“Interreligious dialogue is a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission” (RM 55). This clear statement, found in John Paul II’s missionary encyclical Redemptor Hominis (1990), recognizes the important role of interreligious dialogue in the Church’s life. This was not a new idea, since it already appears in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Recent Popes have developed the bare outlines of these documents, and Paul VI’s journeys and John Paul II’s visits, talks, and teachings have emphasized the importance of relations with people from other religious traditions.

In interreligious relations, formal meetings and learned discussions certainly have their place, but these relations involve much more than theological discussion. Theology arises from experience, and I wish to situate the whole question of interreligious dialogue within the context of everyday life. I shall first look briefly at the goal of dialogue and the forms it might take. A document of 1991, Dialogue and Proclamation (DP), building on an earlier document of 1984, gave the following definition:

In the context of religious plurality, dialogue means “all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment,” in obedience to truth and respect for freedom (DP 9).

From this it can be seen that interreligious dialogue is a response to religious plurality, a phenomenon which is increasing as communications become easier and more rapid. In recent years both the awareness of diversity and the need and desire for dialogue have grown. Moreover, the term chosen to define dialogue is “relations,” showing that dialogue does not only mean verbal exchange but includes many kinds of human interaction.

Such relations, which to qualify as dialogue must be positive and constructive, can exist between individual believers at an informal level, or between representatives of communities. It should be noted that dialogue takes place between people, not between systems.

The goal of dialogue is first “mutual understanding,” to try to understand others as they want to be understood. Each person has to be open, ready to listen, to put aside prejudice, and learn from the other. At the same time, each must have the freedom to express their own conviction.

A further goal is “mutual enrichment.” Relations with people of other religions must never degenerate into rivalry or polemics—trying to score points. Where the relationship is positive, it will lead to admiration for what is good in the other religion, and encourage us to deepen our knowledge not only of that religion but of our own as well.

Forms of Dialogue

The 1984 document, Dialogue and Mission (DM), was perhaps the first to present four forms of dialogue. These were briefly and conveniently summarized in DP:

The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighborly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations.
The dialogue of action, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people.
The dialogue of theological exchange, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritage, and to appreciate each other’s spiritual values.
The dialogue of religious experience, where persons rooted in their own religious traditions share their spiritual riches, for instance with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute (DP 42)

.

This typology is not exhaustive, nor are the definitions perfect. In particular, instead of the dialogue of theological exchange some would prefer the dialogue of discourse, or of formal exchange, since the subject may not necessarily be confined to theological issues. However, this division into four forms has proved its worth pedagogically, and I shall follow it, as we look at ways in which true dialogue can be encouraged and practiced.

Dialogue of Life

From the description above it can be seen that the dialogue of life is not something passive, not mere co-existence; it requires openness, a desire to enter into relations with others. Its aim is to establish good neighborly relations, to ensure that people live in peace and harmony.

How can this be done? Perhaps the first thing is to stimulate an active interest in the other, especially people of a different religion. Acquiring knowledge about others, through reading or direct contact, helps to overcome prejudices and encourage understanding. Paying visits to one another’s homes is a normal way of increasing neighborliness. “Sharing joys and sorrows” could include presenting congratulations at a marriage or birth, offering condolences at a bereavement, or giving a helping hand. Life itself provides occasions for meeting.

Sometimes these visits may be organized. Westminster Interfaith, an initiative of the Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, London, every year holds a walk (“Pilgrimage of Peace”) through the streets of London, a different area each time. The walkers, or pilgrims, go from one place of worship to another, from the Baptist chapel to the Buddhist temple, from the synagogue to the Sikh gurdwara, from the Anglican or Catholic church to the Hindu temple. In each place the local community is able to receive the group on its own terms, offering an opportunity for rest and refreshment, but also a chance to learn something about the host community. The walkers too, as they go along, are drawn to share their own stories, as pilgrims do. This annual walk thus helps people of different religious traditions to grow in unity, while at the same time they give a united witness to the wider public.

Another organized form of the dialogue of life is the Duyog Ramadan program in the Southern Philippines. This is a program to help Christians accompany (the meaning of the word duyog) Muslims during the fasting month of Ramadan. By appropriate sermons and talks, and special programs on the radio, Christians are made aware of how Muslims observe Ramadan and why. In this way greater understanding can be built up, and possible tensions overcome.

Acknowledging the feasts of people of other religions is a way of showing recognition and esteem for them. Since 1967 our Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) has sent a message of greetings to Muslims for Id al Fitr, the feast concluding the month of Ramadan. In recent years also our Council has been sending a message to Buddhists for Vesakh, and to Hindus for Diwali. These messages are well received, and are certainly a way of building up good relations.

A very obvious example of the dialogue of life is seen in interreligious marriages. While the Church does not encourage these, since the difference of religion can bring added strain, these marriages should be upheld and helped to work. In France and in England, and in other places, there are already groups of couples of mixed faith, who meet for sharing, reflection, and support.

Dialogue of Action

After having mentioned the four forms of dialogue, Dialogue and Proclamation goes on to say:

The importance of dialogue for integral development, social justice and human liberation needs to be stressed. Local churches are called upon, as witnesses to Christ, to commit themselves in this respect in an unselfish and impartial manner. There is need to stand up for human rights, proclaim the demands of justice, and denounce injustice not only when their own members are victimized, but independently of the religious allegiance of the victims (DP 44).

The document here addresses Christians—in particular Catholics—and local churches, but they are not the only ones working for greater respect for human rights. In Pakistan for instance, where Christians constitute a very small minority of the population, it is encouraging to see that Christians and Muslims have been protesting together against certain measures, such as the proposal to include religion on identity cards, or the blasphemy law. It is not of course only religious bodies that “stand up for human rights,” but also neutral bodies, which can often be more effective.

The passage from Dialogue and Proclamation continues: “There is need also to join together in trying to solve the great problems facing society and the world, as well as in education for justice and peace” (ibid.)

Religious bodies need to collaborate more in humanitarian aid—for instance, help for refugees, assistance after natural disasters, reconstruction after war, reconciliation. One example is a joint project of the Italian Episcopal Conference and the Chinese Red Cross that finances a training school for nurses in mainland China. This project is facilitated by the Schweizer Temple in Japan, a Buddhist institution, and a neighboring Christian house of prayer.

This need for collaboration seems to me to have been the inspiration behind an organization such as the World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP). The founders—a Unitarian, a Jew, and a Buddhist—felt that all religions were faced with the same problems, and that they would benefit by trying to tackle them together rather than separately. The first world conference was held in Kyoto in 1970, and the decision was taken to establish a permanent organization. A Catholic bishop, Archbishop Angelo Fernandes of New Delhi, gave enthusiastic support, and was chosen as the first President. One of the distinctive features of WCRP is that it brings into play the respective religious motivations for commitment to justice and peace. Recently the movement has become more action-oriented. It contributed to setting up an interreligious council in Sarajevo, and it has set up a similar council in Sierra Leone that has become engaged in the rehabilitation of child soldiers.

There can be networking too, with many religions joining in on equal terms, as with local Interfaith councils—generally concerned more with local social problems than with religion as such. One such example is the Inter Faith Network for the UK, which brings together institutions and persons from all the faiths and provides a forum for making representation to the Government.

Work for justice and peace is an integral part of the Church’s mission; it forms part of its diakonia and has to be carried out at all levels. The services of education, medical work, and social action are not confined to the Church’s members but are offered to all. Similarly, members of the Church, either as individuals or as recognized religious bodies, may work within already existing structures, state or private. And there are other initiatives, in the countries of the Maghreb for instance, where Christians are involved alongside Muslims in private associations. A great deal of confidence is needed to be able to work harmoniously together, and this kind of action can truly be considered a form of dialogue.

Dialogue of Discourse

Perhaps the most familiar “type” of dialogue, formal exchange can take many different forms. The dialogue can be bilateral, Christian-Jewish, Christian-Muslim; or trilateral, Jews, Christians, and Muslims together; or multilateral, with people of many different religious traditions taking part. Each has its own special advantages.

Meetings will also differ in the number of participants, ranging from large congresses to groups that can meet in people’s homes. Some are unique experiences, while others may be occasional or regular meetings. Again, the topics addressed may be theological or social issues. The way of organizing the meetings can differ: the choice of participants may be through inviting individuals or by institutions selecting their own representatives.

This dialogue of discourse, firstly with Muslims, has included meetings between our Council and the Al Albait (Jordan) on religious education, rights of children, women in society, religion and nationalism, use of the earth’s resources, human dignity. With the World Islamic Call Society (WICS) which has its headquarters in Tripoli, Libya, we have discussed mission and da’wa, tolerance, religion and the media, and the role and formation of priests and imams. With Buddhists, we have held meetings on convergence and divergence, the human condition and the need for liberation, ultimate reality and the experience of Nirvana, Buddha and Christ, personal detachment and social commitment. Another meeting, in Bangalore, was on word and silence. With Hindus, meetings have been held in New Delhi on working for harmony in the contemporary world, in Madurai on issues in Hindu-Christian dialogue, in Pune on Hindu and Christian cosmology and anthropology, in Parma and Rome on artisans of peace.

If the dialogue of discourse is to succeed, certain conditions need to be fulfilled: preparation should be carried out jointly and seriously, while still leaving room for spontaneous discussion. Care must be taken to avoid polemics, but also not to restrict the exchanges to a purely academic approach. There will be a certain amount of repetition, especially when new people are brought into the dialogues. Very often meetings wish to end up with a common statement, and it is best not to try to say too much, so that there can at least be some common ground. Continuity is good. It is obvious that confidence grows when people meet at frequent intervals.

Dialogue of Religious Experience

To some extent this can be a specific form of the dialogue of discourse, when the topics for discussion are selected from the realm of spirituality. One example is the Christian-Muslim seminar on Holiness held at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies in 1985, with papers on the concept of holiness, the teaching on the paths to holiness, and concrete examples of holy people, in the two religions.

A similar discussion of spiritual teaching occurred in the encounters of the Ribat al-Salam, a group that used to meet at the Trappist monastery of Tibhérine, in Algeria, until the assassination of the seven monks in 1996. Besides providing an opportunity for sharing, these encounters were particular in that they included a considerable time given over to prayer.

The dialogue of religious experience is being developed among monastics, and an international secretariat has been set up to stimulate and coordinate this Monastic Interreligious Dialogue (MID). While the American group started by welcoming in particular monks and nuns from the Tibetan tradition, in Europe more contact has been made with the Zen tradition of Japan. The experience includes periods of two to three weeks in a monastery of the other tradition, developing a dialogue without words. This has flourished mainly between Buddhists and Christians, since they share the tradition of monasticism.

It should not be thought that dialogue of religious experience is confined to monastics. Interreligious prayer can be considered a form of this particular dialogue, and is a growing phenomenon. The World Day of Prayer for Peace, held in Assisi in October 1986, has encouraged many people to come together to pray. People may feel a need to pray together at times of crisis or disaster. There can be more private occasions too. Different sensibilities have to be respected, and it is not generally possible to find forms of prayer which can be shared. Yet, provided the participants are attentive and listen with respect to another tradition’s prayers, this can be a true form of dialogue.

In this regard, certain conditions should be underlined. First integrity, that there should be no compromise of one’s own religious convictions. Secondly respect, not embarrassing people by inviting them to say words or perform gestures with which they are not comfortable. Finally humility, acknowledging the limitations of human symbols and accepting the signs of God’s presence.

It may be useful here to quote a passage from Dialogue and Mission:

This type of dialogue can be a (source of) mutual enrichment and fruitful cooperation for promoting and preserving the highest values and spiritual ideals. It leads naturally to each partner communicating to the other the reasons for one’s own faith. The sometimes profound differences between the faiths do not prevent this dialogue. Those differences, rather, must be referred back in humility and confidence to God who “is greater than our heart” (1 John 3:20) (DM 35).

Dispositions for Dialogue

To conclude, it may be good to say something about the dispositions needed for dialogue. There is a need for a balanced attitude. It is true that the Holy Spirit is at work both in the hearts of individuals and in the religious traditions to which they belong. This does not mean that everything in these traditions is good; however, they cannot be dismissed simply as evil or without value. There is need for openness and receptivity as well as discernment.

A further disposition required is a strong religious conviction. Without this there would be a danger of indifference to religious values, a temptation not to take others’ religious convictions seriously. Or if one’s own beliefs are not strong enough, a challenge might lead to a defensive or even aggressive attitude. We need a respectful and receptive approach to the convictions and values of the other.

Connected with this is an openness to the truth. The conviction that the fullness of truth is to be found in Jesus Christ does not rule out such openness. Provided the Christian realizes that Truth is something by which we are to be grasped rather than for us to grasp, the meeting with others can help towards a deeper understanding of the truth. Dialogue can thus become a true learning process.

For this to be realized a contemplative spirit is needed. Through contemplation one is able to discover and admire what God is doing through the Holy Spirit, in the world, in the whole of humanity. Prayer in which a dialogue with God is developed provides a solid foundation for dialogue with others.

Finally there are patience and perseverance. One cannot look for quick results. There are obstacles: ignorance, prejudice, suspicion, self-sufficiency, as well as socio-political factors which may make genuine encounter difficult. Many things have to be explained again and again, and this can cause weariness. Nor should failures or disappointments lead to discouragement. The fruits will come in their own good time; yet it may be true here as elsewhere, that one will reap where another has sown. It is God who gives the increase.

One final quotation from Dialogue and Proclamation:

It must be remembered that the Church’s commitment to dialogue is not dependent on success in achieving mutual understanding and enrichment; rather it flows from God’s initiative in entering into dialogue with humankind and from the example of Jesus Christ whose life, death and resurrection gave to that dialogue its ultimate expression. (DP 53)