How We Can Mark the 60^th Anniversary of the Church’s Commitment to Interreligious Dialogue

This fall, Catholics are marking an important anniversary in the history of the Church: the 60^th anniversary of the end of the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II. Taking place in Rome from 1962-65, the gathering brought together the world’s bishops to chart a new way forward, to open up the church to the modern world.

One of the many fruits of the council was a short declaration called Nostra aetate, which in Latin means “in our time.” In it, the Church reflected on the religious diversity of the world in light of Christian faith, seeking to define its relationship to other religions in a way that had not been done before. Though Nostra aetate is the shortest of the Vatican II documents—it is only a brief five paragraphs—it was nothing short of groundbreaking, spurring interreligious dialogue and collaboration worldwide. As a Catholic theologian who studies Islam, I have been profoundly impacted by this document; the trajectory of my own vocation would not be possible without the way it paved.

Still, the document remains largely unknown and underappreciated by many Catholics. Sixty years after Nostra aetate’s promulgation, the time is ripe to draw new attention to it, to recount some of its history, and to draw out lessons that Catholics (and indeed all people) can carry forward into the second quarter of the twenty-first century.

Speaking positively of other believers

As Nostra aetate declares at the outset, the bishops of Vatican II sought to reflect on what Catholics and those of other faiths have in common and what brings them together. This focus on similarities was a marked shift from the largely negative and oppositional approach to other religions found in past magisterial teaching. Rather than lamenting the religious diversity present in the modern world, Nostra aetate speaks of humanity as “one community” sharing a “common destiny,” and it states that the Church’s duty is to “foster unity and charity” between people.

The declaration acknowledges that throughout history, humans have sensed that we are grounded and upheld by something bigger than ourselves, and have sought out answers to perennial questions about the meaning of life, who we are, what it means to die, and how to live a good life. Nostra aetate speaks positively of the way that religious traditions have endeavored to answer these questions. The document then draws attention to specific aspects of other religions, highlighting Hinduism and Buddhism in section 2.

Judaism is dealt with at the greatest length, in section 4. The Church’s relationship with the Jewish people was the initial impetus for Nostra aetate.

Without a conversation between then-Pope John XXIII and the French Jewish historian Jules Isaac in 1960, the declaration may never have materialized. Just twenty years after the Holocaust in Europe, the Church was recognizing (and seeking to atone) for its historic antisemitism, especially the way that theological interpretations were deployed to justify the mistreatment of Jews. In Nostra aetate, the Church rejects its former teaching of contempt for Jews and the false notion that Jews should be held responsible for the death of Christ. It also draws attention to the roots of the Christian church in Judaism and indicates that God’s covenant with the Jewish people was not revoked. Forcefully condemning antisemitism, Nostra aetate encourages deeper learning, collaboration, and friendship between Christians and Jews.

During the declaration’s drafting process, the council fathers also felt it was crucial to mention Islam and forge a new way forward in the Church’s relationship with Muslims. Consequently, the declaration dedicates a section, paragraph 3, to Muslims, whom it describes as those held in “high regard” by the Church.

Nostra aetate mentions numerous things held in common by Catholics and Muslims, including worship of God, who both groups affirm to be “one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to humanity.” Nostra aetate also points out that Muslims link their own faith back to Abraham, and that Jesus and Mary are important figures that Muslims honor and “devoutly invoke.” Islamic beliefs about the day of judgment and the resurrection of the dead are also mentioned, as well as their practices of prayer, fasting, and charitable giving.

Nostra aetate’s affirmations and statements about other religions are relatively brief, but each word was chosen carefully and purposefully. The records of the council deliberations and this history of its genesis show the complicated yet “inspired” process of the declaration’s creation, leading scholar John Borelli to consider it a “miracle” for it to have been written at all. In the sixty years since, scholars have pored over the text, seeking to understand its history and discern its implications for interreligious relations today.

Committing ourselves to dialogue

The word “dialogue” does not appear in Nostra aetate, but it became the buzzword to define interreligious relations in the wake of Vatican II. The document gave license to Catholics to engage positively with people of other faiths, saying in paragraph 2:

The church, therefore, urges its sons and daughters to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve, and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and culture.

In the last six decades, Catholics the world over—from popes and bishops to children and lay people—have joined together with people of other faiths to engage in what came to be known as the four types of interreligious dialogue. They are:

• the dialogue of theological exchange: discussions, often between scholars, about beliefs;
• the dialogue of social action: working together to help others;
• the dialogue of spiritual experience: witnessing or even participating in rituals or prayer; and
• the dialogue of life: the most ordinary yet perhaps most significant form of dialogue—simply sharing one’s joys and sorrows with those of other faiths in the context of daily living.

Nostra aetate indicates that Church’s new commitment to interreligious dialogue does not negate or conflict with its preexisting truth claims about Christ. In multiple places, the council reaffirms the Catholic teaching that saving grace comes through Christ, and thus the Church retains its “duty” to proclaim the gospel. Thus, in the wake of the council, Catholic scholars (and the Vatican) have wrestled with the coexistence of both dialogue and proclamation as integral parts to the Church’s mission, as well as the role of elements of other religious traditions in the saving plan of God.

Discovering the “true and holy” in other religions today

One of the most significant and quotable lines in Nostra aetate comes from section 2:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. It has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and the doctrines which, although differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women…

What the Church says here is that Catholics can find value in other religions. There are elements of them which are “true and holy”—teachings and rituals of other faith traditions that are the locus of God’s activity. Nostra aetate names some of these sites of truth and holiness in other religions. But as the passage hints at, more could be said. As Daniel Madigan has put it, Nostra aetate left a number of questions open. By focusing on similarities, the declaration refrained from mentioning many of the distinctive aspects of other religions. For example, in the section on Islam, the Qur’an, which for Muslims is the Word of God, went unmentioned, as did the figure of the Prophet Muhammad. Elsewhere, very little is positively affirmed of Jewish belief and practice, and some major religions, like Sikhism, are not discussed at all. What could or should be said about them?

A task for Catholics today, sixty years after Vatican II, is to be on the lookout for all that is “true and holy” in other religions—to notice where God is at work in the spiritual lives and ethical traditions of our friends of other faiths. Each of us can likely point to examples of truth and holiness in the religions of others, even if they go unmentioned in the official text of Nostra aetate.

Standing against dehumanization and religious bigotry

The fifth and final paragraph of Nostra aetate addresses the problem of religious discrimination, drawing on scripture to remind Catholics of their duty to respect the human dignity of people of other faiths. It declares in part, “the church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion.” And it reminds Catholics that the health of their relationship with God is dependent on their treatment of others: “We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people as other than sisters and brothers, created in God’s image.”

These words are perennially important for Catholics, and indeed all people, to hear. In our own time, religious bigotry persists, fueled by stereotypes of the other and the human tendency to scapegoat others.

Holding together dialogue and social justice

Nostra aetate was not the only document issued at the end of Vatican II in 1965—several others were, too, including two important documents considered part of the body of Catholic Social Teaching. The first is Gaudium et spes, which discusses the Church in the modern world, and Dignitatis humanae, the council declaration on religious freedom. The late Jesuit scholar of the council, John O’Malley, insisted that the council documents could not be read in isolation, but had to be understood together. This insight is particularly important in today’s context, where interreligious dialogue is sometimes siloed from social justice work. While talking about theology, spirituality, and ethical principles is necessary and enriching, it can sometimes be a distraction from engaging real-world injustices. At other times, the desire to maintain cordial bonds with dialogue partners has led Catholics to avoid speaking about or taking action on issues where there might be disagreement. Fortunately, there are many initiatives that bring diverse people of faith together to push for justice and support the vulnerable.

Sixty years after Nostra aetate was promulgated, its lessons and legacy are still unfolding. In our own time, Catholics, people of other faiths and none, can be on the lookout for the “true and holy” in our midst, and as Nostra aetate says, “together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”

The quotations from Nostra aetate used in this piece come primarily from the English translation of the conciliar documents published by Austin Flannery, OP. His translations use gender inclusive language and are phrased slightly differently from the official English translation published on the Vatican website.

This is a shorter version of the same article published in Living City magazine.

Jordan Denari Duffner is a Catholic theologian, author, and professor who focuses on Catholic approaches to other religions, Muslim-Christian dialogue, Islamic studies, and Israel-Palestine. Her two award-winning books are Finding Jesus among Muslims and Islamophobia: What Christians Should Know (and Do) about Anti-Muslim Discrimination. She is a member of the National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue, organized by the USCCB, and a member of the Catholic Advisory Council of Churches for Middle East Peace. A research associate of the Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies at the University of Oxford, she lives in the Washington, DC area and teaches undergraduate courses Georgetown University and the University of Mary Washington. She writes about dialogue, spirituality, and more at Digging Our Well, her Substack publication.

“Historic” was a word I often heard a number of Ghanaian dignitaries used to describe the international conference on “Love & Tolerance: Peaceful Co-Existence in Diversity” which took place in Accra, Ghana on April 30, 2015. Sponsored by the National Peace Council (Ghana), and the Ghana-Turkey Cooperation and Development Association (TUDEC), along with The Fountain Magazine, the conference was a cooperative venture between Ghanaians and Turks. Over 300 men and women were in attendance as both speakers and participants, many of whom were distinguished religious, governmental, academic, and business leaders from Ghana and other parts of West Africa, as well as from Turkey and the U.S. The conference was intellectually stimulating and deeply moving, on so many levels. But perhaps the most memorable moment for me–as someone involved in building bridges of understanding, mutual respect, and cooperation between Muslims and Catholic Christians–was when the beloved Archbishop of Accra, Palmer Buckle, eagerly approached the revered Chief Imam of Ghana, Shaykh Nuhu Sharbatu, embraced him and said to me: “This is my father! This is my dear spiritual father!”

As the conference title indicates, its general theme was “love and tolerance,” especially among people of different faiths. But one name that came up over and over again was that of M. Fethullah Gulen, the spiritual inspiration behind the global Muslim spiritual renewal and social reform movement known as Hizmet. More than a few of the speakers discussed various aspects of Mr. Gulen’s teachings on dialogue and on education as the key to personal and social development in an increasingly inter-cultural and interdependent world. Particularly memorable, for me, in this regard were the presentations of Shaykh Khalid Abubakar Aliyu of the Jama`a Nasril Islam of Kaduna, Nigeria, and Prof. Jon Pahl of the Lutheran School of Theology in Philadelphia. Shaykh Khalid spoke of the way in which Gülen’s thought and educational philosophy are implicitly calling for a “psychological revolution” whereby human beings unashamedly recognize and celebrate as their strongest qualities their capacity for altruism, service, and openness to personal transformation in their encounters with the other. For his part, Prof. Pahl presented two very thoughtful images: the first being the “iceberg of violence,” and the second being “the garden of peace.” Pahl divided each image into three distinct dimensions moving from the personal to deeply embedded social structures. He explained how the methodologies of the Hizmet movement attempt to create a three-tiered “peace garden” in an attempt to “melt” the three-tiered “iceberg of violence.”

The conference breaks were marked by the artistry of a highly-skilled traditional Turkish music ensemble which served to elevate the atmosphere of fellowship by adding a dimension of aesthetic beauty to the already engaging analyses offered by the speakers. In the final minutes of the gathering, the distinguished chairman, the Rev. Dr. Emmanuel Asante, invited the HON. ABDUL-RASHID HASSAN PELPUO—the Minister of State in the administration of President John Dramani Mahama – to the podium. The minister spoke of how intellectually engaging and personally moving he found “this historic conference” to be. He also made a point of congratulating the conference organizers and emphasizing the degree to which Flagstaff House (the Ghanaian presidential residence) “strongly supports” and endorses this conference and its aims.

Scott C. Alexander
Director, Catholic-Muslim Studies, Catholic Theological Union in Chicago

I grew up with a bias towards my own culture and judged cultures and religions that were different from my own based upon this perspective. Since no one challenged my Catholic beliefs, I left home for college somewhat sheltered and mostly uninformed about other religions and cultures. While at college, I made new and diverse friends and I would bring these friends home with me. My father said to me when I left for college, whoever I bring home is always welcome at our table. My mother has eight years of formal education in a one room rural school house and has lived her entire life in the same community where she was born and raised Catholic. Several years ago, my mother spoke with profound eloquence and simple affection about my classmates and friends that she cooked for and fed around her kitchen table. She said she grew up prejudiced because she never met anyone who was Jewish or Muslim. But after providing a place for these guests at her table, she grew to respect and love them as much as her eight children did. She is grateful for having reached out to people of diverse backgrounds and religions. She taught us that it is around a table that friends are made and prejudices disappear.

My recent trip to Turkey refreshed these good memories around my mother’s kitchen table. It was an educational and cultural exchange program to meet with university professors and community leaders in Turkey to promote international and interfaith dialogue. The program was organized by a non-profit organization in St. Louis, MO named the Niagara Foundation, and I had the honor to be selected to join. My experiences in Turkey of sharing meals in the homes of university professors and their families opened my eyes to our common bond even though an ocean and religion separates us. It was around their family tables that I again was reminded what my mother taught us: that much of the prejudice that exists among different cultures and religions is because we do not invite others into our homes and cook a meal for them. Warm food and kind conversation have the capacity to create bonds that can erase prejudices.

I was expecting family homes in Turkey to be quite different from mine, but instead, amidst the slight differences in cuisine and not wearing shoes, I knew I was at home. The bountiful bean salads, stuffed peppers, seasoned couscous, lemon chicken, lamb, lentil soup, cucumber salad, baklava, and more all adorned my hosts’ tables. How I wanted my mother to experience this! So, upon my return home, I invited Muslim friends to her home for a meal around her table. It was a simple but significant meal that bridged two cultures and two religions as one.

Having this opportunity to interact intimately with Turkish families reminds me of the story of the prophet Abraham, the father of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim followers. He welcomed three strangers into his home. And because of his hospitality, he was blessed a hundredfold with a son, Isaac, who was promised to him and Sarah in their old age by the visitors who were angels disguised as men (Genesis 18: 1-15). As Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac is a symbol of God’s generosity, so too the Muslim families are a symbol to me of the blessings that hospitality brings to peoples’ lives.

Traveling through Turkey, my appreciation for the people grew. From the sprawling city of Istanbul to the rural cities touching the Black Sea, I could see the similarities in lifestyle, just like in the U.S. The rural countryside appeared similar to my rural home, and as our bus traveled through the rolling hills dotted with wheat fields and small towns, it reminded me of home. Stopping at a gas station and communicating with local rural people who do not speak English, it was comforting how well we could understand each other without speaking the same language. A smile, a handshake, and a meal go a long way.

While in Istanbul, I enjoyed seeing the ripe watermelons and other fruits and vegetables being loaded into wooden carts and carried into the market. The urban markets in the U.S. are similar to the markets in Turkey, not in scale but in essence. Both possess an energy that tantalizes the senses, where a local harvest awaits to be tasted and savored at home. It’s as if time stands still among vendors and shoppers, bartering and engaging in rituals that have persevered and evolved over the centuries for generations. Whether in Turkey or the U.S., shopping in an open air market unites humanity in a common ritual that is at the heart of every culture: how we produce, purchase, and prepare our food.

The occasional neighborhood mosque blends in with Turkish urban life, and upon entering a mosque courtyard, I found luscious green space with colorful flowers bordering red tomatoes and green peppers, a quiet respite from gray urban life. Catholic churches often provide the same reprieve for busy urban residents and tired tourists who grow weary of the harshness of industrial life and the demands that city life places on them. Churches, synagogues, and mosques provide sacred places to pause and be refreshed, knowing that God is present in the most obscure and discreet corners of life. Perhaps this is one essential role that religion procured through the centuries: to provide shelter from the utilitarian survival rituals being play out around us. Whether church steeples, synagogue towers, or mosque minarets, all remind us to pause and remember that when our day’s work is complete, there is more to be aware of and more to count than the coins in our pocket.

During our time in Turkey, we visited several universities, which was a highlight for me. As a university professor and social worker, I was eager to meet professors and students to discuss their curriculum and scholarship. Our interactions were informative and engaging. While on campus, I was invited to attend the Friday (Jumu’ah) prayer services, the name of which is derived from the Arabic word that means “gathering.” Muslims believe to gather in one place as one soul is a pillar of their faith. I was deeply moved by the prayer, and felt united with the people in the room. It was an honor for me to be shown by a faculty member the ritual washing of the hands, forearms, head, and feet with a threefold movement of the hand. This Middle Eastern ritual is retained in the Catholic liturgy with the priest washing his hands prior to the Eucharistic prayer. The rinsing out the mouth, blowing out of the nose, and scrubbing out the ears reminded me of the Catholic ritual of cleansing the mind, mouth, and heart with a threefold movement of the thumb before the Gospel is read on the Sabbath. The sermon (Khutbah) was impossible for me to follow, but my host was gracious in whispering to me a translation. During the Catholic prayer service, we too stand and kneel throughout our prayer, being reminded that God is great (Allahu akbar). Although I did not understand the words spoken, my soul was refreshed and nourished by the ritual prayers.

When I was a young man living in a homogeneous culture, I did not seek to understand and appreciate what other cultures believed and practiced, nor did I challenge the beliefs of my ancestors. Today I embrace the faith of my ancestors from a different advantage point, having traveled and tasted other religions and cultures. This new vision is both a gift and a responsibility, which calls me to recognize the sacredness of the faith that has been handed down to me. Returning to the U.S., I brought with me the Abrahamic thread that unites all Muslims, Jews, and Christians in our quest to know and serve God. Each day I wrap my waist and my heart with this thread so that I might seek the intersections, both within and across each faith community. This is my responsibility, which I am learning from the Vatican II teachings of the Catholic community and the Hizmet (Gulen) movement in Turkey.

Riding in a boat on the sea that bisects Istanbul, I envisioned the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans who sailed these same seas. This city is at the crossroads of human civilization, where war and peace have shaped people’s lives for centuries. I imagined Romans conquering this city and the Crusades trampling through it; I imagined the Ottomans achieving domination ach le an indelible cultural and religious mark on the fabric of this region and creating the culture we know today as Turkish.

The Niagara Foundation is bridging the vast expanses that separate the two continents, the two religions, the two cultures. I am confident that this effort will have immense consequences. In the memorialized words of Robert F. Kennedy, who in June, 1966, delivered the Day of Affirmation Speech at the University of Cape Town to the National Union of South African Students: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, these ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

And so I, too, have newfound responsibilities since I have toured Turkey through the generosity of the Niagara Foundation. I pray for the courage to stand up for the ideals embodied in my Catholic faith, and to stand against injustices by embracing Niagara’s mission “to serve societal peace, love, and friendship wisely and compassionately in support of human dignity and the common good by striving to bring forth the common values of humanity; values such as understanding, tolerance, respect, and compassion.”

Gary Behrman is Adjunct Professor at Washington University in St. Louis

We are a small group of women of Turkish-Muslim and Catholic origins who became acquainted in the Spring of 2009 and immediately recognized our soulful connection with one another. Since that time, we have been meeting regularly to share our faith and love of God. During our studies we discovered that Mary holds a unique place of reverence in both our traditions. For instance, she is the only woman mentioned by name in the Holy Qur’an, and is mentioned in twelve chapters throughout the Qur’an, a total of thirty-four times, (The Fountain Magazine, Issue 72, pg 46ff). One chapter in particular, Sura 19, (Maryam), is named after her. In addition, within the Catholic tradition the honors given to Mary are innumerable. Litanies composed in her honor and prayed at various times throughout the year reveal such titles as: Mother of our Redemption, Mother of Comfort and Understanding, Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, just to name a few!

But why did we actually choose Mary to begin our more formal studies together? Perhaps on a more unconscious level the need for the universal, open-hearted Mother is keenly felt by many of us at a time when other sources of grounding and spiritual nourishment are so troubled in our world. Perhaps it was because we intuitively understood that Mary reveals to us a sublime expression of what it means to be truly human; to be incomparably holy, yet void of any judgment or dualism; of strong Jewish culture and spirituality, yet universally receptive to all of God’s people.

The conception and the birth of the Messiah

Christianity and Islam each teach that Mary was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah Jesus/Isa, and that her conception was accomplished by God’s miraculous intervention, and not by human intimacy. Both traditions record that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary announcing to her that she had found favor with God:

“Mary, full of Grace, blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (Luke 1:26ff)

“Mary, God gives you the glad tidings of a Word from Him, to be called the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, highly honored in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those near-stationed to God.” (Sura 3:45)

When Mary questioned the angel as to how this could be accomplished, since she “did not know man,” Gabriel once again responded very similarly in both Holy Scriptures.

“The Power of the Most High will over shadow you so that the Holy One to be born shall be called, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:34-36)

“God creates whatever God wills. He does but say to it ‘Be’ and it is.” (Sura 19:35);”We breathed onto her out of our Spirit and We made her and her son a miraculous sign.” (Sura 21:91)

Although the Qur’an makes no direct mention of Mary’s visit with her cousin Elizabeth, as recorded in the New Testament, the encounter is well-known among Muslims and is tenderly represented in a beautiful Muslim film depicting the life of Mary.[1] Further, both the Qur’an and the Bible make mention of Zachariah’s three days without speech during these events, as a consequence of his having asked God for a “sign” (Luke 1:18ff; Sura 19:10).

Christianity and Islam agree that Mary was alone when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. Islam, however, also holds that at the actual moment in which Mary gave birth to Isa in Bethlehem, she was again without human companionship. The Qur’an records that Mary was alone in the desert and that during moments of great distress, just prior to Isa’s birth, God comforted and reassured her. He provided nourishment to her from a nearby sacred date palm tree, as well as refreshment from a rivulet which miraculously appeared. Shortly after his birth, the infant Isa/Jesus spoke reassuring and comforting words to his mother who vowed to remain in silence that day and “enter into no talk with any human being” (Sura 19:26).

The Christian image of the birth of Jesus differs on several accounts. In the New Testament, Mary is betrothed to Joseph who assumes the role of her chaste companion, and the guardian and protector of her and her child. It is usual for Christians to visualize Mary and Joseph together in a stable or cave with the babe Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger; indeed this is the scene described in the Gospel account by St. Luke. However, the precise moment of Jesus’ birth is not revealed to us, only the setting following his birth. It is actually later that night or perhaps the following day that is described by St. Luke in the Gospel account when the shepherds arrive and “marvel,” in the company of Mary and Joseph, at the sight of the infant Messiah wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger (Luke 1:8ff). It is interesting to note that in contrast to the “marveling” of the shepherds, Luke uses the phrase, “but Mary kept all these things in her heart.” Might we consider this notation a subtle reference to the vow of “silence” Mary may have been keeping that day, which the Qur’an more explicitly makes reference to?

It is also worth noting that accounts of Jesus’ actual birth, revealed in both the writings of Mary of Agreda and Catherine Emmerich, [2] indicate that Mary was alone in the company of the Divine during the moments in which she gave birth to the Messiah. Catherine Emmerich, a Catholic nun and mystic of the seventeenth century, for instance states that Joseph noticing the supernatural light surrounding Mary, “went into his little cell and threw himself on his face in prayer.” Similarly, Mary Agreda, also a Catholic nun and mystic of the fourteenth century, records that Joseph had retreated to another section of the cave and kept prayerful vigil through the night. Reminiscent of the scene in the Qur’an, she writes that shortly after his birth the infant Jesus actually spoke comforting words to his mother![3]

Of further interest is an account given by Catherine Emmerich of what happened just hours before the Nativity, in which Mary and Joseph take a walk through the valley behind the Cave, and visit the “tomb of Mahara (Abraham’s nurse).” This tomb was situated near a “sacred tree.” While at this site, Joseph and Mary spent time in prayer together. At one point it was decided that Joseph would go into the city of Bethlehem to obtain some provisions, leaving Mary by herself. This image of Mary being alone on the outskirts of the city and near a sacred tree shortly before the birth of Jesus bears a remarkable resemblance to the scene recorded in the Qur’an where Mary, just prior to Isa’s birth, is alone in a remote area of Bethlehem and near a sacred date palm tree. Catherine Emmerich records that when Joseph returned with their provisions he accompanied Mary back to the cave and shortly thereafter she gave birth to Jesus.[5] Muslims believe that Mary gave birth to her child at this sacred tree (Sura 19:23ff).

We would like to make one last observation regarding Mary’s conception and the birth of the Messiah. As clearly noted in the Qur’an, but only alluded to in the Gospels, Mary is scorned by those who judged the birth of Jesus to be the product of an adulterous relationship. This may account in part for the distress she experienced recorded in Sura 19 above when God comforted her moments before giving birth. Other passages in the Qur’an make reference to a confrontation between Mary and her own people regarding Isa’s birth. They exclaim to her, “O Mary! Assuredly you have done unexpected and strange things. O sister of Aaron, your father was never a wicked man, nor was your mother unchaste” (Sura 19:27-28). In comparison, one may examine a subtle reference made in the Gospel of John. In chapters seven and eight St John describes a setting in which Jesus was confronted by a few false religious leaders. In the course of their taunting, they infer that Jesus was the “son of a Samaritan.” Though more subtle in its inference, the judgment being made regarding Mary’s reputation and the implication that Jesus was the product of an illicit relationship is apparent. Jesus’ response to them, “you dishonor me” is particularly appropriate in light of this. Hence, the Qur’an seems to convey more clearly the painful experience which Mary in particular underwent in this matter.

Although not completely identical in their details, these accounts of Mary’s experience regarding the conception and birth of Jesus contain many astounding parallels. Perhaps what seems at a first reading to be irreconcilable differences presented in the Gospels and in the Qur’an are in reality only partial glimpses of a more total picture. This more “total” picture is not absent in the sacred writings of each tradition, but merely some aspects are hidden. If we ponder them with an open heart perhaps they will allow us to enter something much greater and more profound.

Mary – the “Kli” of Jewish mysticism:

Although the virgin birth of Jesus by Divine intervention is not honored in Judaism as it is in Christianity and Islam, it is interesting to note a comparable theme revealed in the spiritual teachings of Jewish mysticism, known as “Kabbalah.” Though complex in theory at times, an aspect of Kabbalah teaching may be applied to Mary and perhaps thus more easily understood.

Essential to the teachings of Kabbalah is the understanding that God, the Divine Creator, is in His very essence the “Will to Bestow.” In other words, God is God because He is continually in the act of Self-Giving, and possesses no other desire than to Bestow His Abundance onto His Creation. By contrast, the created were created and designed to receive God’s Abundance. This is known in Kabbalah as the “Will to Receive.” Thus, God created His creation in order to receive of His goodness and thereby accommodate his Desire to Give and Bestow. The created’s will to receive is compared to an empty cup or vessel waiting to be filled by God’s abundance. This vessel is known in Kabbalah as “Kli.” Kabbalah teaches that although God’s Will to Bestow is continually and perfectly being manifested, the created’s will to receive is limited and marred by egocentric needs.[6]

If one takes a quantum leap of association one may use the teachings of Jewish mysticism to perceive Mary as the ultimate model of “Kli,” (i.e. the human receptivity to God, totally emptied of the self-serving ego). In her pristine human desire to please God and receive God’s Will, referred to in the Gospel’s as her Fiat – “Be it done unto me according to your Will” – Mary perfectly fulfills the essence of her existence. By way of her selfless love for God, her unwavering trust in His Benevolence, and complete receptivity to His Will to Bestow, Mary, the perfect “Kli,” becomes a means that God brings forth through her what has been previously unrealized – the fullness of His own Divine bliss manifested in the soul and humanity of Jesus.

Just as we are discovering through quantum sciences that our own thoughts or intentions will eventually be manifested on the physical plane in some form or other, so too, a thought or word or intention that exists in the “mind” of God – so to speak – will ultimately be realized in physical reality as well. It is interesting to note that Jesus is known and referred to as the “Word” of God in both Islam and Christianity (Qur’an 3:45; John 1:1-3,14).

On the mundane and practical level, the human mind has difficulty grasping Mary’s miraculous conception and the virgin birth of Jesus, but in the mystical realm of Kabbalah, for instance, we may come to acknowledge Mary’s experience as the receptivity to God as we were all created to be and the manifestation of His Love as we were all meant to bring It forth into the world.

From the heart – how Mary has personally touched us Who is Mary in my life?

by Ayse

When we first started to come together and share our faith with each other, I realized how much more I needed to learn about my own faith. I had always been told that my faith brings together all Abrahamic religions and the name of my faith stood for peace: Islam. I could understand it in my mind. But as we came together, as we studied the Bible and the Qur’an and found how God loved diversity and thus created us in different shapes, colors, nationalities and so on, my heart started to agree with what my mind had been saying. That is when my heart began to work with my mind. Now, I feel God in my heart.

As time passed and as we studied Abraham, Jesus, the Night Journey, and Mary, my own faith started to get stronger. Mary was Jesus’ mother and one of the most praised female characters in the Qur’an; I knew this before we started to study Mary in both traditions. Now Mary represents how much God loves women as His own creation, as He gives her name to a large section of His own sacred book. In my country I was asked so many times about the women rights in Islam. Now I think I know the answer. Mary is obedient to God’s order, she stands strong in her community and is proud of her baby, while being very humble in her relationship with God, as pure as an angel. In this way, Mary (may God be pleased with her) has taught me: I am obedient, I am humble, I refrain from sins and I am still standing as a woman of my time in my community; as I do these I become closer to God. I would love to spend my whole life in this way. I would like to thank all my friends who worked together on this article and who helped me to understand Mary in my mind and feel her in my heart.

Mary in my life

by Hulya K.

First of all, during our meetings I learned how important the interfaith dialogue is. God loves diversity and created us so different from one another. At the same time, He created us with common values. Yes, we all have eyes, ears, fingers, and even fingerprints but they are also all different from each other. Similarly, our faiths have the same values, like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mary. The discussion of Abraham, Jesus, and Mary in Christianity and Islam makes my faith stronger and deeper.

In addition, I have learned many things about the life of Mary. I am inspired by her trust in God. It is not important how bad the situation you are in or what people say about you. Just trust God. Just do what He wants. Just accept what He gives you. Do not say a word. Be silent and trust God. He knows and gives the best for you. In Turkey, she is known as “Mother Mary.” Now, I can understand why this is so… Thank you my dear friends and thank you Fethullah Gulen for your ideas which encourage us to come together.

Another dimension of awareness of Mary

by Clare

As present as Mary has been these many years in my life, the depth of my awareness and love for her has grown even more deeply during these weeks of our inter-faith study of her. As a Christian I am particularly blessed by exposure to aspects of Mary’s life found in the Qur’an but generally absent in the Gospels. They have opened up for me another dimension of Mary’s great heart and soul. I think of Mary as a key to true peace among people. When she is revealed in the heart, the heart grows to love her, but also feels it is loved and welcomed unconditionally by her. In the Catholic tradition one of her titles is, “Our Lady of all the Nations.” Through the “virgin point” in her heart and soul, which she never abandoned, I am led into further depths of knowing and loving Jesus, and through her universal motherhood and love of all people, I am led into further depths of knowing and loving my sisters and brothers of all faiths.

My feelings towards Mary

by Hulya T.

My feelings towards Mary began when I watched a movie about her during my pregnancy. Later, I started reciting Sura Mary from the Qur’an and also read the translation of it many times. When I was in difficulty, I remembered her. I thought how she coped with so much trouble. How brave she was, how self-confident she was. How powerful her faith was. In our meetings, a different window opened for me. I learnt the perspective of different faiths of Mary. I learnt their respect towards her. The more I learnt, the more I loved. Most importantly, I saw the whole picture. Actually, the similarities between our faiths are much greater than the differences. These sentences are just an example of what I feel. Last but not least, I would like to thank my dear friends.

Conclusion

Relating to one another and learning from one another in a spirit of trust and love is the most precious gift. As Rumi, the beloved Sufi mystic of the thirteenth century expressed, “There was a dawn I remembered when my soul heard something from your soul.” This “dawn remembered” is nothing less than our common oneness in God’s “heart.” What appears to our mind at times as irreconcilable differences may be transformed and integrated into a greater perspective when we open it to God’s grace. This is what we experienced in our study of Mary.

In the Catholic tradition, it is believed by many that Mary has been appearing to visionaries in Medjugje, Bosnia since 1981. Her continual message to the world has been to “Pray, Pray, Pray.” During the early years of apparitions, it was recorded that her message also included admonition to respect the beliefs of all people. “God is One and Indivisible,” she said and cautioned against the dreadful divisions being created in the world. Around this same time, Mary made special mention of a holy and humble woman named Pasha and asked that we try to become more like her. It was discovered that Pasha was a Muslim woman who lived in the nearby city of Sarajevo. [7] Mary’s message that day reveals a profound wisdom and all-inclusive love for us to ponder. In the context of apparitions considered to be “Catholic,” the Blessed Virgin Mary admonished her children to be more like a holy Muslim woman.

The Qur’an states that no one knows the true meaning of the Book (i.e. the Qur’an, the Torah and the Gospels) except God and those of true understanding, (Sura 3:7) and that He will one day make clear our misunderstandings. “Whatever you differ on, the final judgment about it is with God. Such is God, my Lord: in Him I put my trust, and to Him I turn in devotion” (Sura 42:10). These words reassure us that God Himself will bring into clarity what is now dimly understood, as the apostle Paul also states in his letter to the Corinthians, “Now we see through a mirror dimly, but then we shall see face to face (1Cor. 13:12ff).

Mary has given us a great gift on this journey. We praise and thank her for it. There is still a great distance yet to go. In trust we wait for God to show us more.

A former member of a Catholic Contemplative Order, Clare Julian is a licensed clinical social worker who currently lives and works in SLC. She has a deep passion for the potential of healing through inter-spiritual dialogue and friendship, and has been greatly blessed by both. Meryem Tuz is a dialogue activist in USA. She graduated from Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, with a major in chemistry.

Notes

1. “St. Mary” directed by Shahriar Bahrani, 2007.

2. Catholic nuns of the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries who received divine revelation of Mary’s life.

3. Catherine Emmerich. The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary; p. 197.

4. Mary Agreda. Mystical City of God, p. 231.

5. Emmerich, pp. 195–197.

6. See B’nei Baruch Kabbalah, kabbalahlearningcenter.info.

7. Mary Craig. 1988. Spark from Heaven: Mystery of the Madonna.

M&B: Dr. Mitchell, you have been teaching your course on the Bible and Modern Science for the last nine years. Could we start with the contents of this course and why you were interested in teaching it?

Dr. Mitchell: I’ve been teaching this advanced course in the religious studies minor since 2000, and it’s been a longtime interest for me. Since I started teaching at universities in 1974, I have included a study of the relationship between science and the Bible in almost all of my courses because I think that is probably the least understood controversy.

With the attempt to have a little epistemological humility-that is, I am not a scientist, I don’t claim to be a trained scientist-I am not trying to convert anybody, whether they are atheist or Christian to any particular point of view. My primary approach to this topic is to help both Christians and atheists to read the Bible because I think a lot of the confusion and a lot of the controversy about science and the Bible is the result of somebody not sitting down and explaining to people how to read the Bible. This debate is very heated in America. It splits families, it splits schools, and it splits churches.

So the course is unashamedly an attempt to help people incorporate what they are learning about science with their Christian faith, or with their faith, whatever it is. In a sense I lean in the opposite direction to some of the science teachers, in that many of them tend to lean toward mocking or making fun of the faith of people who believe, for instance, some of the more recent writers like Dawkins and Hitchens. I feel my job is to be a person on the campus who offsets that influence. So, first of all I focus on how to read the Bible. But the importance of learning how to read the Bible arises because the history of science in Europe and in the United States has been based on a conception of what science is and what faith is and how to relate the two which is really not based on knowledge; it’s just based on some poorly known incidents between Galileo and the Church.

M&B: Historical experiences?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes, historical experiences. One of the things I read when I was at Rice University was W.T. Stace’s Religion and the Modern Mind. The conclusion he came to is one that I think is very important for people to know-that among the basic things that were discovered in the Scientific Revolution, there was nothing which should have had the slightest tendency to either prove or disprove faith, or even the existence of God. So, the fact that in the West, there was an Age of Faith, followed by an Age of Reason, then an Age of Unbelief is not for any scientific reason. It’s because of a psychological transition that took place, or because people misunderstood what was really discovered in the Scientific Revolution.

The modern conception, or the modern myth, is that Christianity and other religions just went along through the Middle Ages being totally ignorant of science, which of course is a historical nonsense. If they had been totally ignorant of science, there never would have been a Scientific Revolution. People believe that science was actually suppressed so much by the Middle Ages that it took an explosion of unbelief in order for modern science to develop. So, I make sure that people understand that all of the revolutionaries of modern science were religious believers and the idea that somehow some atheist dropped out of the sky and won the battle with the Church is nonsense. There was no battle between science and the Christian faith in history. The only battle was a battle that occurred among Christians about how the Bible should be read in the light of modern discoveries. And that continued for a long time.

M&B: What was the nature of the conflict that occurred between Galileo and the Catholic Church?

Dr. Mitchell: The battle within the Catholic Church was not primarily over the Bible or over faith; it was a political battle based on the fact that the Catholic Church knew that it was then losing its hold over the entire Christian faith and was also losing its control primarily over political power.

That’s what scared them, and so when they talked about being afraid of what Galileo said, it wasn’t primarily because they necessarily disagreed with it. It was because of their fear of the confusion that it would cause among the faithful, the Christians who were not well-educated. But they obviously could not hold that back. It was going to burst. But a part of the Roman Catholic church, a very small part of the Roman Catholic church, namely the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition, treated Galileo very badly. There are some things that people need to know about Galileo, and one is that he was a very ornery person, very difficult to get along with. That’s one of the reasons they had a problem with him. The Pope was a friend of his and didn’t necessarily disagree with him; he just thought that he was being obnoxious. Galileo would never recognize the description of him as this giant anti-Christian, anti-faith person who stood up to the Church and the Church punished him for it. He considered himself to be a good Catholic, he considered himself to be in conformity with all basic Catholic doctrine. The only reason he wrote was to try to show Catholic people that they did not have to reject the new knowledge that was coming about. Not only that, the main battle was not over the Bible; it was over Aristotle. The Pope and the Inquisition did not try to punish Galileo because he was a Christian or a Catholic or because of the Bible. They tried to punish him because he was too hastily critiquing and trying to do away with Aristotle, and Aristotle had become the scientific philosophy of the medieval Church. Now, Aristotle is not a Christian, and I take a little time to point that out. So, they were fighting about Aristotle’s view of the universe, not the biblical view because the Bible doesn’t have a scientific description of what the universe is. That’s the reason why we Christians, just like Muslims, started working on science; they adopted Aristotle because Aristotle was the scientist, and Ptolemy too. One of the main points I’m trying to get across is that there never has, in the history of the world, been a battle between Christianity and science.

Also, I like to remind people that Copernicus was published by the Church, and that Galileo was published by the Church. There was nobody else to publish their works. Indeed, the foreword to Copernicus was written by the Pope-though a different Pope than Galileo’s. There is no doubt that there were ignorant people and hostile people, but they were all Catholics arguing. It wasn’t science versus faith. The same thing happened with Protestantism, as science in the west was transferred primarily through Protestants because the people in England and Holland and places like that who carried on the scientific tradition were the Puritans. The Puritans were the ones who carried science forward. In other words, to put it bluntly, science is a gift of religious people to the modern world. Religious people should know that so that they do not think that they have to be reactionary. In fact, we don’t ordinarily think that way. I would say a good portion of the people who teach science, and even philosophy, at the universities in the area where I live are faithful people.

Now, as for specific areas that Galileo dealt with, he told some folks, for instance, that he had a telescope that could see that there are more than seven planets. According to the story, Archbishop Bellarmine refused to look through it because the Bible says there are only seven planets. In fact, the Bible doesn’t discuss the subject. It was Aristotle who said there were only seven planets. Again, that was a fight between Galileo and Aristotle. But some of the Bible people would throw out things like a passage in the Book of Joshua which is taken from a poem from the Book of the Wars which we don’t have. The only thing we have from this book are quotations like the one in Joshua, and it’s poetry. In this poem in the Book of Joshua, it says that the sun stood still in the valley of Aijalon, and then Joshua was able to complete his battle against the enemies of God. Well, some of the Bible people said, “Well, that’s just absolute scientific proof that the sun moves around the earth.” But there were a lot of medieval theologians who knew that wasn’t the way you should interpret the Bible. So, Galileo did a lot of speaking on that subject when he wrote his letters to defend his case, particularly his letter to the Grand Duchess.

A lot of people today think that one of the things that bothered the Church at the time of Galileo was that they believed that the earth was flat. The Church did not believe the earth was flat at the time of Galileo or at the time of Columbus, but that’s still the street talk. In fact, Thomas Aquinas knew of only one theologian in all of the history of the Church who argued that the earth was flat. Thomas Aquinas said that he was an ignoramus because Aquinas believed, as did Aristotle and Ptolemy, that the world was round. The picture many people have of medieval science is as if it were done by ignorant people and that in order for modern science to win they had to overcome the ignorance of all of these medieval scientists including those in Seville. But of course that’s where Aquinas had gotten his science-from the Muslims in Andalusia. That’s where he’d gotten his Aristotle. So the High Middle Ages was not the Dark Ages. That’s a mistake lots of Americans make, including PhDs in universities, talking about the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages preceded the Middle Ages. And that was a dark age. But the High Middle Ages was not a dark age. It was an age of the most intense intellectual ferment in human history, and certainly in contrast to every place else in the world, except the Muslim world, where the same thing was going on. So, you see, those are ideas that I’m trying to let people know about. For instance, to explain that the idea that the sun stood still in the valley of Aswan is from a poem that’s taken from a non-Biblical book.

M&B: How about the genealogy of Prophets in the Bible?

Dr. Mitchell: There is genealogy in the early part of the Bible, which treats genealogy as if it were chronology, which is all you can do if all you have is genealogy. They treated genealogy as chronology. All traditional cultures have these genealogies, but they cannot really be used as chronology. First of all, their purpose is different from chronology. Their purpose is to keep the genealogy or lineage. So, for instance, there are some genealogists in the Christian Bible that say, “Jesus was the son of David that was the son of Abraham.” It’s a genealogy. Obviously, it is not very complete.

M&B: So, by “son,” it means “grandson”?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes, it means descendant-or an ancestor-but there are other considerations. If we consider the genealogies to be scientific chronologies, then we’re still thinking of the Bible as primarily a scientific book. But, whether it’s true or not, it became fairly accepted by Christian geologists and others in the nineteenth century that geology certainly seemed to say that the world was older than six thousand years. At that time they thought it was maybe 200,000 years old, and every few years since then it has been pushed back. But they did not consider that change a threat to their faith because they understood that the Bible was written for a different purpose. They understood that if we spend all of our time trying to make it concordant with scientific theories, first of all, the two will never be concordant because scientific theories change every generation. Second, it would mean that the people to whom these books were originally revealed could not possibly have understood them because they would be scientific books and science is not something they were interested in; it was not something that they could comprehend. So, that argument about the sun standing still did not last very long, and even most modern-day scientific creationists do not try to argue that that poem has to be taken as a literal scientific view. Otherwise, you’d have to do the same thing to the Psalms and so forth. In fact, there are several creation accounts in the Hebrew Bible that are different from the creation account in Genesis because they’re for different purposes. In fact, all creation accounts are doxological; they are praise that God is the Only One-He is the One God, that the moon and the stars and the planets are not gods, that the animals are not gods, that human beings are not gods and so forth. Even though they are not gods, they are still good. So, that’s what we should have been carrying on, instead of carrying on this debate about science-especially with these ridiculous stories that are added to it.

M&B: So, it’s not right to read the Bible as a book of science to draw strict conclusions.

Dr. Mitchell: The point I want to make is that both Christian fundamentalists and atheistic fundamentalists are too uptight about this question, and that is detrimental to religious faith. Some people come into my office crying because they just learned that the earth is maybe more than six thousand years old, and they say, “Professor Mitchell, I’m losing my faith,” and I say to them, “What do you mean you’re losing your faith?”

“Well, the Bible says the earth is six thousand years old, and my professor says it’s more than six thousand years old.”

“Well, you’ve got a Bible,” I tell them, “and I’ve got a Bible over there, so why don’t you show me where it says that the earth is six thousand years old?”

What is changing is that you may be changing a belief, and that’s not the same thing as losing your faith. You’re changing a belief, and if you’re a forty-year-old person of faith or a hundred-year-old person of faith, you shouldn’t probably have all of exactly the same beliefs that you had when you were eighteen, and that’s very important to people.

To the atheists, I want to say that they should learn a little bit about history and the philosophy of science and logic, and learn what faith is, so that they have a little bit more respect for people of faith, even if they are the extremists, because every time they write about something that is going on in a school district or whatever, they act like they’re in a panic. That is, they seem to think that if we allow people to believe that human beings are the creation of God, science is lost. Well, the problem for that argument is that all of the people who were scientists up until their great grandfathers or their grandfathers were people who believe that human beings are the creation of God, and science didn’t die.

Yuksel A. Aslandogan is the editor of Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: The Contributions of the Gulen Movement.