Religion as a Conversation Starter

Interreligious Dialogue for Peacebuilding in the Balkans

Ina Merdjanova, Patrice Brodeur

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9781441194381
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441157157
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Religion as a Conversation Starter is the first comprehensive analysis of the present state of interreligious dialogue for peacebuilding in Southeast Europe. It is based on empirically grounded and policy-oriented research, carried out throughout the Balkans. The study maps recent interreligious relations in this part of the world, throwing light on both the achievements and challenges of interreligious dialogue for peacebuilding in particular, and offering a set of up-to-date policy recommendations, whilst contributing to a greater understanding of the local particularities and how they relate to broader trends transnationally. Interreligious dialogue has been a central tool in the continuous international efforts to promote peaceful living together in multicultural and multireligious societies. This fascinating monograph explores the place of interreligious dialogue as a primary method in conflict resolution and peacebuilding, and will be of interest to scholars of religious and peace studies, as well as those who advocate and carry out organized interventions in religion-related spheres.

Chapter 1

Towards a Theory of Interreligious Dialogue for Peacebuilding

Interreligious dialogue for peacebuilding (IDP) is an important approach that places the practice of dialogue at the heart of peacebuilding. It fosters the (re)building of trust relations and enhances social cohesion. It increases awareness about how to improve human interactions, both locally and globally, by recognizing the importance of integrating religious identities into intergroup dialogue. IDP builds on a century-long history of interreligious dialogue and merges it with the latest developments in the scholarly understanding of peacebuilding. IDP thus integrates into the peace movement the millions of people worldwide who have been involved in one form or another of interreligious dialogue.

The theory of IDP is the outcome of a particular historical trajectory that has come to combine two genealogies: one theoretical and the other methodological. The first is linked to the growing subfield of interreligious dialogue within the academic study of religions. The second is related to the methodology of research-action, itself the fruit of more recent developments within a variety of applied sectors in many scientific disciplines, including the applied academic study of religions as well as the peace and conflict resolution studies. Both genealogies will be analyzed later in the chapter after the presentation of our theory of IDP. Since theorizing builds upon actual practices of interreligious dialogue, we will start with a succinct outline of cornerstone developments in this arena.

Historical Overview of the Practices of Interreligious Dialogue

It can be argued that the practices of interreligious dialogue are both ancient and modern.¹ For our purposes in this chapter, we will focus on the latter. In what seems like a rare case of academic consensus in the study of religions, scholars point to the two-week World Parliament of Religions that took place in Chicago in 1893 as the modern beginnings of interreligious or interfaith dialogue.² This modern practice is characterized, in part, by two aspects: a broad diversity in the religious composition of its main participants as well as an emphasis on understanding each other rather than converting one another. In other words, communication for better understanding was prioritized over ‘winning’ theological arguments. Informal encounters between some participants followed the Parliament, especially in Boston. The need for cooperation on commonly agreed-upon issues soon emerged, leading to the creation in 1900 of the first interreligious organization: the International Association for Interreligious Freedom (IARF). It focused on religious freedom, bringing together a number of liberal wings of various religions in different parts of the world. They had discovered at the Parliament and during the course of subsequent encounters how much they each struggled to be recognized by mainline, orthodox groups within their respective religions.

The modern interreligious dialogue continued to grow in the following decades, albeit very slowly. Institutionally, it was not until 40 years later, in 1933, that the World Fellowship of Faiths’ First International Congress took place also in Chicago. It was called unofficially the ‘second Parliament of Religions’ under the legacy of the first Parliament held in that city. This gathering had also been stimulated by another recent event, the ‘Religions of Empire Conference’ held in London in 1924. Subsequently, when after the 1936 Congress, the World Congress of Faiths (Continuation Movement) was established, WCF became an independent body.³ The socio-political dynamics for the emergence of this international interreligious organization were very different from those that had sparked the first World’s Parliament of Religions in the United States almost half a century earlier, which left a few traces but no organizational legacy. In the 1930s, Britain was an empire, yet the vision behind the World Congress of Faiths was greatly influenced by the mystical experiences of its founder, Sir Francis Younghusband,

who stressed that the one aim of the Congress was to promote the spirit of fellowship. He ruled out certain misunderstandings. There was no intention of formulating another eclectic religion, nor of seeking the lowest common denominator, nor of appraising the value of existing religions and discussions respective merits and defects. It was not maintained that all religions were the same, nor equally true, nor as good as one another. The hope was to ‘intensify that sense of community which is latent in all men’ and to awaken a livelier world-consciousness. Sir Francis mentioned that through discussion and reflection, the conception of God grew greater and that by coming closer to each other, members of different religion deepened their own spiritual communion.⁴

To be sure, the World Congress of Faiths promoted a kind of intellectual and experiential dialogue that was very far from the activist language that was to develop another generation later, after most of the mainline Christian Churches embarked officially on the interreligious dialogue journey.

In 1948, the World Council of Churches (WCC) was established. It was itself the result of intra-Christian dialogue started prior to WWII.⁵ Yet, it was not until the Roman Catholics opened an official office for the promotion of interreligious dialogue in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 that the WCC followed suit by establishing its own office of dialogue with people of living faiths and, subsequently, ideologies.⁶ These two offices were key players in financing many interreligious dialogue activities worldwide, mostly theological in nature.⁷

It was partially in reaction of this form of dialogue oriented primarily towards theological understanding, whether official or unofficial, that other religious leaders, including lay people, of major world religions came to organize the World Conference on Religion and Peace that was held in Kyoto in 1970. This event was marked by a strong public reaction against the Cold War dynamics and growing militarization worldwide. It laid the grounds for what was to become the largest activist interreligious organization in the world, now renamed Religions for Peace – International. Its mission statement reads as follows:

Religions for Peace is the largest international coalition of representatives from the world’s great religions dedicated to promoting peace. Respecting religious differences while celebrating our common humanity, Religions for Peace is active on every continent and in some of the most troubled areas of the world, creating multi-religious partnerships to confront our most dire issues: stopping war, ending poverty, and protecting the earth.⁸

Other activist organizations soon appeared, to address the needs of a growing interest at the grassroots level. In New York City, the Temple of Understanding developed from 1968 onwards an international peace agenda specifically linked to its geographical proximity to the UN headquarters. In India, the World Fellowship of Interreligious Councils started in Kerala in 1981 to address growing interreligious tensions. In Chicago, to celebrate the centenary of the first Parliament of the World’s Religions, a Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions was established in 1988, leading to a permanent office that continues to provide an umbrella space for interreligious dialogue organizations and individuals to meet every five years or so (Chicago: 1993; Cape Town: 1999; Barcelona: 2004; Melbourne: 2009). In San Francisco, following the organization of an interreligious event to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, Religions Initiative Inc. was established in 1995, marked by a grassroots approach greatly facilitated by the new internet technology.

This brief overview of major worldwide interreligious dialogue organizations is not exhaustive by any means, other organizations having appeared over the last 40 years or so. It gives a taste of the initially slow and then more rapid increase in organizational structures, itself a result of the growing need for cooperation across religious and spiritual traditions. No doubt, the steady growth in both the number of participants in interreligious dialogue activities and in the number of organizations worldwide is remarkable.

As the practice of interreligious dialogue grew exponentially over the last few decades, the need to clarify organizational approaches became obvious. Many critiques of interreligious dialogue activities noticed that while they may promote interreligious understanding, dialogue for interreligious cooperation on a variety of issues does not necessarily follow, especially in situations of serious social conflict and war. While it is easier to talk across perceived enemy lines when abroad, upon return, the dialogue is often very difficult to continue because of local pressures against it. Irrespective of the degree of social harmony or conflict in one’s home context, this challenge exists whenever the home reception of the idea of interreligious dialogue and cooperation is negative. Whether it be for a major religious leader in tension with his own followers who oppose his participation in such meetings or for a young person who suddenly lived through a positive transformative interreligious dialogue experience she can not share readily with her local friends upon return, the challenge of continuing dialogue upon return home is almost always there. This reality raises the need to create and sustain more explicitly local interreligious dialogue activities and organizational structures to foster them.

The aftermath of September 11, 2001, only strengthened what can now be called a worldwide interreligious movement. This global endeavour actively promotes a closer link between older forms of dialogue for the sake of theological understanding and spiritual fellowship, and newer forms of dialogue for cooperation on a variety of issues both broad (peace or the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals, for example) and narrow (local poverty alleviation or inter-parish visits, for example). At a grassroots level, hundreds if not thousands of interreligious organizations have emerged in the last quarter of a century. While they certainly need to clarify for themselves the purpose of their activities, a tension naturally arises between those organizational members who want to nurture the dialogue of mutual learning and search for common understanding and those who seek more ‘action’, more interreligious cooperation to foster peacebuilding. To be sure, the latter would hardly be possible without the former. Moreover, many religious institutions would not sanction the practice of various forms of activist interreligious dialogue if they had not first experienced the former. Finally, the reasoning that concrete action is more important than ‘only’ talking underestimates, and even neglects, the value of clear communication, which is absolutely essential for the development of better cooperation. Apart from discovering degrees of agreement or disagreement on particular concepts and ideas, the practice of interreligious dialogue leads to the realization that how we talk to each other crossreligiously is also a central concern of interreligious dialogue. In short, interreligious dialogue and interreligious practical cooperation are not mutually exclusive; they rather reinforce each other. This point became obvious as more and more attention has been given to theorizing interreligious dialogue over the last few decades.

Defining Interreligious Dialogue for Peacebuilding

In order to present our own definition of interreligious dialogue for peacebuilding, it is necessary first to define interreligious dialogue. Over the last 50 years, the study of interreligious dialogue unfolded in piecemeal fashion as practitioners endeavoured to clarify what they meant by ‘interreligious dialogue’ within the context of their specific and respective practices and disciplinary fields of expertise. Chronologically, the following sample of definitions gives an idea of the variety of scholarly perspectives on interreligious dialogue, providing a general academic framework for the presentation of our own definition further below.

The most popular, yet indirect, definition of interreligious dialogue is probably the one published by Leonard Swidler in 1983 as Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious, Interideological Dialogue⁹:

1. Dialogue to learn, to change, and to grow, and act accordingly;

2. Dialogue to share and receive from others;

3. Dialogue with honesty and sincerity;

4. Dialogue comparing ideals with ideals, and practice with practice;

5. Dialogue to define yourself and to learn the self-definition of others;

6. Dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions about someone else’s beliefs;

7. Dialogue to share with equals;

8. Dialogue in trust;

9. Dialogue with willingness to look at your beliefs and traditions critically; and

10. Dialogue seeking to understand the other person’s beliefs from within.

These rules hide a definition of dialogue which covers many important elements. Marcus Braybrooke (1992) explores some of them in his own words and adds important dimensions in the following excerpt from his book Pilgrimage of Hope, the first history of the development of modern interreligious dialogue:

There are various levels of dialogue and it is a process of growth. An initial requirement is an openness to and acceptance of the other. It takes time to build trust and to deepen relationships. This is why some continuity in a dialogue group is helpful and why patience and time are necessary – all of which are particularly difficult to ensure at an international level. Too easily, we find ourselves imposing our presuppositions on the conversation. [. . .] We have to learn to enter another world that may seem alien and which has different presuppositions. We have to allow our deepest convictions to be questioned. [. . .] It is important for those venturing into dialogue to be secure in their own faith. They need to beware of becoming marginalized in or alienated from their own religious tradition. Dialogue needs also to be of equals, that is to say of those with similar levels of scholarship and study. At its deepest, dialogue will raise questions of truth. [. . .] Dialogue does not necessarily produce agreement and, if it is a search for truth, there is no desire for easy compromise. Sometimes it makes clearer where essential differences lie, exposing the various presuppositions or views of the world with which partners in dialogue are operating. Sometimes, it can be painful.¹⁰

To define what he called ‘interfaith cooperation and dialogue’, Marcus Braybrooke referred to Diana Eck’s often-quoted definition entitled Six Forms of Dialogue:

The first is parliamentary style dialogue. Secondly, there is institutional dialogue, such as the regular meetings between representatives of the Vatican and the International Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultation. Thirdly, there is theological dialogue, which takes seriously the questions and challenges posed by people of other faiths. Fourthly, dialogue in a community or the dialogue of life is the search for good relationships in ordinary life. Fifthly, spiritual dialogue is the attempt to learn from other traditions of prayers and meditation. Lastly, there is inner dialogue, which is ‘that conversation that goes on within ourselves in any other form of dialogue’.¹¹

A few years later, in 1991, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican published its own set of guidelines for interreligious dialogue, outlining four kinds of dialogue: dialogue of life, dialogue of action, dialogue of theological exchange and dialogue of religious experience.¹² Recently, Fadi Daou, a Lebanese-French Maronite priest who teaches at the Université St-Joseph in Beirut and heads the Middle East Council of Churches’ committee for Christian-Muslim Dialogue suggested an updated classification: the dialogue of civilizations, intercultural dialogue, interreligious dialogue and spiritual solidarity.¹³ These four are interrelated and demonstrate how encompassing the dialogue movement has become in its understanding of what dialogue is, and what kinds of complementarity are necessary to reflect the broad variety of dialogue. Another author, Sami Aoun, has usefully emphasized that there is no ‘pure’ dialogue or ideal type. He has presented his own fivefold typology of ideological discourses underpinning interreligious dialogue: missionary, fundamentalist, ethical, consensual and institutional.¹⁴ The first four categories overlap to a large extent with the first three in Jane I. Smith’s eight models: persuasion, ethical exchange, theological exchange, ‘get to know you’, classroom, ritual, spirituality and cooperative.¹⁵

Another important thinker who has greatly helped clarify vital nuances in our understanding of interreligious dialogue is the Indo-Catalan philosopher-theologian Raimon Panikkar. He distinguishes between dialectical and dialogical dialogue:

The dialectical dialogue supposes that we are rational beings and that our knowledge is governed above all by the principle of noncontradiction. You and I admit it as a given, and if you lead me into contradiction I will either have to give up my opinion or attempt to overcome the impasse. We present our ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Map of the Ethnic Groups in South-eastern Europe
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Towards a Theory of Interreligious Dialogue for Peacebuilding
• Chapter 2 Interreligious Relations in the Balkans: An Overview
• Chapter 3 Interreligious Peacebuilding in the Balkans: Structural Developments
• Chapter 4 Major Achievements and Challenges in Interreligious Dialogue for Peacebuilding in the Balkans
• Chapter 5 Policy Recommendations
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index of Persons
• Index of Organizations
• General Index