“Evangelicals need more bravery when it comes to interreligious dialogue. There must be some old-fashioned daring…” The question for evangelicals is not Shall we engage in dialogue? but In what kinds of dialogue should we engage?” — D. Hesselgrave
Historically, some segments of Christianity have resisted interfaith dialogue. Resistance is, in part, based on the observation that interfaith dialogue has led some Christians to value appeasement over proclamation of the Gospel. While this may be true, I do not think it is a reason to eschew interfaith discussions. We cannot escape the necessity of our age to engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We do live in a dialogical age. We live in an age where homogeneity of thought is the exception rather than the rule. Diverse cultures, religions and worldviews are the stuff of which our countries and neighborhoods are made. We simply cannot change that. The question is whether we let the techniques of dialogue required for living in such a culture drive Christianity or whether Christianity discovers in a dialogical culture forms that can be useful in communicating the gospel, forms that do not violate the basic tenets of the faith.
Evangelicals And Interreligious Dialogue — Terry C. Muck, JETS 36:4 (December 1993) p. 523
Blogs offer a positive forum for healthy interfaith dialogue that do not necessitate a compromise of Faith. Here are eight conditions that make for healthy interfaith dialogue between Christians and those of other religious traditions.
Condition #1. Deal with the past, but don’t hold individuals responsible for it
Over the centuries, many wrongs have been done in the name, and against the name, of “religion.” We can talk about these events, empathize with the hurts of others, and discuss the impact of the past on our present; but, we should not hold individuals who played no part these atrocities responsible for the misdeeds of the past.
- Can we move forward together?
Condition #2. Express agendas with honesty
There is nothing wrong with having an agenda. Dialogue demands that we do not check our agendas at the door. Anyone with a deeply held faith or tradition understands that agendas are part of who we are and what makes our faiths meaningful. Hiding agendas, or pretending they are not important, is destructive to interfaith dialogue.
My agenda is to share the salvation hope that comes only through the death and resurrection power of the Messiah–Jesus. This, for me, is the context for interfaith dialogue.
- Can we be honest about our agendas?
Condition #3. Demonstrate love
Dialogue, especially for followers of Jesus, should be a demonstration of the Christian imperative to “love your neighbor.” As a Christian, my dialogue must also be a demonstration of love for my God who first loved me. Regardless of faith or tradition, loving speech is demonstrated when each person reveals weakness, risks self-exposure, and demonstrates empathy.
- What is the source of love that drives our speech?
Condition #4. Treat people as unique individuals instead of preconceived categories
The study of religion, theology, and different faiths can be informative, but it can also be counterproductive. Not everyone who calls himself “Mormon” will embrace the same theology as other Mormons. Just because a woman calls herself a Pagan, does not mean she agrees with the actions of every self-professed Pagan. Christians are not one monolithic group of thinkers and cannot be held to account for the thoughts of other Christians.
Healthy interfaith dialogue values the individual above their faith “category” and allow each person to express their thoughts, ideas, and feelings with an open mind.
- Have we learned to value the worth of each individual?
Condition #5. Contend in humility
As a Christian, I believe in truth. I believe we can know truth. And I believe the truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. BUT, knowing the Truth that is Jesus Christ, does not mean I have all the answers to every question of life.
The key to healthy dialogue amongst people of different religions, then, is found in ones ability to contend for truth in a manner that demonstrates the limitations of our humanity.
- Have you discovered the secret of humility?
Condition #6. Questions are the heart of dialogue
Questions are the friend of dialogue, but all too often people bristle at tough questions and become defensive. In my experience, people are all too quick to impose judgement and impugn motive rather than address questions in a straightforward manner. Healthy interfaith dialogue must embrace the use of exploratory questions as a tool for developing understanding.
- Are you willing to ask, and answer, difficult questions?
Condition #7. The goal is not a new “civil religion”
It is the great irony of our age that we live in a pluralistic society that marginalizes anyone who does not conform. Interfaith dialogue is often predicated on the pseudo-pluralistic condition that no one with firm convictions is taken seriously. Any view which is perceived to disrupt the civility of discourse is summarily set aside as unworthy of consideration. The erroneous goal for this kind of interfaith dialogue is the creation of a new civil religion acceptable to everyone; but in the end it alienates anyone with concrete religious values.
- Will you allow every voice an opportunity to be heard?
I am open to your thoughts on these 8 conditions that promote good dialogue. I would also like to read what you think should be added to the list.
This Synchroblog is a new experiment with a group of folks from many different faiths and religious traditions.
- J. R. Miller (Christian) of More Than Cake on 7 Conditions for Interfaith Dialogue”
- Liz Dyer (Christian) of Grace Rules on Interreligious Dialogue: Risky Business
- Matt Stone (Christian) of Glocal Christianity on Is Interfaith Interfaith enough?
- Steve Hayes (Christian Orthodox) of Notes from underground on Interreligious dialogue
- K.W. Leslie (Christian / Pentecostal / Assemblies of God) of The Evening of Kent on Gathering with the pagans.
- Phil Wyman (Christian) of Square No More on A Christian Presenter at Pagan Pride!?
- Beth Patterson (Liberal Christian w/ Celtic undertones) of Virtual Tea House on Same Stove, Different Teapots
- Jarred Harris (Pagan/Vanic Witch) of The Musings of a Confused Man on Interfaith relationships
- Yvonne Aburrow (Wiccan Unitarian) of the dance of the elements on Only connect
Regarding 
Regarding 
Regarding 
If we are doing what we are to do, frequently gathering with the Church, and those very brothers and sisters are charged with pulling us from the fire when they see us going there, then we ought to be able to have an interfaith dialogue or heck just a dialogue. Not only should we be suspicious of flatterers with great swelling words in our own ranks, we ought not to talk to those outside of the church in such a manner either. Aren’t we supposed to be loving, simple and direct?
An interesting personal note: at a time when I was content to merely identify myself as a Christian and not live out my faith, I was taking a class from a Zen Buddhist. It was from many discussions with him that began to wake up to my slumber in apathy. I often wonder who God would have used next if I hadn’t been listening then.
“Regardless of faith or tradition, loving speech is demonstrated when each person reveals weakness, risks self-exposure, and demonstrates empathy.”
I liked your conditions – they are good reminders for us. I thought your description of loving speech was especially thoughtful and beautiful.
I would add under your condition regarding agendas – that after we have been honest about our agendas to ourselves and the group that we should try to promote within ourselves and each other agendas that are truly other centered…I say this because in my own life my agendas (although often masked with language that made them sound like they were other centered) have mostly been self centered and have ended up being a barrier between me and others. Perhaps my own past failings make me a little more sensitive to this.
I like the eight conditions, and I agree that one should be honest about one’s agenda. But I don’t think that “sharing the salvation hope that comes only through Jesus” is a good basis for interfaith dialogue. As I said in my post, Only connect: in listening to the other points of view in the dialogue, I should be open to them to the point of willingness to change my own position, but they shouldn’t be trying to convert me. It’s rather a paradox, but it’s the only way to make it work.
Lanny,
if you every come through Orting, look me up.
gracerules,
I think you are right, healthy agendas are ones which are not self-focused. But… the point of dialogue is not to change or judge the other persons agenda, but encourage them to be honest about it. I would rather a person be honest about their self-centered agenda, than feel they need to conceal it.
For me, the value of dialogue is that we all come to the table with different agendas, yet in the midst of disagreement we find a way to value the people in the conversation.
yvonne,
nice to make your acquaintance and for your contribution to the syncroblog. You wrote, ” But I don’t think that “sharing the salvation hope that comes only through Jesus” is a good basis for interfaith dialogue.”
It is possible I am not reading your correctly, so I have two questions for you.
First, as a wiccan, you mention in your post that your agenda for dialogue is to show that “Pagan traditions are valid spiritual paths”
Why is your agenda valid and mine invalid? How do you determine which agendas are valid and which ones are not?
Second, you talked about being open, but yet without really knowing me you have already judged my agenda as invalid.
Does that mean I would not be welcome to dialogue with you? Do you think good dialogue is only with people who share the same agenda?
Based on your comment yvonne, I think you may have misunderstood my agenda, but hopefully you will rethink some things and take the time to ask me some questions before making your final judgments (see Condition #7). Thanks.
J.R. Perhaps the language that you use in describing your agenda sounds so certain that the impression is that you are not coming to the conversation with humility regarding your beliefs. I may very well end up being wrong about that – but the language we use in our conversation is all that is available to us as we form impressions and gain understanding. I never meant to indicate that I wanted anyone to be dishonest about their agenda or anything else – but honesty does not negate the need for someone to adjust or change. I don’t think that it is our position to change anyone but at the same time hope that all of us will be open to change. It is a constant check and balance thing I have to do with myself (it doesn’t seem to come naturally to me – maybe I haven’t had enough practice). I am trying to have what is called a “proper confidence” in my beliefs…convicted enough to be committed to living out my beliefs but with enough humility to always remember that I am probably wrong about dozens (if not hundreds) of things that I believe. I find living “within the tension” to be a challenge but good.
J.R.: I wouldn’t presume to speak for Yvonne. However, as this is a public discussion, I’d like to throw in my two cents.
I’d like to start by pointing out the obvious (to me at least) fact that different people have very different approaches when it comes to carrying out their agenda to share the salvation message. Some people’s approaches all too often tend to wreck interfaith dialogue. Some people pursue that agenda to the point where their version of interfaith dialogue derails into nothing more than them presenting their message to others. Some people pursue their agenda by only listening to others’ points of view insofar as to find the “gotcha” that proves that person’s point of view incorrect. People who approach their agenda and all of interfaith dialogue are difficult to have any real dialogue with.
Can other people seek to inject their salvation message into the dialogue without destroying it? Yes. But my experience has brought me to believe that those successful in doing so have more than that one agenda motivating them when it comes to interfaith dialogue.
Ummm…I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this post quite a bit. I feel a bit small by the intellectual meagerness of my comment and the lack of depth compared to the others, but that’s what you get from me. Great things are found in simplicity and I am by no means hollow =).
Dear J.R.–
This has been a good dialogue!
I don’t have a lot to add; I like your ‘conditions’.
I would add that agendas are tricky. There’s the agendas that WE know we have (and they should always be made known). And then there’s the agendas that we may have that we don’t know that we have. Those can be ascertained by asking honest people that are in contact or dialogue with us what they may ‘feel’ our unspoken agendas are. We can get some really impactful input that way…but basically acknowledging that we all have unspoken agendas as well as the spoken ones…and it’s the unspoken ones that, like body language, can throw off real communion.
Thanks for this thoughtful post and your work on this synchroblog!
Beth
Liz (gracerules),
Given our cultural understanding of “truth”, I can understand how any statement of certainty can be perceived as a lack of humility. I think the difference in how we see truth (epistemology) vs. humility might be explained by the links I posted inside Condition #5. Check them out and we can chat on those topics if you like.
seithman
Nice to make your acquaintance. You wrote, "different people have very different approaches when it comes to carrying out their agenda to share the salvation message."
I think you are 100% right. This is one of the reason why we need to be honest about our agendas. Honesty about these things gives the other person an opportunity for deeper understanding. Your point is also why Conditions #4 & #6 are so important to good conversation.
I also think you are right that often there are multiple agendas at play. I only shared one, but we are all complex individuals and more often than not we all come to the table with many goals and agendas. Sometimes these can change from conversation to conversation. It is one of the reasons why meaningful dialogue between people of differing faith-traditions usually takes time to develop.
Amberlynne (pure mommy e.)
Don’t sell yourself short. After reading along in your new blog, I think you are very smart and a great writer
Beth p.
I agree. Sometimes those hidden agendas can really impact our conversation. That is one reason why questions (Condition #6) are so important.
yvonne
I hope to hear back from you regarding my questions. Thanks.
J.R. – You wrote: “Given our cultural understanding of “truth”, I can understand how any statement of certainty can be perceived as a lack of humility. I think the difference in how we see truth (epistemology) vs. humility might be explained by the links I posted inside Condition #5.”
I read the posts that you linked to. I am probably being dense (either because I have some preconcieved notion that is blocking me from seeing or I am just ill informed) but I am having trouble relating “complete true knowledge” (your example was: Memorizing all verses of Scripture in the entire Bible without exception or error.)with “truth”.
For instance: I have memorized the book of Philippians completely without error but I don’t in any way think that equals me knowing the truth that it presents. I am thinking that I would have to interpret (not memorize) the book of Philippians correctly in order to know the truth that it presents. Help me see where you and I are disconnecting on this?
In addition I should say that I am of the opinion that scriptural truth is more likely to be found in the narrative or story than in propositional truths. Ofcourse for some this is too scary because a story can be interpreted in so many ways – depending on our personal experiences, the culture that influences us, our present circumstances etc. It makes truth much more fluid and therefore very hard to nail down. However, I can’t ignore the fact that Jesus himself thought that teaching truth through story was a good thing and worth the risk.
Hey Liz, good questions… can you do me a favor. Post your question with the article we are talking about and then it will help me keep organized in my thoughts. Okay? Thanks.
Hey all, Khanya over has made a good post titled, “Matters Arising.” here is part of what he says related to our current discussion. “And this is where I disagree with Yvonne’s point. Evangelism is part of what the Christian faith is; it’s part of what Christians are. Demanding “no evangelising” is saying in effect, “You must change and abandon part of your faith before I will talk to you.”
I do agree with Yvonne about proselytising, though. I believe that evangelising and proselytising are two different things. I’ve written about that in an article on evangelism and proselytism, so I won’t go into all that here, other than to say that the Christian faith and Christian evangelism are indicative and not imperative. We say “This is what we do; this is what we do not do. This is what we believe; this is what we do not believe.” That is evangelism. We do not say, “This is what you must do; this is what you must not do.” That is proselytism.”
His entire post is worth a read.
Liz (gracerues), I posted an answer to your specific question on the post in question about 4 Kinds of Knowledge.
Hey Liz (gracerules), after reading the post on “Four Kinds of Knowledge” I can see why this did not help as I had hoped. I work on posting a better version, so thanks for your input.
I also think I can better answer your question here.
I think we can agree that no human being has full and complete knowledge about God or life on this earth. However, we can have an incomplete true knowledge on some specific topics.
As it relates to my “agenda,” I certainly don’t claim to understand all there is to know of God (please please read this post), but I am confident that even with my limited knowledge that Jesus is the one and only Son of God who died and rose for the salvation of the world.
Again, we may disagree about that fact, but that is the basis of my faith and I hope that even if we cannot agree, you and Yvonne can have enough respect for me as a person to continue a dialogue.
J.R. – Thanks for your reply. Ofcourse I want to have a dialogue with you and everyone else who wants to join this group…and I am enjoying getting to know and understand the participants. I didn't think of it in the beginning but in addition to interfaith dialogues it is obvious we will also have the chance to continue practicing how to have good "intrafaith" dialogues as well:>) I did read your post "I'm Confused". Thanks for pointing me there – it helped me understand your position on truth and how we know it. I can see that you value humility about what you know.I appreciate your willingness to listen and respond. I do have a question for you…Do you find that being a pastor (I think that is what you do) tempts you to give answers when you don't have them or are not sure of them? Just wondering…
Good question Liz (gracerules). No, I don’t think being a pastor creates that temptation for me, because I had that temptation long before I ever thought about serving as a pastor
Seriously, when I was younger that was a big struggle, but as I matured I realized that it is always better to just say, “I don’t know” and to allow for the mystery of God in my theology. If you don’t mind another link, you can read HERE how I value mystery in Faith.
Express agendas with honesty There is nothing wrong with having an agenda. Dialogue demands that we do not check our agendas at the door. Anyone with a deeply held faith or tradition understands that agendas are part of who we are and what makes our faiths meaningful. Hiding agendas, or pretending they are not important, is destructive to interfaith dialogue.
Yeah, I certainly respect that position. As I understanding Christianity is about bring people into a transforming relationship with Jesus towards a state of holiness, as God is holy. To be this seems to be an integral part of the Christian journey.
I’d like to say I’m a Pagan, who after 10 years, came to the conclusion that Christianity was not helping me spiritually, and so I began to explore other possibilities, largely through my study of mythology, which, in turn, led to Paganism.
My own personal thoughts are that such transformational experiences can be experience through other faiths.
Sorry my response to your post is brief. My experience is that the divine can have a transforming affect.
I’m certainly not dismissing the validity of Christ as one who my well of truly rose from the dead. It’s just I don’t have the revelatory knowledge to truly know for sure.
There’s much more concerning what you have said in your post that I’d like to ponder one some more.
I enjoyed your contribution to the synchroblog, and hopefully, we shall have opportunity to discuss our differing points of view in the future.
Mahud,
I am glad you can appreciate the emphasis on honesty and integrity when sharing our agendas.
It sounds like you have a solid grasp of the message of Jesus Christ. I would like to hear more about your journey from exploring Jesus to Paganism.
When you come back, visit some of my other posts and share your perspective… ask me some tough questions based on your own spiritual experience… I would enjoy talking more with you as your time permits.
Nice to make your acquaintance