News & Notes

Professor Leonard Swidler is one of the most revered figures in interreligious dialogue in the U.S. At Temple University in Philadelphia, where he has taught since 1966, he has expanded his work from ecumenical dialogue among Christians, to Jewish/ Christian dialogue, to the whole spectrum of interreligious conversation. He is founder of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies and the Dialogue Institute. He is the author of the Dialogue Decalogue, which offers an essential foundation for interreligious dialogue. Joshua Stanton, Editor-in-Chief, interviewed Swidler for Interreligious Dialogue, the website for the Journal of Interreligious Dialogue. Swidler described the trajectory of his interfaith experience, a path that is familiar to many who find themselves engaged in dialogue:

Swidler: It began as intra-Christian dialogue. But post-Vatican II, it broke out of the box. We started dialoguing with Jews… and once you turned away from looking inward and started looking outward, it developed a kind of momentum to keep going…. We needed to find ways to translate theory into action in life in organizations and institutions.

Stanton What’s in store for the Dialogue Institute in the future?

Swidler: Three years ago we received substantial funding to expand our staff…. Despite the current economy, you can expect to see us expand even more in the future. We have three major initiatives planned: one with Israeli women - Jewish, Christian, and Muslim – of al-Qasemi Academy, which is a teachers college primarily for Arab women… another is with Saudi professors, who are also coming for a week of training… and a third is interreligious dialogue a training for all U.S. Military Chaplains in Europe, and for two different combat brigades about to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan

More broadly, we hope to bring together religious figures and leaders and global business. These are the two most powerful forces for change in the world. We tend to think of them as antithetical rather than working together. But they can and should be brought together.

Read the rest of the interview, and about the work of Leonard Swidler:

• Laying the Foundation: An Interview with Leonard Swidler
• Inter-Religious Dialogue
• The Dialogue Institute
• 10 Commandments for Dialogue

  • Commentary at News & Notes from Interfaith Space

I mentioned earlier John Moorhead’s reflection on the application of Leonard Swidler’s “Dialogue Decalogue” to the Evangelical/ Mormon conversation (see Moorhead’s Musings). Last week, he followed up with a conversation with Jesuit John Saliba, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Detroit Mercy, who teaches New Religious Movements there.

Swidler’s “Decalogue” was originally formulated for Christian/ Jewish dialogue, and Swidler himself modified it over the years to include encounters with other religious traditions. Still, Saliba notes, the guidelines assume an ongoing conversation between long-standing religious traditions. But the dialogue with New Religious Movements may require slightly different rules. “Dialogue between traditional religions and NRMs must take into account several new factors,” Saliba says. “Till recently at least, most members of NRMs have been converts to the new religions. Some many harbor some dissatisfaction with the religions of their upbringing. Some modifications of the Swidler’s rules are necessary for dialogue with NRMs. Since some dialogue has in fact taken place, one can start by observation what went well and what didn’t in such interactions. But one must note that just as Christians have to be educated in the process of dialogue, so have members of NRMs.”

• John Saliba: Interview on Dialogue with New Religions
  (Moorhead’s Musings)
• The Dialogue Decalogue
  (News & Notes from Interfaith Space)

John Morehead, a researcher, writer, and speaker in intercultural studies and new religious movements in Salt Lake City, offers some reflections on the relevance of Leonard Swidler’s “Dialogue Decalogue” for dialogues with new religious movements, especially dialogues between evangelical Christians and Mormons and evangelicals and Pagans.

For the list of the “Dialogue Decalogue” and my commentary on its provisions, see the category “10 Commandments of Dialogue.

• Can We Talk?:
  Evangelical-Mormon Dialogue and the “Dialogue Decalogue”
  Morehead’s Musings, July 13, 2007

TENTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant eventually must attempt to experience the partner”s religion or ideology “from within”; for a religion or ideology is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and “whole being,” individual and communal. John Dunne here speaks of “passing over” into another”s religious or ideological experience and then coming back enlightened, broadened, and deepened. As Raimundo Panikkar notes, “To know what a religion says, we must understand what it says, but for this we must somehow believe in what it says”: for example, “A Christian will never fully understand Hinduism if he is not, in one way or another, converted to Hinduism. Nor will a Hindu ever fully understand Christianity unless he, in one way or another, becomes Christian.”

This last “commandment” may be scary for some. Haven’t we said all along that the point of dialogue is not to convert the other to our religion? And yet here Swidler seems to be saying almost the opposite– that some measure of “conversion” is not only necessary for dialogue, but desirable!

And yet, is it not the case that human beings simply cannot fully understand any new piece of information unless they have assimilated it deeply? If we are to learn something new, we always have to start with making analogies to what we already know. Something that falls completely out of our experience cannot be named, grasped, or expressed. And so we begin with what we know and seek to understand how this new thing relates to our previous understandings, categories and perceptions.

As we come into closer contact with this new thing, as much as we are able to encounter it on its own terms, we gradually are able to see how it does not fit our preconceptions, how it differs/ contrasts/ challenges what we have known previously. And finally, this new thing offers us a chance to see things in a new way, to take a new perspective, to incorporate it into the knowledge and experience we will bring to the next new thing.

So it is that a genuine, open, and honest dialogue with someone from another religious tradition opens the way for a new way of seeing. Not simply converting one point of view into the other, but together discovering another way that allows us to remain true to our different origins, but which is richer for the wider perspective we have gained from each other.

This is the promise of interfaith relations, and the gift that those who embark on this journey come to share.

• Ten Commandments for Dialogue (Swidler)

NINTH COMMANDMENT: Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one”s own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn–which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue–and, indeed, no integrity.

Sadly, the encounter between two religious traditions often winds up being little more than a contest to see which participant can point out the most flaws in the other’s faith and practice. Rather than taking a stance of openness to learning about the other, a person may assume that their task is to point out the error of his or her ways.

Under such circumstances, it is understandable why someone might become protective and wary of any criticism. No matter how vaild or important that criticism might be, the fact that it comes from “outside the circle” can move a person to dismiss it or feel that they are under attack.

If the levels of trust in the relationship have been built up with the attitudes called for in the other “Commandments”– honesty, trust, a willingness to hear the other on their own terms, and not idealizing one’s own tradition and putting down the other’s– there can be room for inevitable self-criticism.

In popular usage, “criticism” is usually considered a bad or negative thing, equivalent to devaluing or disrespecting the thing being criticized. But the root of the word means “to judge” or “evaluate.” Criticism is the process by which we take the measure of something and evaluate it against some standard.

Even if my dialogue partner doesn’t specifically challenge my religious commitments, the mere fact that his or her commitments are different should invite me to reflect on why I believe as I do. My partner is bound to ask questions about my faith and experience that are not the questions I would ordinarily ask myself, and their perspective will not be the same as mine.

The poet Robert Burns once wrote (in his Scots dialect), “O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.” This is the gift that interfaith dialogue has the potential to give. As far as we can remain open to the other, to their insight and perspective, we receive the gift of seeing ourselves “from outside,” as it were.

If we resist the self-reflection that interfaith dialogue makes possible, we will remain incapable of entering into genuine relationship with one another; we will not be equal participants. And we will have missed one of the great gifts of interreligious encounter.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust. Although interreligious, interideological dialogue must occur with some kind of “corporate” dimension, that is, the participants must be involved as members of a religious or ideological community–for instance, as Marxists or Taoists–it is also fundamentally true that it is only persons who can enter into dialogue. But a dialogue among persons can be built only on personal trust. Hence it is wise not to tackle the most difficult problems in the beginning, but rather to approach first those issues most likely to provide some common ground, thereby establishing the basis of human trust. Then, gradually, as this personal trust deepens and expands, the more thorny matters can be undertaken. Thus, as in learning we move from the known to the unknown, so in dialogue we proceed from commonly held matters–which, given our mutual ignorance resulting from centuries of hostility, will take us quite some time to discover fully–to discuss matters of disagreement.

Last night I attended a session of the ongoing series “Faiths Learning from Faiths” at the Interfaith Center at the Presidio. The topic for the evening was “Wiccan/Evangelical Dialogue,” with Brooks Alexander, a committed evangelical Christian and founder of the Spiritual Counterfeits project, and Don Frew, a Wiccan priest and longtime interfaith officer for Covenant of the Goddess.

These two have continued an unlikely friendship and ongoing dialogue for over 20 years. Their description of how their friendship began illustrates the importance of trust in building dialogue. Don attended a conference sponsored by conservative Christians on the dangers of the occult. He found many of the presentations disturbing, filled with misunderstanding and distortions of Wicca. But he appreciated that, while Brooks did not disguise his belief that Wicca was not the truth, he was well-informed and spoke only the truth about what Wiccans believed and did. After Don identified himself to the group as a practicing Wiccan, Brooks went out of his way to talk with him, and the conversation has continued since then. Don and Brooks have shared about their dialogue with interfaith groups, at Neo-pagan conventions, and are hoping to speak to evangelical Christians.

They noted especially the trust that makes their relationship work. Each trusts the other to be honest about their own tradition, to be willing to reflect in new ways about questions they might never have considered before within their own tradition. And they trust each other not to twist or manipulate what they learn in order to distort or attack the other’s faith. Trust is closely connected with several of the “Ten Commandments for Dialogue.” The dialogue partner must trust that the other is speaking honestly and sincerely (Commandment #3), that the other is willing to be self-critical (Commandment #9), and that the other will not distort or misuse what has been shared (Commandment #4).

Both Brooks and Don noted the historic conflict and demonization that have characterized so much of the relationship between Christians and Wiccans. It is their trust of each other, and the confirmation of that trust in the respect and listening they experience from each other, that make this significant dialogue relationship work.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)
• Interfaith Center at the Presidio
• “Faiths Learning from Faiths” Series at the Presidio
• Spiritual Counterfeits Project
• Covenant of the Goddess

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT: Dialogue can take place only between equals, or par cum pari as the Second Vatican Council put it. Both must come to learn from each other. Therefore, if, for example, the Muslim views Hinduism as inferior, or if the Hindu views Islam as inferior, there will be no dialogue. If authentic interreligious, interideological dialogue between Muslims and Hindus is to occur, then both the Muslim and the Hindu must come mainly to learn from each other; only then will it be “equal with equal,” par cum pari. This rule also indicates that there can be no such thing as a one-way dialogue. For example, Jewish-Christian discussions begun in the 1960s were mainly only prolegomena to inter- religious dialogue. Understandably and properly, the Jews came to these exchanges only to teach Christians, although the Christians came mainly to learn. But, if authentic interreligious dialogue between Christians and Jews is to occur, then the Jews must also come mainly to learn; only then will it too be par cum pari.

Approaching interreligious dialogue as equal partners seems appropriate at first glance. After all, how can there be a conversation if the participants are not equal? Otherwise it is not a conversation at all; it is indoctrination, apologetics, or a way of establishing or reaffirming relative status between a superior and an inferior. The inferior may be permitted to speak, but it is a foregone conclusion that the superior”s perspective will be the norm.When we think more about it, though, this requirement becomes more difficult. If I believe my religion is true, and that it is the right path, how can I allow “competitors”? In fact, in some cases, my religious tradition may explicitly say that others are inferior. How can I consider another”s tradition to be “equal” to my own?One way to do this has been common in interreligious relations. It is to say that “all religions are really the same.” Our differences are surface differences at most; they are accidents of history, culture, and tradition. This is a tempting solution, but isn”t it really an assertion that we are equals only at the lowest common denominator? That the only way we can deal with one another is to strip away all the particularities that make our religious life, community, and culture unique, complex, and rich?A better way, in my opinion, is to acknowledge that none of us has a corner on truth. I used to think that the diversity of religious paths was an accident of human frailty, that if somehow we saw clearly, we would all follow the same way. As my relationships with people of different faiths and paths has grown, I become more convinced that the diversity exists because that is what God (the Creator, the Divine, the Cosmos) intended.It is summed up well in that oft-quoted text from the Qur”an:

[49:13] O People! We created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him…

Most of our traditions affirm that human beings are fundamentally equal in that God has created all of us, and that every human being is worthy of respect and dignity. This, I think, is the foundation that supports our reaching out to one another to enter into dialogue as equals.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)

SIXTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with no hard-and-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are. Rather, each partner should not only listen to the other partner with openness and sympathy but also attempt to agree with the dialogue partner as far as is possible while still maintaining integrity with his own tradition; where he absolutely can agree no further without violating his own integrity, precisely there is the real point of disagreement–which most often turns out to be different from the point of disagreement that was falsely assumed ahead of time.

This commandment is a corrollary of Commandment #5. If I assume that I know where your tradition and mine will disagree, I am assuming that I know not only what your tradition says about the issue, but what you understand your tradition to say. I may also approach our discussion with an expectation of conflict and competition, which may keep me on the defensive and not open to hearing what my dialogue partner actually is saying.So much of our religious experience (more than our religious teaching) is surprisingly common. Religious traditions that grow out of our day-to-day experience of living, that speak to our need for meaning, belonging, compassion and care, are rooted in our common humanity. It is not, then, surprising that we should find many more points of commonality than we had expected. As we build a genuine relationship, as we grow in the capabilty of truly listening to each other, we then lay the groundwork for being able to explore our very real differences without severing our relationship or striking out at each other.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)

FIFTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must define himself. Only the Jew, for example, can define what it means to be a Jew. The rest can only describe what it looks like from the outside. Moreover, because dialogue is a dynamic medium, as each participant learns, he will change and hence continually deepen, expand, and modify his self-definition as a Jew–being careful to remain in constant dialogue with fellow Jews. Thus it is mandatory that each dialogue partner define what it means to be an authentic member of his own tradition.

Conversely–the one interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation. This is the golden rule of interreligious hermeneutics, as has been often reiterated by the “apostle of interreligious dialogue,” Raimundo Panikkar. For the sake of understanding, each dialogue participant will naturally attempt to express for herself what she thinks is the meaning of the partner”s statement; the partner must be able to recognize herself in that expression. The advocate of “a world theology,” Wilfred Cantwell Smith, would add that the expression must also be verifiable by critical observers who are not involved.

Most of us don”t like it when someone tells us what we”re supposed to be, or believe, or do. And that”s especially irritating when it comes from someone who doesn”t really understand the complexities or variations that are a part of living out our real lives. One of the most common illusions in interreligious dialogue is that religious traditions are monolithic– that everyone who claims a particular religious tradition will affirm the same thing or have the same experiences and perspectives.

Many who are involved in interfaith dialogue find it more difficult at times to talk with those “of their own house” than with those of a different tradition. There is tremendous diversity even within a single tradition, and when we enter into dialogue with one another, we must not forget that fact.A technique that is used in communication exercises, such as with couples counseling or community dialogues, is to ask someone to repeat back what they have heard before responding to it. Often we filter what another has said through our own preconceptions and prejudices. Before we can enter into genuine conversation, we must ensure that we understand each other as we would wish to be understood.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)

FOURTH COMMANDMENT: In interreligious, interideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner”s practice, but rather our ideals with our partner”s ideals, our practice with our partner”s practice.

Another way I have heard this phrased is “never compare the best in your own tradition to the worst in the other”s tradition.” As a Christian, I am all too aware of how Christians have failed to live up to the vision of being a “spiritual house, … a holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5) We are not “perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), nor have we all been able to live consistently by the rest of Jesus” Sermon on the Mount.Jesus understood a profound truth when he said to his disciples in that same sermon, “Why do you see the speck in your brother”s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). We are all to prone to project our own failings onto others. Defensively, we deny the very failings in our own lives that we highlight among other traditions.We must be clear when we are talking about the ideals, the goals, and the highest aspirations of each of our religious commitments, and we must be truthful when we talk about the actual practice of human beings within our communities.

• Ten Commandments of Dialogue (Swidler)