The A-Z of Believing: D is for Dialogue

Do we understand ourselves better by understanding someone of different beliefs?

‘Understanding religion does not lie in religious systems, but in persons … Ask not what religion a person belongs to but ask rather what religion belongs to that person’ (Shutterstock)

Written and presented by Dr Ed Kessler MBE, founder director of the Cambridge-based Woolf Institute, this compelling guide to religious belief and scepticism is a must-read for believers and non-believers alike.

Founded in 1998 to explore the relationship between religion and society, the Woolf Institute uses research and education to foster understanding between people of all beliefs with the aim of reducing prejudice and intolerance.

Says Dr Kessler: “Latest surveys suggest that 85 per cent of the world’s population identify themselves as belonging to a specific religion, and in many parts of the world the most powerful actors in civil society are religious. Understanding religion and belief, the role they play and their impact on behaviour and decision-making is, therefore, vital.”

Dr Kessler – who was awarded an MBE for services to interfaith relations in 2011 – is an affiliated lecturer with the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University, a principal of the Cambridge Theological Federation and additionally teaches at the Cambridge Muslim College.

He says: “This A-Z of Believing aims to show how the encounter between religions has influenced and been influenced by the evolution of civilisation and culture, both for good and for ill. I hope that a better understanding of believing will lead people to realise that while each religion is separate, they are also profoundly connected.”

D is for... Dialogue

Dialogue is born when I am capable of recognising others as a gift of God and accept they have something to tell me – Pope Francis

The word “dialogue” is often both misconstrued and ill defined. A casual conversation that may add up to no more than a loose restatement of entrenched theological positions is not dialogue. Nor is dialogue synonymous with communication. For dialogue to take place, there must be a genuine hearing of “the other”.

The word derives from the Greek logos which can mean “a way of interpreting the world”. Indeed, the word “Word” in John 1.14, which became flesh in Jesus, is an English translation of “logos”.

The other element, “dia” means “through”. So, dia-logos or dialogue means arguing a world view through to a conclusion or conclusions.

Now, since religions deal with life and death issues, there’s something to be said for this. The Bible encourages meaningful meetings (not merely courteous and neighbourly ones). When Paul entered the synagogue in Ephesus, he is recorded as “arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God” and the word “arguing” is, arguably, a rather fierce translation. The Greek word is dialegomenos, which has connotations of rather more careful and courteous listening than “argue” carries.

Indeed, Luke writes that Paul spent three months in the synagogue and if he had spent all of his time arguing rather than “dialoguing”, it’s probable that he would have been ejected much earlier than he was. Ejected he was, however; thereafter, he moved to “dialoguing” with pagan Ephesians “so that all the residents of Asia Minor heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks”. Luke was no doubt exaggerating the achievements of his hero, but the point is that these were meaningful, even provocative conversations, not commonplace chitchat.

Dialogue is not easy. According to the early 20th philosopher Franz Rosenzweig, words used in a live encounter are more than just talking, something is not only said but happens.

And from Rosenzweig, Martin Buber developed his “I and Thou” formula, maintaining that a personal relationship with God is only truly personal when there is not only awe and respect on the human side but when we are not overcome and overwhelmed in our relationship with God. And this has implications for human-human dialogue too – it means that two people must meet as two valid centres of interest. One should approach the Other with respect, so that the validity of the other centre is in no sense belittled.

Further, not only is the essential being of the other respected but her world of “faith” is also treated as valid and genuine; not an “it” to be carelessly set aside. An “I-Thou” relationship is a meeting not of religions but of religious people. As Methodist theologian Wilfred Cantwell Smith said: “Understanding religion does not lie in religious systems, but in persons … Ask not what religion a person belongs to but ask rather what religion belongs to that person.”

Dialogue therefore involves a respect that takes the other as seriously as one demands to be taken oneself. This is an immensely difficult and costly exercise.

And here lies the crucial question of interfaith dialogue today – can one religion view another as valid in its own terms? This is especially challenging for those who seek converts. Evangelical Christians, for example, believe that it is the divinely mandated mission of the church to preach the Gospel to everyone and they would be false to their faith if they failed to try to bring others into Christian fellowship.

How then is it possible for evangelical Christians, and their like, to make a positive contribution to dialogue? One answer is not to address whether Christians should witness their faith; rather, it is how Christians should witness their faith. In other words, dialogue and evangelism sit as uneasy partners.

Another issue is reciprocity. If dialogue means asking the other to amend some of their beliefs and practices to give less offence to their neighbours, does this not rule it out for believers? Surely it is better not to engage for fear that parallel suggestions will be made to them – the result being some kind of syncretism which blurs their distinctive features and may, as they see it, lead to the gradual extinction of all.

Whilst some liberal believers assert that, despite unique faith commitments, all religions have equal validity and share the same value system despite their distinctive outer trappings, evangelicals assert that their particular faith commitment is the sole path for all people to follow.

The former can result in a bland relativism while the latter can lead to fanaticism.

Genuine interfaith dialogue would suggest that deeply held particularities of faith will always remain. They are irreducible and irrevocable. Accepting the reality of particularism affords me the right to self-definition, on my terms but demands the same right for you.

It is no easy task to let opposites coexist. But that is the task of dialogue.

Next week: E is for Evil

Listen to each episode of An A-Z of Believing: from Atheism to Zealotry on the Woolf Institute podcast site or wherever you get your podcasts