Each year the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue sends greetings to faith communities throughout the world and the latest has been sent to the Hindu community as they prepare to celebrate the festival of Diwali (Deepavali) on 20 October. As with all the letters from the Dicastery there is a theme and this year it is 'Hindus and Christians: Building world peace through dialogue and collaboration in the spirit of Nostra Aetate'. It invites Christians and Hindus, "as believers rooted in our respective faith traditions, and as people united by shared values and a common concern for peace, may we... together with those of other religions and all people of goodwill - join hands in both small and great ways to nurture peace in our homes, communities and societies."
Reflecting on the fact that the 28th October is the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, Cardinal Koovakad, Prefect to the Dicastery, writes “During this festive season, we invite you to join us in reflecting on how Christians and Hindus, together with people of all faiths and goodwill, can strengthen our shared efforts for peace through dialogue and collaboration in the spirit of Nostra Aetate." This he said is rooted in "promoting unity and love among people, indeed among nations" by focusing on "what people have in common and what draws them to fellowship …In today's world, where mistrust, polarization, tensions and divisions are on the rise, interreligious dialogue is more necessary than ever. It must continue to sow seeds of unity and harmony, becoming a beacon of hope for all."
These are noble sentiments and my own conviction is that interreligious friendship and dialogue can be a witness to the possibility that we can live with and even understand difference in a world that doesn’t like difference. But it’s not easy and much of our interfaith dialogue is preparing the way for deeper and more honest dialogue that looks not just at what we have in common but rather at the issues that are in danger of continuing the polarisation and division. There is a danger that we never get to that point, afraid to face the elephant in the room so that interreligious dialogue is like a toothless tiger that does not bring about change or transformation. I have been to so many dialogues where we have talked about food, festivals, rites of passage, even beliefs that are interesting and important especially for people for whom this is their first experience of meeting someone from another faith. But how do we dialogue and what do we dialogue about so that the participants have the experience of standing in the shoes of another and seeing life from that perspective? Sometimes this does show commonalities for we are indeed united in our humanity, and all faiths are dealing with the same fundamental questions of life and death and we can extend our own understanding of these questions by encountering the wisdom of other traditions. Sometimes people are not too interested in standing in the shoes of another but participate in the dialogue to tell their own story rather than listen to that of the other. This can be particularly true if the dialogue partner feels their faith is in the minority and misunderstood by society or seems to suffer from discrimination more than others.
Recently I was sent a statement by Helen Mirren which states that there is no point in arguing with anyone not mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective .. there’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. It was sent in the context of the conflict in Gaza, suggesting that there is no point in talking to the ‘other’side but I wonder if there is a point in listening to the other side, which is what dialogue is fundamentally about. It’s not about changing one’s own beliefs but it is about trying to understand the other side – and them understanding you. This of course requires an openness to others, a belief that our own perspective might be limited and in some circumstances a great deal of courage.
One of the most meaningful dialogues I have participated in was one set up by Interfaith Glasgow and the West of Scotland branch of the Council of Christians and Jews. Some Christians and Jews were invited to engage in a dialogue which looked at antisemitism as it related to the situation in Israel and Palestine. This was before the present war but even then nothing seemed to polarise people as much as the conflict in the Middle East. There were tense moments in the dialogue but the honesty between the participants allowed for a growth in understanding and a recognition of the different perspectives we can have of the same situation. The results of this dialogue was the publication of a report ‘Creating Brave Spaces’ which described the processes and tools used in the dialogue as well as reflections from the participants and the facilitators. We learned that these dialogues need careful planning and facilitation using a variety of tools to foster active listening. Participants must feel safe. That is why they cannot be entered into easily and why some of the ‘softer’ dialogues are necessary and good preparation for the more difficult conversations.
One of the first lessons learned in these difficult spaces is how language can mean different things in different contexts and lead to misunderstandings. As I said in my last blog the cry “from the river to the sea…. “heard during peace marches and demonstrations is heard and interpreted quite differently by the Jewish community than it will be by many demonstrating who know nothing of it as a Hamas slogan and think they are only calling for peace. So interfaith dialogue and its desire for a deep peace is not easy. At the moment in the context for me of Christian – Jewish relations it demands courage to meet the moment and not escape into a superficial peace, to recognise the pain of all involved and feel that pain, to feel uncomfortable but honest and often misunderstood, to truly listen to where people are coming from and feel compassion. It’s all I can do, hoping and praying that it sows a seed for peace in my corner of the world that might just have a ripple effect elsewhere
Reflecting on the fact that the 28th October is the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, Cardinal Koovakad, Prefect to the Dicastery, writes “During this festive season, we invite you to join us in reflecting on how Christians and Hindus, together with people of all faiths and goodwill, can strengthen our shared efforts for peace through dialogue and collaboration in the spirit of Nostra Aetate." This he said is rooted in "promoting unity and love among people, indeed among nations" by focusing on "what people have in common and what draws them to fellowship …In today's world, where mistrust, polarization, tensions and divisions are on the rise, interreligious dialogue is more necessary than ever. It must continue to sow seeds of unity and harmony, becoming a beacon of hope for all."
These are noble sentiments and my own conviction is that interreligious friendship and dialogue can be a witness to the possibility that we can live with and even understand difference in a world that doesn’t like difference. But it’s not easy and much of our interfaith dialogue is preparing the way for deeper and more honest dialogue that looks not just at what we have in common but rather at the issues that are in danger of continuing the polarisation and division. There is a danger that we never get to that point, afraid to face the elephant in the room so that interreligious dialogue is like a toothless tiger that does not bring about change or transformation. I have been to so many dialogues where we have talked about food, festivals, rites of passage, even beliefs that are interesting and important especially for people for whom this is their first experience of meeting someone from another faith. But how do we dialogue and what do we dialogue about so that the participants have the experience of standing in the shoes of another and seeing life from that perspective? Sometimes this does show commonalities for we are indeed united in our humanity, and all faiths are dealing with the same fundamental questions of life and death and we can extend our own understanding of these questions by encountering the wisdom of other traditions. Sometimes people are not too interested in standing in the shoes of another but participate in the dialogue to tell their own story rather than listen to that of the other. This can be particularly true if the dialogue partner feels their faith is in the minority and misunderstood by society or seems to suffer from discrimination more than others.
Recently I was sent a statement by Helen Mirren which states that there is no point in arguing with anyone not mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective .. there’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. It was sent in the context of the conflict in Gaza, suggesting that there is no point in talking to the ‘other’side but I wonder if there is a point in listening to the other side, which is what dialogue is fundamentally about. It’s not about changing one’s own beliefs but it is about trying to understand the other side – and them understanding you. This of course requires an openness to others, a belief that our own perspective might be limited and in some circumstances a great deal of courage.
One of the most meaningful dialogues I have participated in was one set up by Interfaith Glasgow and the West of Scotland branch of the Council of Christians and Jews. Some Christians and Jews were invited to engage in a dialogue which looked at antisemitism as it related to the situation in Israel and Palestine. This was before the present war but even then nothing seemed to polarise people as much as the conflict in the Middle East. There were tense moments in the dialogue but the honesty between the participants allowed for a growth in understanding and a recognition of the different perspectives we can have of the same situation. The results of this dialogue was the publication of a report ‘Creating Brave Spaces’ which described the processes and tools used in the dialogue as well as reflections from the participants and the facilitators. We learned that these dialogues need careful planning and facilitation using a variety of tools to foster active listening. Participants must feel safe. That is why they cannot be entered into easily and why some of the ‘softer’ dialogues are necessary and good preparation for the more difficult conversations.
One of the first lessons learned in these difficult spaces is how language can mean different things in different contexts and lead to misunderstandings. As I said in my last blog the cry “from the river to the sea…. “heard during peace marches and demonstrations is heard and interpreted quite differently by the Jewish community than it will be by many demonstrating who know nothing of it as a Hamas slogan and think they are only calling for peace. So interfaith dialogue and its desire for a deep peace is not easy. At the moment in the context for me of Christian – Jewish relations it demands courage to meet the moment and not escape into a superficial peace, to recognise the pain of all involved and feel that pain, to feel uncomfortable but honest and often misunderstood, to truly listen to where people are coming from and feel compassion. It’s all I can do, hoping and praying that it sows a seed for peace in my corner of the world that might just have a ripple effect elsewhere
RSS Feed
