, he suggested that they already had a belief in the Christian God (Acts 17:16-34). The early apologists, such as St Justin Martyr or Athenagoras, knew that much of the ridicule the Christian faith received was because its teachings and practices were not known nor understood by its pagan critics. To rectify this, they presented Christianity, like St Paul, in terms which the educated gentile could relate to; but, they also pointed out that their critics misunderstood Christianity, in part, because they believed whatever hearsay was being said about Christians. The apologists suggested that Christianity should be understood in its own terms, and not through rumors and gossip. Even if one did not believe its tenents, they should tolerate its existence, understanding it was not a threat to society.
This early Christian approach to inter-religious dialogue continues to be an inspiring example of the ideals of such dialogue; however, Christians now live in a much different world. Often they are now the ones being asked to tolerate the presence of practitioners of other religious faiths. While we can and should learn from the methods of early Christians who engaged its practice, the Church has, in her long history, developed its own understanding of how it should be done, and for the sake of this examination of inter-religious dialogue, we will focus on what the Church, her leaders, and those engaged in inter-religious dialogue currently suggest as to how one should act and conduct themselves in such dialogue. Obviously there is room for development, and room for us to learn from previous generations, but we must also understand that the Church is the proper interpreter of tradition, and as such, we must always start and end all theological discussion with what the Church teaches.
What follows can be said to be a methodology for inter-religious dialogue. In saying this, one must not assume this means one will have a systematic, scientific formula that one must follow to engage its practice, because, of course, such a thing is impossible to produce; rather, it is an exposition on what one must do before the dialogue, the attitude one must have in the dialogue, and the way one should conduct themselves to allow the dialogue to remain a dialogue.
First, before engaging inter-religious dialogue, one needs to prepare oneself for it. It is virtually impossible for one to know every detail about one’s faith. No one is expected to go into a dialogue with a ready answer to any possible question they can be given. But it is a good idea, especially for any formal dialogue, for one to study and be reminded of the basics of their faith, including its doctrines, history, and religious practices, through some sort of catechetical material. Moreover, in such formal dialogues, spiritual preparation is also expected. Representing one’s faith is more than knowing the faith as a series of facts, but by trying to live out the faith in all of its dimensions, to know the reality of faith through experience and not just from formal studies. Finally, one should also try to undertake some preparation in getting to know the other faith and the cultural background which surrounds it. “Any dialogue – including the religious one – depends on the cultural setting of the partners. To overlook the cultural differences that give rise to different religious beliefs is to court unavoidable misunderstandings”Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 70. Of course there is a danger here: one must not assume an elementary study of another faith is exhaustive nor even that they understood what they read properly. They must go into the dialogue open and ready to listen to the other, to let them explain their faith, but by doing proper study (which should not be from hostile sources) one can better frame their own mind and be ready to start thinking in categories beyond their own. This will help prevent the problem of equivocation which can cause religious adherents talking past each other.
When entering a dialogue, its participants should go into it with the spirit of charity and friendship. Christians should have in mind the example of Jesus. Indeed, while his ministry was focused upon Israel, Jesus did not set any limits as to who he would engage; he met with Samaritans and Romans and dialogued with them, even proclaiming his deep respect and admiration for them. Thus, we find the good Samaritan, a “heathen,” became the model of the moral law — the law of love (Luke 10:25-37). And it was a pagan whom Jesus proclaimed as possessing a faith greater than all of Israel (Matthew 8:5-13).
Those engaged in dialogue should be willing to question each other with humility and grace. There should be no harsh words spoken between them. “Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: “Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart.” It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness” Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, (Vatican: 08-06-1974), par. 81. If, in the course of events, one accidentally says something which would normally offend their dialogue partner, the partner should understand, and not be offended. They should forgive as one forgives a friend. Moreover, they should explain to the dialogue partner why they felt insulted; if both parties are truly open and humble, they will be able to turn the situation into a learning experience, and indeed, both parties might be able to come to a better understanding of each other as a result of this. But never should one intentionally insult the other for that breaks the spirit of charity. One most constantly strive for this charity: even if one side does not do so, this should not be seen as an excuse for others to forgo the spirit of friendship.
They must also come together without any preconceived expectations as to where the dialogue will lead or how it should end up. Since the dialogue itself is an encounter between people of different religious faiths, it is clear they will learn from each other things they did not know about before. Thus, what will happen in the dialogue cannot be pre-determined; if one believes a specific outcome must occur, then, in reality, they are probably going into the dialogue not with a desire for dialogue but with a monologue which dictates to others without receiving anything from the encounter in return. Such a person does not really know how to open themselves up to encounter someone else. They are afraid of what will happen if they do so. They recognize that true dialogue has risks; but these risks are ones which we must take. “Any way we look at it, dialogue is an adventure in which the participants are not sure how things will turn out. They are content merely to have confidence in each other, to begin talking and to take action together. They need a certain range of freedom which will permit each party to experiment, taking into full account, of course, the other party and its community. New relationships are thus formed, and whatever their depth or significance at the beginning, they are bound to evolve, grow and bear fruit” Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Interreligious Documents I: Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims. trans. R. Marston Speight (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), 33
Moreover, it is clear that the dialogue partners need to cleanse themselves of preconceived notions they might have of one another. Often, if not most of the time, people’s opinions of other faiths are based, not upon a proper study of that other faith, but by some sort of polemical tract filled with rumor, red herrings and strawmen which rarely meet or truly explain the other faith. “The interlocutors must rid themselves of all inferiority or superiority complexes, and become ever more receptive of the way those from other religion explain themselves and their tradition. Gradually, from each side, they should be able to put themselves in the place of the others” Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Interreligious Documents I, 32. Thus, for example in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims, both Christians and Muslims are encouraged to overcome former polemics, based upon erroneous presentations of one another, and actually to get to know one another once again in a new, fresh encounter. “It is important that Muslims and Christians continue to explore philosophical and theological questions together, in order to come to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each others’ religious beliefs. Better mutual understanding will surely lead, at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions not in opposition, as has happened too often in the past, but in partnership for the good of the human family” Pope John Paul II, Meeting with Muslim Leaders (Damascus: 5-6-2001). The way people come to explore together requires an openness to each other, an appreciation of each other’s ability to represent themselves, and to understand that what we might believe them to be might not actually be who they are (even as Christians were not sacrificing babies and eating them during their liturgical rites). One should try to be able to learn to appreciate and understand another religious faith within its own context and traditions, so that one could present it to others in a way members of that faith will be able to affirm what you say truly represents them.
During the dialogue participants cannot engage in any baseless proselytism. They are coming together to get to know each other, not to use outdated rhetoric based upon misunderstandings to insult each other. Indeed, while they recognize the differences between each other, and they have no illusion of forming a common religious identity as a result of the dialogue, most of them will at least understand that dialogue itself is a religious event which, in part, glorifies God. They can do so because they can recognize God is working throughout the world, even through people of different religious traditions. “Toward God, a dialogue person should be open to the action of God’s grace in him or her through the dialogue. This includes the willingness to recognize and rejoice at the workings of God in people of other religions, and receptive minds regarding constructive values seen among other believers” Francis Cardinal Arinze, Meeting Other Believers (Huntington, Indiana: OurSundayVistor, 1997), 95. However, this affirmation can be and probably will be limited, because, of course, people will have different understandings as to how God is working in and through others. It must be made clear, participants in inter-religious dialogue, being faithful members of a particular religious tradition, can and probably will believe God is working in one religious tradition more than others, which is why they are active members of that particular religion! Therefore, there is no need to assume or believe that the recognition of God’s working in another religious tradition of itself diminishes one’s own religious tradition, or that it is a belief in the relative equality of all religious traditions. What John Garvey says for the Christian in inter-religious dialogue can be and should be said for members of all religious faiths, when he says, “Emphasizing what we have in common is a good beginning point for inter-religious discussion, and even after we have identified those points on which we cannot agree, there are still fruitful areas of discussion and cooperation. But there are differences that may not be downplayed without betraying our tradition, and in our attempts to seem companionable, we may be showing a lack of respect for the other’s tradition” John Garvey, Seeds of the Word: Orthodox Thinking on Other Religious (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 122. While we show respect for others, we must continue to embrace our own faith, and respect it and its teachings.
Differences, of course, will bring out questions. Whether the dialogue is in an informal, free-flowing setting, or one with more formal expectations and guidelines, these questions will turn up and they must not be set side. For they can and will illuminate beliefs and teachings of individual religious faiths and practices, and so they must be asked – but when they are asked, they must be asked in charity to build up and understand one another and not to prove one another wrong. At this point, when asked a question, one should answer it to the best of their ability, and they should not conceal anything they know about the answer, even if they think others will not like or appreciate what that answer would be. And here, then, one can even be practicing apologetics: “…the sincerity of interreligious dialogue requires that each enters into it with the integrity of his or her own faith” Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation (Vatican: 5-19-1991), par. 48. One’s opinions are wanted, and these opinions will include, not only a description of an individual teaching, but an explanation for it. However, it must be made clear: this kind of apologetics is not aimed at showing the inferiority of another’s religious tradition, nor a time to attack it, but, rather, it is only a time where one goes about explaining their own religious faith, providing the reasons why one believes a particular religious teaching is true; if one does not do this, they will be holding back and concealing a key part of their religious heritage and the dialogue will be incomplete. In a similar frame of thought, some scholars, such as Paul Griffiths, suggest that inter-religious dialogue should also allow for apologetics with a polemical bent: that is, not only does one explain one’s own faith, but they also explain it in relation to other faiths, showing why they believe other faiths are defective (see, Paul J. Griffiths, An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991)). Here, of course, one can ask if one would still be practicing inter-religious dialogue, or if one would then have entered into outright debate; debate, to be sure, can be good and fruitful and has its place, but most participants in inter-religious dialogue do not think it has a place at the dialogue table but at some encounter outside of it. “It must be repeated again that true dialogue presupposes that the participants have no intention of changing the faith of the others. Such intentions would be a parody or a betrayal of authentic dialogue, which is intended to progress under the eye of God and by the action of His Spirit. Rather the partners should seek to help each other toward an ever-deepening personal conversion to God and a fuller obedience to Him” Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims , 42.
While there is a subjective matter to the dialogue, as is obvious, we must also understand a religion, in its entirety, transcends the subjective dimension; while engaging in inter-religious dialogue, and explaining one’s experiences in their faith with others, one should not limit their discussion and explanations to a purely subjective presentation. “This sense of religion as a private taste, something totally interior and subjective, concedes too much to the spirit of the age and its secular assumptions” John Garvey, Seeds of the Word, 111. While one’s experiences help demonstrate that religious doctrine has an actual, practical, ramification, nonetheless, one’s own religious experiences probably do not exhaust the full teachings and possible experiences of one’s religious tradition. It is for this reason that inter-religious dialogue not only welcomes but encourages participants in dialogues to reference texts written by religious authorities. Because what is being engaged is not an argument or a debate, but an exposition of religious doctrine, religious authorities, through their expertise (however it is defined by a given religious community) are important witnesses who should not ignored. Of course, it must be emphasized, these texts and witnesses are to be employed for expository reasons, and not for some sort of backhanded argument.
Moreover, there are many hindrances to inter-religious dialogue which must be worked against. “Already on a purely human level, it is not easy to practise dialogue. Interreligious dialogue is even more difficult. It is important to be aware of the obstacles which may arise. Some would apply equally to the members of all religious traditions and impede the success of dialogue. Others may affect some religious traditions more specifically and make it difficult for a process of dialogue to be initiated” Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation, par. 51. Among these hindrances include: a lack of trust based upon historical socio-political circumstances and burdens which at least one side of the dialogue have encountered with the other, a lack of patience based upon a belief that inter-religious dialogue should produce fast results, and the lack of clarity by which one or more sides finds it difficult to properly portray their religious faith. Of course, in trying to attain clarity, one must keep in mind one’s audience, and part of the problem could be misunderstanding what one’s audience is capable of understanding. “The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers” Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, par. 81.
But the fruits of inter-religious dialogue make all the preparation and struggles to maintain the dialogue worth it. To see this, we will next turn to examples of inter-religious dialogue.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In