(pictured delivering the address)
PRELIMINARY REMARKS1. The choice we face
2. Interreligious dialogue
a. its novelty
b. what it is not
c. what it is
d. four types of dialogue
e. other dialogues
WHY DIALOGUE?
3. Anthropological reasons
4. Theological reasons
5. Personal benefits
To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God. Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society's future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order. It is God's dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity. In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one.
Pope Benedict's address at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.
THE CHOICE WE FACE
Something of the dilemma that confronts us, the choice we face is: dialogue or death!!!
In researching for this paper I was surprised, and delighted, to read in
Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue:
In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village. We cannot ignore the other, the different. ... Hence, we humans today have a stark choice: dialogue or death! [1]
The crucial importance of dialogue was highlighted by Pope Benedict in August 2005 when he stated:
Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims [we can extend that to include believers from other religions] cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends. [emphasis given by the author] [2]
In 2007 138 Muslim scholars wrote A Common Word. It is an open letter to the Pope, to the leaders of the Orthodox Churches, to the leaders of the Protestant Churches, and to "Leaders of Christian Churches, everywhere" - which includes you, the leaders of the religious congregations of Australia, so if you haven't heard about this letter before, you've got mail. The signatories raise the importance of interreligious dialogue to an even higher level when they state:
And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony. [emphasis given by the author] [3]
So if the survival of life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, are at stake, then interreligious dialogue is indeed a matter of life or death.
INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
The novelty of interreligious dialogue
Firstly, interreligious dialogue is very new in the church. The word "dialogue" was first introduced into the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church by Pope Paul VI in his 1964 encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, where he used the word 81 times. He proposed a series of concentric circles, of a dialogue with all of humanity (97ff), with all believers in the one god (107ff), with all Christians (109ff), and within the Catholic Church (113ff). This schema influenced the Second Vatican Council, who used the same image but in the reverse order in Lumen Gentium 14 - 16 and in Gaudium et Spes 92.
"
Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", one of the most hard fought-over documents of the Council, is widely regarded as a watershed in Christian relations with believers from other religions. This new openness was not an exclusively Catholic phenomenon. Similar revolutionary changes were occurring in other churches, and in the World Council of Churches.
These openings gave impetus to a flurry of encounters, activities and conferences with people from different religions, which gave rise to a whole new lot of questions:
-
Has dialogue replaced mission?
-
Is dialogue a betrayal of the missionary mandate to teach and baptise (Mt 28:18-20)? [4]
-
What is the purpose of dialogue?
-
Does dialogue mean compromise?
-
If Christians can learn from other religions, what about the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ, and his unique role as universal Saviour, and the role of Church as privileged witness?
-
What is the role of other religions in God's plan of salvation?
Dialogue and Mission [5] and
Dialogue and Proclamation [6], the documents of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, addressed these questions and further developed Catholic teaching on interreligious dialogue.
A keyword search for "interreligious dialogue" in the Australian Catholic University's library catalogue from the nearly half million titles held in their six campuses, showed:
2000s 40 52%
1990s 22 29%
1980s 6 8%
1970s 5 7%
1960s 3 4%
Total: 76 100%
That is, just over half of the books in their holdings with this keyword were published since 2000, and 80% were published in the last two decades. Before that, interreligious dialogue was hardly on the radar screen.
Since interreligious dialogue is so new, and if choosing or refusing it is choosing between life and death, it is worth spending a few moments to clarify what it is not, what it is, and the various types.
What interreligious dialogue is NOT
Not ecumenism
You sometimes might come across the expression "the wider ecumenism." The expression "the wider ecumenism" is mis-leading and should not be used… since there is no drive for unity.
Not syncretism
It is not picking and choosing elements of different religions to make a blend of diverse religions.
Not comparative study
... In dialogue, there is always an element of personal encounter that goes beyond the mere academic gathering and sorting of information.
Not debate
... each partner grows in understanding, though not necessarily agreement with, the other.
Not compromise
If anything, it demands even greater integrity in one's faith… Besides, dialogue partners do not want to engage with religious relativists who say that all religions are equally good, or religious indifferentists who say that all religions are equally bad.
Not seeking converts
Dialogue ... does seek and expect "a deeper conversion of all towards God" (DP, 41). Although this latter may include leaving one's religion and embracing another religion, such lateral conversion is not the purpose of dialogue.
Not agreement
Dialogue does not aim at agreement, but at understanding, and ultimately at truth [7] ...
What interreligious dialogue IS
Dialogue means "not only discussion, but also includes all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment." (DM, 3; also quoted in DP, 9)
Interreligious dialogue is a meeting of people of differing religions, in an atmosphere of freedom and openness, in order to listen to the other, to try to understand that person's religion, and hopefully to seek possibilities of collaboration. It is hoped that the other partner will reciprocate, because dialogue should be marked by a two-way and not a one way movement. [8]
Four types of dialogue
Very briefly, there are generally acknowledged four types of interreligious dialogue:
Dialogue of Life (DM, 29-30)
believers from different religions living as neighbours, sharing each other's joys and sorrows
Dialogue of Deeds (DM, 31-2)
believers from different religions cooperating for the common good in accord with shared values
Dialogue of Theological Exchange (DM, 33-4)
believers from different religions seek to understand each others religious heritage
This is sometimes called "the dialogue of specialists", but I am wary of this title because it tends towards elitism, as if only those with advanced degrees can dialogue. Theologically illiterate believers asking simple questions of each other - why do you wear a veil? why don't you marry? and so on - and answering them from personal conviction can be a profound interreligious dialogue.
Dialogue of Religious Experience (DM, 35)
believers from different religions share their spiritual riches, the fruits of their contemplation and prayer. (see also DP, 42)
Wayne Teasdale suggests a similar typology with more user-friendly names [9]:
- dialogue of life
- dialogue of the hands
- dialogue of the head
- dialogue of the heart
to which he adds a fifth,
when one has practised one or more of the above dialogues for some time and come to know, respect and appreciate one's dialogue partner, this is simply enjoying the friendship that has developed. It may not be doing anything in particular ... simply enjoying each others' company.
Other dialogues
If you truly believe in dialogue, then you have to be consistent. Dialogue is a meeting of persons who reveal themselves to each other. Thus, if you choose dialogue in one relation, and refuse it in another, your varied stances in different circumstances reveal you to be a hypocrite. If you truly committed to dialogue, then you commit to it across the board.
-
Interreligious dialogue i.e. with believers from other religions
-
Intra-religious dialogue i.e. within your own religion:
-
Ecumenical dialogue
-
Intra-personal dialogue i.e. quid mihi est? (cf Jn 2:4)
-
there is always the question of how to respond to what I have learned in the dialogue - do I simply acknowledge it in the other? or do I appropriate it for myself? do I presume to correct what I believe is wrong (mindful of the log in my own eye (cf Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:41-2), or test whether I have understood it correctly?
-
Intercultural dialogue (including with secularists, humanists)
-
Dialogue with the poor
-
Dialogue with the exploited earth
-
(Inter-congregational dialogue i.e. with other religious communities)
-
(Intra-congregational dialogue i.e. within your religious community)
-
Dialogue of personal prayer
-
Dialogue of salvation
I have deliberately delayed on what dialogue is for two reasons.
First, I want to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing.
Second, I want to reassure you that, despite its novelty, interreligious dialogue is not exotic, or esoteric. It does not require lots of specialised training (though solid formation in attitudinal change is surely and sorely needed).
It is in fact very ordinary, something you are all familiar with. It is fulfilling the Golden Rule common to all religions: "do to others what you would have them do to you" (Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31). But because it is with believers from other religions, it has wide-reaching implications that touch virtually every aspect of life, church, and society.
ASSEMBLY PARTICIPANTS WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS ...
What struck you in what I have said so far?
What, if anything, was new?
What surprised you?
references
[1] Leonard Swidler, Khalid Duran, and Reuven Firestone, Trialogue: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue (New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007) 1
[4] "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Mt 28:18-20)
[5] Secretariat for Non-Christians, The Attitude of the Church Towards the Followers of Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission (Strathfield: Columban Mission Institute, 2008).
[6] Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Strathfield: Columban Mission Institute, 2008).
[8] Cardinal Francis Arinze, Meeting Other Believers (Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing - Fowler Wright Books, 1997) 16
[9] Wayne Teasdale, Catholicism in Dialogue: Conversations Across Traditions, ed. Robert A Ludwig, Catholic Studies Series (Lanham; Boulder; New York; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
WHY DIALOGUE?
Top of page
