Fr. Thomas Michel's Official Website

At the annual dialogue carried out on 24-25 February 2009 between the Catholic leaders at the Vatican and representatives of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, participants focused on the need to build a culture of peace.  The Muslim and the Catholic leadership agreed that the two religions, Islam and Christianity, both consider peace to be a gift from God that requires human cooperation to become an effective reality in human societies.  The leaders further agreed that religious leaders must work to ensure that a culture of peace permeate all their activities, and particularly their educational efforts.

A joint statement of this type shows how far we have come in dialogue, that we can recognize the fundamental commitment to peace that constitutes a basic characteristic of both Islam and Christianity, but the statement also shows how much farther we must still go to educate and inspire our communities to accept and practice this common element of the two faiths.  The recent document raises the very concrete question: how do we create a culture of dialogue in our respective religious communities?

1. What is dialogue?

The question presumes two more fundamental issues: what do we mean by “dialogue,” and what do we mean by a “culture of dialogue?”  The idea of interreligious dialogue seems obvious, but I would like to elaborate on what for me as a Christian of the Catholic tradition the Catholic Church is intending when it says that we should be involved in dialogue with Muslims.

Too often, people regard dialogue in a very restricted sense, but what the Catholic Church intends is something much wider.  People sometimes think of dialogue as situations in which religious leaders and scholars sit down together and make pleasant, optimistic comments, choosing their words guardedly, trying to put a positive twist on controverted questions, and carefully avoiding any topic that might cause friction or hard feelings.  In short, they are thinking of something akin to an “interreligious tea party.”  If this is the idea we have of dialogue, it is no wonder that many Muslims, Christians and followers of other religions are suspicious of the value of such encounters, which they might well consider a waste of time, a luxury that our busy schedules cannot afford, an exercise in public relations, or even a compromise on matters of faith.

If this were what dialogue was really about, it would be hard to understand why the Catholic Church, beginning with the Second Vatican Council and developed over the past 40+ years in the consistent teaching of Pope John Paul II, has been so insistent in urging Christians to be committed to interreligious dialogue.  For example, we can hear the very powerful statement of the Pope in his 1991 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio (par. 56-57), about interreligious encounter: “Each member of the faithful and all Christian communities are called to practice dialogue, although not always to the same degree or in the same way.” “For most,” the Pope explains, “this will be through what is called ‘the dialogue of life.’  This is a strong statement.  Does the Pope really mean that each member of the faithful, and all Christian communities, whether they be in majority or minority status - should in some way be involved in the practice of dialogue?

Obviously, the Pope is not speaking of tea parties.  He is proposing dialogue as a part of the work that Jesus entrusted to the community of his disciples.  Just as the following of Christ should include daily prayer and worship of God, a special concern for the poor and victims of oppression and injustice, care for the sick and aged, theological reflection on the significance of Christian faith in each cultural context, proclamation of faith by sharing with all those who are seeking truth, and the communication of faith to new generations, so also one of the basic elements of Christian life is the encounter with people of other faiths.  These are all aspects of the one work that which Christ has given to his disciples.

One might say that dialogue is the other side of the obligation of Muslims to do da’wah and invite others to enter Islam and the obligation of Christians to proclaim their faith in this world. There are millions of people in our world who are seeking God, who are looking for a way to live in accord with God’s will, who want to find meaning, a reason for living in their daily situations. Muslims have an obligation to invite them to enter Islam, just as Christians have a duty to share with them the Christian faith that has given direction to their lives, that inspires them and gives them courage to love, that sustains gives them reason for hope in moments of failure and desperation.

But our world also presents us with many other millions of people, who are good and honest and unselfish, who are not searching for God, precisely because they have already found God; they encounter the Divine every day in and through the religion they already follow.  Through the practice of their own religion - be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism or the Traditional Religion of various continents – God’s Spirit is guiding them, enabling them to pray and worship, teaching them to live in accord with God’s moral will, and inspiring them often to reach the heights of self-sacrifice, generosity and service of others, and enabling many to plumb the depths of spirituality and mystical experience.  They love their religion.  It means as much to them as our own Christian or Islamic faith means to us.

Do we have anything to say to such people?  Do we have anything to learn from them? Can we be enriched by the testimonies of their lives and their faith?  Are there possibilities of working together with them for the good of all?  Or do we simply turn our backs and wash our hands of them because they are convinced of the rightness of their religious path and committed to following its teachings and hence are not interested in becoming Christians?  The Church teaches us that we have much to communicate and much to learn.  This whole world of positive relations with the followers of other religions is summed up in the word “dialogue.”  Already in 1979, in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, Pope John Paul had this to say:

“What we have just said must also be applied...to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions are not lacking. Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions - a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body - can make Christians ashamed at being often themselves so disposed to doubt concerning the truths revealed by God and proclaimed by the Church and so prone to relax moral principles and open the way to ethical permissiveness. It is a noble thing to have a predisposition for understanding every person, analyzing every system and recognizing what is right; this does not at all mean losing certitude about one’s own faith or weakening the principles of morality...” (RH, 6).

This dense paragraph is packed with advice on which Christians can build in their efforts to create a culture of dialogue.  The Holy Father emphasizes the importance of common prayer, coming together before the Source and Final Goal of our religious journey.  He notes that the benefits of dialogue are not only for the “Other,” but also for us Christians.  Cannot the firm belief of the followers of other religions often make Christians ashamed of their own doubts and laxity?  The Pope stresses that the belief of others is “an effect of the Spirit of truth.” He underlines the nobility of the commitment to dialogue, of being open to understand others, analyze their belief systems, and recognize all that is good in them.  None of this, concludes the Pope, involves losing confidence in the beauty and truth of one’s own faith.

2. Sharing life

When one examines the teachings of the Catholic Church about dialogue, it is clear that Christians are asked to commit themselves to something much more ignificant than “mere talk” with the followers of the world’s religions.  Dialogue includes not only a wide range of activities but, more importantly, demands a fresh existential approach to the followers of other religious traditions.  In his encyc­lical Redemptoris Missio, Pope John Paul II indicates just how broad a compass dialogue embraces.

“A vast field lies open to dialogue, which can assume many forms and expressions: from exchanges between experts in religious traditions or official representatives of those traditions, to cooperation for integral development and the safeguarding of religious values; and from a sharing of their respective spiritual experiences to the so-called ‘dialogue of life,’ through which believers of different religions bear witness before each other in daily life to their own human and spiritual values, and help each other to live according to those values in order to build a more just and fraternal society” (RM, 59).

In the documents produced by Vatican offices, these forms of dialogue have been generally elaborated as four facets of interreligious encounter: the dialogue of life, cooperation in social concerns, theological exchange and the sharing of religious experience.  What is involved are various dimensions of a Christian’s life which he shares with the followers of other religions. It means a way of living with others as Christians that involves interaction at the levels of being (dialogue of life), doing (cooperation), studying (exchange of views), and reflecting on one’s experience of the Divine (sharing religious experience).  In the Church’s vision of life shared by Christians and the followers of other religions, talking or discoursing plays a role, as it does in all forms of human life, but discussion must not dominate, nor must the shared life denoted by the term “dialogue” be limited by or reduced to formal occasions and deliberations.

Once we see the broad extent of what is included in the concept of dialogue, we can move beyond the restrictive notion that dialogue is only for experts or religious leaders.  The illiterate farmer or housewife who has been blessed with a strong religious faith but has not had the opportunity to engage in advanced religious studies is nevertheless called to approach his or her neighbors of other faiths with a dialogical spirit.  Such people need not feel that they are constrained to discuss subtle theological points, but they are called to live with respect and openness for their neighbors, to share the joys and crises and sorrows of life with others, and to teach their children that God also has great love and compassion for faithful Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc.  This is what the Pope means when he says that each Christian, and every Christian community should be involved in dialogue.

For most Christians and Muslims, that form of shared life to which they are called is often termed the “dialogue of life.”  Already in 1979, the Catholic bishops of Asia called this “the most essential aspect of dialogue,” and they said that it occurs when:

“Each [the Christian and the follower of another religion] gives witness to the other concerning the values they have found in their faith, and through the daily practice of brotherhood, helpfulness, open-heartedness and hospitality, each show themselves to be a God-fearing neighbor.  The true Christian and their neighbors of other faiths offer to a busy world values arising from God’s message when they revere the elderly, conscientiously rear the young, care for the sick and the poor in their midst, and work together for social justice, welfare, and human rights.”

The dialogue of life implies much more than peaceful coexistence.  It means that Christians should live deeply their faith among Muslims and the followers of other religions and bear witness to the values they have discovered as disciples of Jesus.  Similarly, Muslims are called to bear witness to the Islamic values enshrined in the Holy Qur’an and in the Islamic tradition.  This might be called a dialogue of “mutual witness.”

In real life, there is no conflict between dialogue and the obligation for both Muslims and Christians to proclaim their respective faith.  An example I could draw from recent Christian history is that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta.  Mother Teresa and many like her give eloquent testimony to the values in which they believe when they offer the poor an environment in which they can die with dignity.  Yet Mother Teresa often said that she prayed that “Christians become better Christians, Hindus become better Hindus, and Muslims better Muslims.”  In other words, the true Christian or Muslim lives according to the values learned from their religion, and lets God do with their witnexx whatever God wants.  They don’t try to “make” anyone Christian or Muslim.

In this light, the focal question is whether Christians and Muslims are actually sharing life with their neighbors of other faiths.  The basic distinction is not between being a religious community engaged in dialogue or one that is doing da’wah or mission, but rather the option of being a community that is partaking humanly in life with others, and thus constantly engaged in dialogue and witness, or else that of being a religious community that is closed in on itself and exists in a self-imposed ghetto with little concern for and involvement with people of other faiths with whom Christians share culture, history, citizenship, and common human destiny.  The temptation to close one’s community off from the rest of society is especially attractive to minority communities, as is the case both of Christian minorities in the Middle East and Muslim minorities in the West.

When people of various faiths live together - not simply cohabiting the same town but sharing life together - the question of dialogue or mission doesn’t arise.  When they work, study, struggle, celebrate, and mourn together and face the universal crises of injustice, illness, and death as one, people don’t spend most of their time talking about doctrine.  Their focus is on immediate concerns of survival, on taking care of the sick and needy, on communicating cherished values to new generations, on resolving problems and tensions in productive rather than in destructive ways, on reconciling after conflicts, on seeking to build more just, humane, and dignified societies.  When believers are actively cooperating in such activities, at certain rare but privileged moments, they also express what is deepest in their lives and hearts, that is, their faith in God, which is the source of strength and inspiration that forms the driving force that guides all their activities.

3. A culture of dialogue

What does it mean to create a “culture of dialogue”?  I understand the phrase to mean that when a group of believers has dialogue as an intrinsic part of their religious commitment, whereby a person’s very participation in such a group includes an openness and willingness to engage in dialogue, a culture of dialogue exists in that group.  This is not something merely theoretical, but has effects in one’s choice of activities, use of time and funds, and planning and projects for the future.  It results in a community of believers where outsiders can presume that such a group will be open to efforts at dialogue, where one can point to concrete evidence of the group’s involvement in dialogue.  Dialogue becomes one of the characteristics that identify such communities and movements.

Among Christians, I can note as examples two Catholic lay movements that have created a culture of dialogue, the community of St. Egidio and the Focolare Movement.  Part of the ethos of these movements is their readiness to take up initiatives in the area of dialogue and to participate in the initiatives of others.  One takes on this susceptibility to dialogue by the very fact of belonging to the St. Egidio or Focolare community.  These two communities are not unique in having established a culture of dialogue.  Many other groups of Christians throughout the world have succeeded, in their local situations, in creating a similar culture of dialogue.

Among Muslims, one can point to the disciples of the late Shaykh Ahmad Kuftaro for the leadership they have taken in dialogue activities.  In Turkey, movements inspired by the late Kurdish scholar, Said Nursi, have been pioneers in the promotion of a culture of dialogue, as has the community associated with the name of the Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen.  The latter have been especially active in promoting “Abrahamic” dialogue between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  In the United States, the American Muslim Society (the former “Black Muslims”), under the leadership of the late Imam Warith Deen Muhammad, built a strong record of interreligious involvement to the point where they can be said to have created an irreversible “culture of dialogue.”  Among Asian Muslims, the Asian Muslim Action Network (A.M.A.N.), with Muslims form over 16 Asian countries, has been a leader in establishing a culture of dialogue.

We should not think that a culture of dialogue is unique to Christian and Muslim communities, movements, and organizations.  In India, the various Gandhian movements were already in the 1940s among the first to commit themselves to an interreligious approach to nation-building and communal harmony.  Among Buddhists, the Tokyo-based Rissho Kosei-kai organization has for many years now given an impressive testimony of their willingness to promote, support (also financially) and participate in dialogue among people of various religions.

My own religious community, the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1995, at its 34th General Congregation, committed itself to making the culture of dialogue a characteristic of Jesuit life in this world.  “The Jesuit heritage of creative response to the call of the Spirit in concrete situations of life is an incentive to develop a culture of dialogue in our approach to believers of other religions.  This culture of dialogue should become a distinctive characteristic of our Society, sent into the whole world to labor for the greater glory of God and the help of human persons.”

4. Patiently creating a culture of dialogue on the basis of trust

Such an affirmation is important as a statement of intention, but one does not build a culture of dialogue by decree.  It is a slow process of study, planning, strategic decisions and choices, and most of all, a question of changing attitudes.  I must confess that my own Institute, the Jesuits, despite the good intentions expressed in our decree, is still moving slowly but, I hope, steadily on the path toward creating such a culture.

I believe that the first quality needed is patience.  Like any serious and worthwhile activity, dialogue is not forged overnight and cannot be accomplished by dilettantes.  There is much distrust to overcome.  Christians can make a long list of wrongs suffered at the hands of the followers of other religions.  This includes still unforgotten (and perhaps unforgiven) wrongs of the distant past, as well as those that might have occurred even last month. This is especially the case in those parts of the world where Christians are a minority.

However, the followers of other religions such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, have their own lists of wrongs perpetrated against them by Christians.  Whether they be the medieval Crusades against Muslims, European pogroms culminating in the Holocaust against Jews, the social indignities, land grabbing and theft of resources that occurred in the Colonial Period, the history of missionary activity that too often sought to spread the Gospel by distorting and denigrating other religions.  None of this has been forgotten by the followers of other religions, just as Christians have not forgotten the wrongs and indignities perpetrated against them.

I believe that the burden of history is not only the most difficult obstacle to overcome in building dialogue, but moving beyond that burden is one of the most valuable hoped-for fruits of dialogue.  Given this sad burden of history that we all bear, we must not be surprised that many Christians, Muslims and others might show an instinctive resistance to dialogue.  Christians may feel that dialogue means associating with the enemy, weakening the social position of minorities, compromising with error, or displaying a naive and willful blindness to problems.  Religious believers might regard dialogue as the new “soft-sell” face of proselytism, a way of insinuating oneself into other communities to undermine their faith.

Slowly, and through much hard work, trust must be built.  We have to be convinced ourselves and to convince our partners that we are not prisoners of the past, that we can live together and work together better than we have done previously, that individuals and communities can change their attitudes and, above all, that God desires love and mutual acceptance and respect among those who come before the Divine in obedience and worship.  This is the message in our time that I find expressed in the “Common Word” initiative promoted in recent years by Muslims in over 40 countries and sponsored by Prince Ghazi of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

In the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council proposed something similar with regard to Muslims.  The council document reads: “Since in the course of centuries not a few conflicts and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding, to preserve and to promote together for the benefit of all social justice and moral values and peace and freedom.”  In other words, while acknowledging the many conflicts of the past, the Council urges Christians and Muslims to move beyond this sad history, urging us to undertake a common mission “for the benefit of all” in four key areas of modern life: social justice, moral values, peace, and freedom.

5. The Purpose of This Book

The purpose of this book is to make a contribution to the building of a culture of dialogue through Muslim-Christian dialogue.  The articles that appear in this book were all written at the request of various Christian or Muslim groups or institutes that wanted to explore aspects of one another’s faith.  I hope that these papers will inspire other Muslims and Christians to put their own views and perspectives to paper so that little by little, through the contribution of many, a truly international, interreligious culture of peace can be built among us.