When I was twelve, I spent a summer in a small town where my family owned a grape farm. The vineyard stretched across rolling hills, its vines heavy with deep purple grapes—a place of beauty, but also of hard work. That summer, I learned a lesson about teamwork that has stayed with me ever since.

One morning, my father announced it was time to harvest. He gathered the family—parents, siblings, cousins—and assigned us roles. The older cousins cut grape clusters, while the younger ones, including me, collected them in baskets. My parents and aunts carried the baskets to storage, where my grandfather inspected the grapes for quality.

At first, I thought my job was easy: just pick up grapes and fill the basket. But as the sun rose, the heat became unbearable, and the baskets grew heavier. I lagged behind, and the pile waiting to be collected grew. Seeing my struggle, my older cousin offered to switch roles. I hesitated—I’d never used pruning shears—but with his encouragement, I tried. To my surprise, I enjoyed the precision of cutting, and my cousin’s quick hands made collecting easier. By day’s end, we had finished the harvest. I realized teamwork wasn’t just about doing my part, but about adapting, supporting one another, and working together.

That summer taught me that teamwork isn’t just about dividing up tasks—it’s about understanding each other’s strengths, stepping in when someone needs help, and sharing in the achievement together. The experience of working alongside my family in the vineyard planted a seed of understanding that continued to grow over the years. Later, when I read Jon Gordon’s The Power of a Positive Team, his message that “no one creates success alone” immediately brought me back to those hot summer days in my hometown. Gordon’s insights, along with the timeless prophetic teachings, all point to the same truth: when we work together with a shared purpose—whether in families, workplaces, or communities—not only do we achieve more, but we help lift one another up along the way.

The foundation: no one succeeds alone

Gordon’s foundational premise is simple yet profound: “No one creates success alone. We all need a team to be successful.” He illustrates this with examples ranging from Super Bowl-winning teams to groups launching rockets into outer space or performing open-heart surgeries. My vineyard memory echoes this: without my cousin’s willingness to switch roles, the harvest might have faltered.

This principle finds a powerful parallel in the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), particularly in the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque (Masjid an-Nabawi) in Medina. After the challenging migration from Mecca, the Prophet faced the monumental task of uniting a fractured community. He didn’t assign the work to just a few skilled laborers; instead, he mobilized the Muhajirun (emigrants) and Ansar (helpers) into a cohesive team. Historical accounts, such as those from Ibn Hisham, describe him carrying bricks alongside his Companions, his hands dusty with the same labor (Ibn Hisham, 1955). This act wasn’t just practical—it was symbolic, forging bonds of trust and solidarity. The mosque became more than a place of worship; it was a hub of education, governance, and charity, a testament to what a united team can achieve.

The Qur’an reinforces this in chapter as-Saff (61:4) by illustrating the image of a team standing shoulder-to-shoulder, each member integral to the whole, like “a well-compacted building” (Unal, 2006). This wasn’t abstract theology for the Prophet; it was a lived reality. When a Companion suggested using a palm trunk as a pillar, the Prophet listened, adapting the plan collaboratively. This spirit of collective input mirrors my cousin’s suggestion to switch roles, showing that great teams thrive on mutual support and flexibility.

Gordon emphasizes that building such teams requires purpose, passion, and commitment. He wrote The Power of a Positive Team for teams to read together, fostering a shared understanding of what makes them great. This resonates with the Medina community’s collective ethos, where every member—from the poorest laborer to the Prophet himself—contributed to a vision beyond individual gain.

The power of positivity

Gordon’s second key insight is that positivity is a superpower for teams. He rejects “Pollyanna positivity”—a naive optimism that ignores reality—in favor of a gritty, purposeful optimism that confronts challenges head-on. John Gottman’s pioneering research on marriages offers a compelling parallel to team dynamics, showing that a five-to-one ratio of positive to negative interactions predicts success (Gottman, 1994). Through decades of observing couples, Gottman found that thriving relationships don’t eliminate conflict but overwhelm it with positivity—moments of kindness, appreciation, and support. When positive exchanges outnumber negative ones (like criticism or contempt) by at least five to one, couples build resilience, trust, and a buffer against stress. Below this ratio, negativity erodes connection, often leading to divorce. This “magic ratio” underscores Gordon’s point: positivity isn’t just feel-good fluff—it’s a measurable force for winning. In teams, as in marriages, frequent affirmations and constructive energy can transform challenges into opportunities, fostering unity where pessimism might fracture it. Gottman’s insight bolsters the idea that positivity, applied consistently, is a practical strategy for success across human endeavors.

During my sophomore year of college, I joined a group project in a literature class that quickly turned chaotic. Our team of five was tasked with analyzing a novel and presenting it to the class, but we couldn’t agree on anything—themes, roles, or even meeting times. Two weeks in, with the deadline looming, frustration peaked, and we were on the verge of giving up. I remembered my vineyard days and suggested we pause and share one thing we each liked about the book. It felt awkward at first, but as we talked, the mood shifted. One teammate, usually quiet, lit up discussing the protagonist’s resilience, sparking new ideas. I proposed we focus on that theme, and suddenly, roles clicked: he researched, I wrote, others handled visuals. Our presentation wasn’t perfect, but we delivered it with enthusiasm, earning praise for our unity. That experience taught me that positivity isn’t ignoring problems—it’s finding a spark to reignite the team, turning chaos into collaboration.

Gordon shares stories of teams he’s coached, like the Atlanta Falcons under Mike Smith, who adopted a “No Complaining Train” to maintain morale during grueling seasons. This practical application of positivity shows that optimism, paired with action, builds unstoppable teams.

Transforming negativity: a collective responsibility

Positivity isn’t passive; it requires weeding out negativity, Gordon insists. “One of the biggest mistakes teams make is that they ignore the negativity within their team,” he writes. He recounts working with the Jacksonville Jaguars in 2007, where Coach Jack Del Rio used The Energy Bus to confront “energy vampires,” leading to a playoff run. Similarly, Mark Richt at the University of Georgia curbed negativity with an “energy vampire” wall, turning a losing streak into ten consecutive wins.

The Prophet faced a parallel challenge during the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628 CE. When the Quraysh barred the Muslims from Mecca and imposed a seemingly humiliating truce, Companions like Umar ibn al-Khattab voiced frustration (Ibn Hisham, 1955). Rather than reprimand them, the Prophet listened with empathy, explaining that God’s plan would unfold. His calm transformed their doubt into acceptance, and the treaty later enabled Islam’s peaceful expansion. Gordon’s three-step approach—confront, transform, or remove—mirrors this: transformation is ideal, but removal may be necessary.

Fethullah Gülen’s philosophy of service (hizmet) complements this: “A community that seeks to serve others must be a garden of positivity, where each member uproots the weeds of envy and plants seeds of compassion” (Gülen, 2004). In my vineyard, my cousin’s willingness to switch roles weeded out my negativity—my fear of failing—and fed my confidence. Gülen’s metaphor of a garden aligns with Gordon’s “weed and feed” strategy, emphasizing proactive cultivation of a positive culture. Gordon shares a school principal’s story: a negative teacher resigned, overwhelmed by a relentlessly positive staff.

A few years after college, I volunteered to help organize a fundraising gala for a local nonprofit. Our small team was passionate, but as the event neared, tensions flared. One member, usually reliable, grew pessimistic—grumbling about low RSVPs, tight budgets, and even the venue’s lighting. His negativity dampened our meetings, and others started doubting we’d pull it off. Reflecting on my vineyard days, I decided to shift the vibe rather than let it fester. I invited him to grab tea after a planning session and asked what was weighing on him. He confessed feeling overwhelmed by outreach calls and feared we’d fail. I suggested we split his tasks—another teammate took half his list. He softened, even laughed, and at our next meeting, he arrived with a list of confirmed donors instead of complaints. The gala went off beautifully, raising more than our goal, and our team bonded over the win. That experience taught me that negativity isn’t the enemy—it’s a signal. Listening and tweaking roles transformed his frustration into fuel, proving a team can thrive when we lift each other up.

Practical tools for a positive culture

Gordon offers concrete tools, like the “No Complaining Rule,” where complaints must come with solutions. Michael Phelps’ Olympic swim team enforced positivity, enhancing their 2016 Rio performance. Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur adds a spiritual layer: “Complaining about the decree of God is a veil over the beauty of existence. Instead, seek the wisdom within it” (Nursi, 1996). During the Meccan boycott (617-619 CE), Prophet Muhammad rallied his clan to share scarce resources, reframing starvation as a test of solidarity (Al-Haythamī, 2000).

In my vineyard, if I’d complained without adapting, the harvest might have stalled. The “No Complaining Rule” echoes Nursi’s call to focus on wisdom, pushing teams toward solutions.

Positive conflict: strength through trust

Gordon clarifies that positivity doesn’t mean avoiding conflict. “Positive conflict” strengthens teams when rooted in trust and respect. Writing partners Brian Koppelman and David Levien debate ideas constructively, as did volleyball stars Kerri Walsh Jennings and Misty May-Treanor. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) mediated between the Aws and Khazraj tribes in Medina, turning decades of enmity into alliance through dialogue (Ibn Hisham, 1955). Gordon notes, “If there’s no trust, respect, and love, the conflict hurts the team.” My cousin’s trust in me to cut grapes, despite my inexperience, turned a potential clash into collaboration.

A spiritual and practical synthesis

Cultivating a positive culture weaves together practical and spiritual threads, offering lessons for diverse teams. My vineyard lesson taught me adaptability and support; my college project showed positivity’s spark in turning a failing group into a united front; and the nonprofit gala proved empathy transforms negativity, yielding a successful event that uplifted our community. Gordon’s framework—emphasizing unity, positivity, and proactive negativity management—provides a practical structure for these experiences, while the Prophet’s examples offer timeless inspiration. The Qur’an’s call to stand as a “well-compacted building” (61:4) and promise of “ease with hardship” (94:6) infuse these efforts with divine purpose, while Gülen’s vision of compassionate service and Nursi’s reframing of challenges deepen their spiritual resonance.

Nonprofits, in particular, stand to benefit profoundly from this synthesis. My experience with the gala illustrates how Gordon’s principles—listening to transform negativity, fostering unity, and maintaining optimism—can turn a struggling team into a force for good. Nonprofits often operate with limited resources and high stakes, relying on volunteers and staff united by a shared mission, much like the Prophet’s community in Medina. By adopting tools like the “No Complaining Rule” and embracing positive conflict, they can maximize impact—whether feeding the hungry, educating the underserved, or healing the sick—mirroring the mosque’s role as a hub of service. Gülen’s hizmet ethos further aligns here, urging nonprofits to cultivate positivity as a garden of collective action, amplifying their ability to serve humanity.

This is a blueprint to build teams—families, workplaces, or organizations—that reflect unity in diversity. Whether harvesting grapes, working a college project, or fundraising for a cause, the principles of collaboration, optimism, and empathy turn shared purpose into transformative action, echoing the prophetic legacy of building communities that endure and inspire. Together, we can create a brighter future for all.

References

• Gordon, J. (2018). The power of a positive team: Proven principles and practices that make great teams great. Wiley.
• Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Puri, M., & Robinson, D. T. (2007). Optimism and economic choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(1), 71-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.002
• Ünal, A. (Trans.). (2006). The Qur’ān with annotated interpretation in modern English. The Light, Inc.
• Al-Haythamī, N. A. (2000). Majma‘ al-Zawā’id wa Manba‘ al-Fawā’id (Vol. 6). Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah. (Original work published ca. 14th century)
• Ibn Hishām, A. M. (1955). As-Sīrah an-Nabawiyyah (Vol. 2). (M. Al-Saqqā, Ed.). Mustafa Al-Babi Al-Halabi. (Original work published ca. 9th century)
• Gülen, F. (2004). Toward a global civilization of love and tolerance. The Light, Inc.
  Nursi, S. (1996). The words: The reconstruction of Islamic belief and thought (H. Şimşek, Trans.). Sözler Publications. (Original work published ca. 1920s-1930s)

Imagine two children fighting over an orange. Not knowing what the other one is interested in, one of them aspires to eat the orange, and the other desires to make a cake with the orange peel (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981). There are several different scenarios that they may end up with when they finally stop quarrelling over who found the orange first, and decide to end the dispute. In the first scenario, they simply split the orange into two equal halves. The first child peels the orange and eats the fruit and throws away the peel, while the second one throws away the fruit and uses the peel to make the cake. Both parties compromise; however, effectively half of the orange gets wasted, and both parties actually lose something. In the second scenario, one of the children forcefully takes the whole orange with threats and physical force, while the other capitulates. The dispute ends with one party winning, and the other losing. The forceful one may seem to be victorious at first sight, but loses his friend’s trust, damaging a valuable relationship in the long term. In the third scenario, the children decide to calm down and listen to each other, and understand why each one wants the orange, and resolve the dispute in a way that fulfills both their needs. One of them gets the whole orange peel, which is enough to make the cake, and the other gets the whole fruit to eat. Nothing is wasted, and everyone gets the best they could. Both parties win.

Looking at the orange sharing example, are there lessons here that we can learn and apply to the broader world? For starters, I think it’s clear that dialogue naturally leads to collaboration, and collaboration helps to attain the optimal resolution, whereas other approaches to dispute resolution are likely to produce sub-optimal results for both parties. Parties who collaborate gain power with others. Just as in the case of the last orange sharing scenario, parties work together to attain maximum gains for all. In contrast, when one party declares victory by exerting power over the other, similar to the episode where the child grasps the orange by force, this leaves behind a legacy of injustice and mistrust, for one party has deprived the other of his share. In the long term, future dealings will be very difficult. When the parties in a dispute use tactics of coercion, threat, or deception in a way that exacerbates their power differences, not only is the trust between the parties damaged, but they also become suspicious and hostile of one another (Deutsch, et al., 2006). Even if the disputing parties can reach a settlement in the end, often the underlying interests of neither party can be truly addressed, or one party is at a serious disadvantage. Overall, since the root causes remain unaddressed, the dispute can manifest itself again sooner or later, in some other shape or form. Moreover, the competitive nature of the process brings material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relationships, and exacerbating negative psychological effects (Deutsch, 2006), as there are losers in this process. The true winners are the ones who choose the way of dialogue and collaboration.

The story of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and his creative idea for settling a dispute that occurred during the rebuilding of the Ka‘ba in Mecca (before his prophethood) brilliantly exemplifies a collaborative agreement: when the sacred Black Stone was to be put in place, the leaders of several tribes quarreled about who should have the honor to place it. They could not resolve the dispute by themselves and decided to pick the first person who entered Ka‘ba as an arbitrator. Acting as the neutral third party to the dispute, the Prophet’s idea was to place the stone on a cloak and the heads of each tribe would take a side of the cloak and together carry it in; hence each could have the honor of putting the stone in place (Satha-Anand, 1998; Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000; Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). This innovative resolution, where all the parties got what they wanted, produced no losers. Everybody won as the resolution was compatible with their underlying interests. The historical episode not only highlights the importance of creativity, and the important role of a wise and neutral third party in dispute resolution, but also demonstrates that even difficult disputes can be overcome through collaborative problem solving. When parties in a dispute can identify and frame the issue at hand as a mutual problem to be solved, they can work together to achieve a common goal. They separate emotions from the problem. They are attentive to each others’ needs, listen to each other to understand each others’ underlying interests, and they creatively brainstorm on alternative solutions to address those interests (Bolton, 1986; Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus, 2006).

As the Prophet’s peace building skills were well-known, the leaders of the city of Medina invited him and his followers to their city to build peace among rival tribes after his prophet hood (Saritoprak, 2010; Abu-Nimer, 2000). The tribes of Medina had been fighting for centuries. As a visionary, he was able to implement a collaborative treaty (the Charter of Medina is the first constitution created by the Prophet) that ensured the rights of all inhabitants of Medina, which consisted of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and pagans. The Charter of Medina can also be highlighted as an example of interfaith dialogue in action. The Prophet often reminded his followers about the significance of solidarity and unity between Muslims and non-Muslims (Abu-Nimer, 2000). A peaceful society was successfully established in Medina and existed as a single inclusive community. The same peaceful model was later extended to Mecca.

The civilization that flourished in Medina was built on two main principles. These are namely “the mutual cooperation” and “the loving interrelatedness of the creation” that puts forward “collaborative action” and “solidarity” (Saritoprak, 2010). The mutual cooperation of creatures on earth can be observed in all the physical events around us. For example, the elements cooperate with each other to form the matter. The red and white corpuscles in the blood work together in protecting and feeding the body. The cells in the body function in cooperation. Rain helps plants to grow, plants help animals to grow, and they both help human beings to grow. The loving interrelatedness of the creation emphasizes that all members of creation are brothers and sisters, and rejects all forms of bias, such as racism and nationalism, and prioritizes communal solidarity that includes both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As the Charter of Medina illustrates, for a collaborative resolution, the parties in a dispute must team up and empower each other in order to find the most creative solution that best satisfies all parties. They work on implementing a plan that identifies the roles of each party and commits to positive outcomes for all. Due to the cooperative nature of the process, the parties have more resources, more diversity in ideas, and more social support for the problem solving work involved (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006). Furthermore, cooperation brings greater group productivity, more favorable interpersonal relations, better psychological health, and higher self-esteem (Deutsch, 2006). There are no losers in this process, and everybody wins.

You may question the applicability of collaborative dispute resolution and win-win results. They may sound too idealistic, and because we live in an increasingly materialistic, self-centered, and egoistic culture, not realistic for our current world. People tend to be under the control of their carnal selves, ignore the needs of the others, or even take it to the point of dehumanizing the other, especially during stressful situations. Emotions such as anger and humiliation may take over common sense, and may make it very difficult to be constructive. Therefore, contention may seem inevitable.

However, as human beings, we have the gift of conscience that can help us defeat our carnal selves and attain win-win results, regardless of the extent of the conflict. The voice of our conscience would encourage us to listen with empathy, and to respect the basic human needs of the other party, regardless of who we are dealing with. It would encourage us to be patient, tolerant, and loving. Our conscience, in a sense, can act as the “inner” neutral third party that can remind us of the basic tenets of humanity (Ury, 1999, cited in Moix, 2006). All major faiths share the virtues of compassion, love, tolerance, respect for human dignity, and value the sacredness of human life; all these things also relate to the development of our conscience. These common values have contributed to the international human rights standards, ethical norms, and humanitarian laws, as well as the philosophy and practice of peacemaking (Moix, 2006). Emphasizing such spiritual teachings for the good of mankind in general, regardless of religion or ethnicity, is crucial when aspirations consume people, and drive them to commit atrocities. In this respect, interfaith dialogue can help strengthen the possibility of constructive resolutions. If disputes grow and turn into conflicts involving atrocities, faith leaders can act as the “outer” neutral third parties to mediate and remind people to draw on their faiths rather than their emotions. Especially, if the leaders engage in a strong interfaith dialogue network that they can mobilize; many disputes involving people of multiple faiths can be eliminated before they can grow, whether these disputes are at the interpersonal or intergroup level. Examples of successful peace building through interfaith dialogue exist around the conflict regions of the world. Consider the collective action and advocacy in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Israel – Palestine (Abu-Nimer, 2008), as well as in Turkey, through the efforts of Journalists and Writers Foundation.

Essentially, if the parties in a dispute can use the power of collaborative problem solving to produce beneficial alternatives for all, they can attain the creative atmosphere to expand the range of alternatives for positive change and growth (Coleman & Deutsch, 2006).With authenticity, respect, and love, the parties can easily attain constructive resolution, and there is chance to reach the optimal solution where positive outcomes – such as strengthening relationships, and improving psychological health and productivity – are prevalent, as opposed to feelings of distress, resentment, and alienation resulting from other alternatives (Bolton, 1986).

In sum, if the parties in a dispute can approach the resolution process with positive intentions, they are more likely to achieve collaborative problem solving which will produce beneficial alternatives for all. In parallel with the philosophy of Yunus Emre (the 13th century Sufi master) who once said, “We love the Created because of the Creator,” the key is to start with love and tolerance by prioritizing human well-being. If we can use the power of our “inner” neutral third parties, difficult problems and disputes are likely to resolve naturally.

Alptekin Kavi is an electrical engineer and designs computer chips at a high-technology company. He lives in Superior, Colorado.

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. (2000-2001). A framework for nonviolence and peacebuilding in Islam. Journal of Law and Religion, 15(1/2), 217-265.
• Abu-Nimer, M. (2008). The role of religious peacebuilding in traumatized societies. In Hart, B. (Ed.), Peacebuilding in traumatized societies (pp. 239-257). The United States of America: University Press of America.
• Bolton, R. (1986). People skills (pp. 232-257), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. (Original work published 1979).
• Coleman, P. T. (2006). Power and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 120-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint
• Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (2006). Some guidelines for developing a creative approach to conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 402-413). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (Ed.). (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1981).
• Moix, B. (2006). Matters of faith: Religion, conflict, and conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 582-601). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
• Nursi, S. The Rays from Risale-i Nur collection, (pp. 19). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/13667249/The-Rays-From-Risalei-Nur-Collection
• Saritoprak, Z. (2010). Fethullah Gulen’s theology of peacebuilding. In Esposito, J. L., & Yilmaz, I. (Eds.), Islam and peacebuilding (pp. 169-187). New York: Blue Dome Press.
• Satha-Anand, C. “Three Prophets’ Nonviolent Actions: Case Stories from the Lives of the Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad.” In Chaiwat Satha-Anand and Michael True (eds.), The Frontiers of Nonviolence. Honolulu: International Peace Research Association, 1998.
• Ury, W. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. New York: Penguin, 1999.

The Drive for Ecumenical Unity

First, when speaking of unity, Jesus never specified a date or time period. Most probably he did this in an attempt to limit human weakness and shortsightedness in this field. However, separation and scattering happened anyway. Rather than considering this something undesirable, we should recognize it as a normal result of human diversity and a source of richness for humanity. Human diversity starts with diversity in the white, black, red, and yellow races, followed by new-color races arising from interracial sexual relations between the original races.

According to Teilhard de Chardin,1 the human race is undergoing a process of permanent change, continuous development, and an unstoppable growth toward an ever-higher level of spiritualization in its quest to achieve a clearer and better understanding of the Divine Reality, the Divine Truth. All faith communities can accept that the perennial Reality from which all existing matter originated is also the final Omega-destination of all beings. Only then, after a long period of growth, will humanity and all religions be united in the All of the spiritual Reality.

After centuries of war and conflict, collaboration and unity among nations progressed with the creation of the United Nations (UN), its affiliated institutes, and the International Court at The Hague in The Netherlands. Sometime in the not-too-distant future, we hope that the dream of Baha’ullah2-the creation of a world parliament, a world government, a world currency unit, and a universal language-will be realized. Is it not time for the world’s diverse faith communities to realize a similar union in collaboration?

Second, people are talking of a small ecumenism between Christian faith communities and a great ecumenism between the world’s faith communities. The ecumenism appellation undoubtedly will be greeted with suspicion by non-Christian faith communities due to its Western origin. In line with the growing trend of including non-Christian faith communities in Christian ecumenist encounters, it might be advisable to replace ecumenism with dialogue. Interfaith dialogue then can be used for all interfaith dialogue encounters.

Third, our world is faced with the problems of an escalating gap between rich and poor and the ever-increasing poverty of 20 percent of the world’s population. Although the world’s political, financial, and industrial leaders acknowledge that something should be done, they have not reached any consensus on how to tackle these problems. Faith communities, in cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), could speed up this process by fulfilling the necessary role of pressing and pushing these leaders to reach some kind of agreement. However, to be effective and have a lasting influence they must be able to collaborate with each other.

After many years of meetings, it is becoming clear to more and more people that drives for unity between the Christian Protestant communities, as well as drives for unity between the Catholic Church and other Christian communities, are not making any real progress. A growing number of people now believe that such unity should be considered as a very long-term goal.

What should be sought now is not unity, but rather a union in collaboration. This seems to be happening due to advances in telecommunication technology, an acquisition of better knowledge and estimation of other cultures, and also the immigration of non-Christian faith communities to traditionally Christian countries. For example, this latter factor has made Islam the second largest faith community in the European Union.

Fourth, to realize such a union in collaboration, the following four attitudes must be present:

A True Interest in the World’s Problems. All interfaith meetings should deal with the suffering of so many of our brothers and sisters on this planet from a position of real concern and compassion. But more than that, they should formulate the sincere desire within themselves to do something about it. Such a global consciousness should be the basic mental attitude from which all faith communities start when working on interfaith dialogue.

The problems of poverty in South America and India, as well as many other countries, cannot be solved in a reasonably short time period by local and even nationally combined efforts. A change for the better in the socioeconomic infrastructures, many of which remain under the control of a small minority of landowners and industrialists who derive great financial benefits from the status quo, will be possible only through political and moral pressure from the outside. This represents a challenge for a United Religions Organization in collaboration with local politicians.3

A Clearly Defined Purpose so That Efficient Solutions Can Be Reached and Implemented. Efficient solutions will be produced only when all faith communities become a “One Voice Forum” having behind it the power of all their adherents. This could become a reality by creating a world religious organization, such as has been proposed by Episcopal Bishop William Swing’s United Religions Initiative (URI), launched in 1995. This body does not seek to unite all religions into one, but to bring them together at the same table so that their voice will be heard and taken seriously by the UN. An important step in this direction was the creation of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Geneva, Switzerland.4 The WCC could become a basis for a world organization if non-Christian faith communities and the Catholic Church were to become members.

In the case of Europe, a more unified European collaboration should be studied to promote communication between European interfaith dialogue organizations. An umbrella organization, something like a European Interfaith Council, is urgently needed, as is a European interfaith magazine, to combine all efforts on a European-wide level.

Giving Priority to the Common Welfare. This involves subordinating personal interests to the interests of the whole, a problem often encountered on the political level. For example, the UN’s activities will remain very limited as long as America gives priority to its own interests. This is also applicable to NGOs and faith communities, for concentrating on their own organizational agendas, instead of on the common welfare of humanity, makes real dialogue and real collaboration difficult. As far as I know, only Japan places the welfare of the whole community above that of the individual in all aspects of life. This is perhaps due to its centuries-old Buddhist and Confucian background. Whatever the reason, this remains a unique world phenomenon that is not recognized or understood sufficiently by the world community.

Adopting a “Go and Learn” Attitude. In other words, we have to move beyond the typical Western attitude of “Go and Teach.” This attitude is characteristic of Christianity and Islam, for adherents of both religions believe in their religion’s superiority and that they have exclusive possession of the whole truth. Unfortunately, such attitudes have resulted in colonization, negating and even persecuting other cultures and religions. What is required today is the attitude of “Go and Learn,” of being interested in and learning about others, of coming to respect their identity and values.

Due to this new attitude, we might integrate some of these values in our own way of life and be enriched as a result. As long as the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, as well as Islam, do not renounce their claim of exclusive possession of the Truth, the above-mentioned union in collaboration will remain an almost-impossible undertaking. The only way forward is one of accepting and recognizing other faith communities and working to go beyond the differences and similarities to arrive at a union in collaboration. Overall unity should not be the goal

Footnotes

1. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955): Teilhard aimed at a metaphysic of evolution, holding that it was a process converging toward a final unity that he called the Omega point. He attempted to show that what is of permanent value in traditional philosophical thought can be maintained and even integrated with a modern scientific outlook if one accepts that the tendencies of material things are directed, either wholly or in part, beyond the things themselves toward the production of higher, more complex, more perfectly unified beings…. Teilhard argued that the appearance of man brought an added dimension into the world. This he defines as the birth of reflection: animals know, but man knows that he knows; he has “knowledge to the square.” Another great advance in Teilhard’s scheme of evolution is the socialization of mankind. This is not the triumph of herd instinct but a cultural convergence of humanity toward a single society. Evolution has gone about as far as it can to perfect human beings physically: its next step will be social and spiritual. Teilhard saw such evolution already in progress; through technology, urbanization, and modern communications, more and more links being established between different peoples’ politics, economics, and habits of thought in an apparently geometric progression. (www.britannica.com)
2. Baha’ullah (1817-92): Founder of the Baha’i faith upon his claim to be the manifestation of the unknowable God. He propounded a comprehensive teaching that advocated the unity of all religions and the universal brotherhood of man. Emphasizing social ethics, he eschewed ritual worship and devoted himself to the abolition of racial, class, and religious prejudices. (www.britannica.com)
3. For more information, check out: www.united-religions. org/newsite/index.htm, or contact: United Religions Initiative, PO Box 29242, San Francisco, CA 94129-0242 USA; e-mail: office@uri.org.
4. The World Council of Churches (WCC) is an ecumenical organization founded in 1948 in Amsterdam as “a fellowship of Churches which accept Jesus Christ our Lord as God and Saviour.” The WCC is not a church, nor does it issue orders or directions to the churches. It works for the unity and renewal of the Christian denominations and offers them a forum in which they may work together in the spirit of tolerance and mutual understanding (www.britannica. com). It now has 337 Christian churches as members, mainly Protestant and Eastern Orthodox. The Catholic Church and Southern Baptists are not members.

1) Dialogue is only possible when we respect each other’s individuality. Thus, knowledge of others in their cultural setting is essential. By recognizing and accepting social, cultural, and religious diversity, an exchange of mutual values and union in collaboration, humanity ultimately will be led to unity.

2) Everything is actively involved in a continuous growth process toward a better world in an ever-higher intellectual and spiritual environment. This awareness that all people belong to the same family, through their common origin and destination, should lead to a higher universal responsibility to practice this awareness in our lives.

3) The inspiring role of the leaders of world religions, traditions, and other convictions is of prime importance in our effort to create a better world order in peace and justice. In their cultural and philosophical traditions, their churches, organizations and institutes are the organizations par excellence to proclaim and sustain universally accepted moral principles.

4) The tenets of world religions and other faith traditions have their roots in their native culture, have developed on the basis of their culture’s philosophical and moral concepts, and have approached and proclaimed the faith in transient expressions and culturally appropriate ceremonies. As pilgrims always on their way to new discoveries and subject to change, no faith community should claim exclusive representation of the Truth or superiority.

5) The world religions should move from their approach of converting to an approach of testifying. The essential elements of one’s own faith should be presented in a language understandable by the local faithful, so that dialogue between the world religions and faith traditions will lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and to an exchange of mutual values. This will enrich one’s faith and that of others.

6) In the passionate search for the truth and a more comprehensive approach to spirituality, meditation should be re-evaluated and practiced to engender a deeper awareness of the Divine presence. Meditation crosses all religious boundaries and is universally shared and accepted. Silent meditation should be part of all interreligious encounters.

7) People involved in interreligious and intercultural dialogue must remain aware of and concerned about our world’s escalating ecological, social, economic, and financial problems.

Accepting these seven guidelines could become a major stepping stone to a union, in collaboration between the world religions and other faith traditions, that transcends doctrinal differences. Such a dialogue in collaboration with the political world would be the most effective contribution toward more efficient solutions to the world problems. At the same time, it would be an important stepping stone to a new world order of more peace and justice for all.

Elucidation Summary

Par. 1: Real dialogue is possible only in the presence of mutual knowledge and acceptance of cultural and religious values. Racism can be described as intolerance and non-acceptance of other cultures, with ignorance as its main cause. All opponents of racism argue for tolerance. However, tolerance implies discrimination, because one tolerates something that one wishes were not there. Given this, it should be replaced by acceptance of others in respect of the values inherent in their cultures, religions, and customs. Accepting others must mean more than tolerance”it should mean accepting them as members of the community without necessarily any loss of their unique identity.

Such mutual acceptance should integrate both sides’ values into a culturally richer community. Where there is respect, there will be willingness and even readiness to integrate some of those values to enrich one’s own cultural and religious values. Such respect for others requires a certain knowledge of the others’ history, historical and cultural development, ways of life, and other factors. Thanks to developments in communication technology, such knowledge is now readily available.

Par. 2: The recent trend of re-evaluating religion, spirituality, meditation, silence, and so-called soft human virtues can be considered in full agreement with the optimistic life-view of the Jesuit Father Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), as expressed in his main books on humanity’s slow but sure spiritualization progress, and with the Dalai Lama’s 1992 document The Global Community and the Need for Universal Responsibility.

The growth in common knowledge and an ever-higher intellectual heritage passing from one generation to the next has brought millions of people into contact with different cultures and religions. Our world is becoming multicultural, while the formerly mostly unilaterally decided national borders are losing their importance, as in the European Union (EU). Regional identity and languages are becoming more important in bringing people together.

One of the latest revolutionary trends is the political world’s overture to faith communities as partners and advisers in analyzing current problems. Jacques Delors, former president of the EU Commission in Brussels, has created inside the Commission a Forward Studies Unit to study the EU’s ethic dimensions. For the last 5 years, it has been organizing a yearly interreligious/interpolitical symposium in various European cities. Each time, some 120 people participated. The EU can be considered a forerunner in this field. Let’s hope that it will be followed by other governments.

Par. 3: In the individualistic West, there is a growing tendency to place the individual in the foreground as the decision maker in moral matters based on his or her individual conscience. This explains the attractiveness of the New Age movement and of innumerable new religious sects competing for followers in poverty-stricken South American and African countries. Many faithful Catholics and other Christians have lost faith in their churches as institutions, mainly because the highest authorities are slow to adapt to current needs and trends. Guidance from above remains an essential and irreplaceable element in people’s moral behavior. Nothing can replace the world religions as institutions.

The world religions, as institutions joining with the recent enunciations of free-thinking humanists that they also are a religious community, should unite globally in a union of collaboration to increase the effectiveness of their moral and ethical guidance in personal and worldly matters. Such a dream would receive the enthusiastic support of young people searching for a new ethical basis for their lives.

The ethical basis for such a union is available in the global ethic declaration of the Catholic theologian Hans Kung and his colleague Karl-Josef Kuschel of Germany. This global ethic, after vigorous discussion, was received enthusiastically, approved tentatively, and declared publicly at the Parliament of World’s Religions meeting in Chicago in 1993, which was attended by 7,000 religious and spiritual personalities from all world religions and traditions. Its main ideas are summarized in following three catch phrases:

– No human life without a world ethic for nations.

– No peace among nations without peace among religions.

– No peace among religions without dialogue among religions.

A second important ethical document is the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, announced on September 1, 1997, by Tokyo’s InterAction Council and supported by the elderly statesmen of 28 countries. It can be considered an emanation of the Japanese and Eastern way of life, reflecting their cultural values and giving priority to responsibilities and duties above rights. It also is a most opportune addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Grassroots parish and social workers, peace promoters, and NGOs should be involved in this union.

Par. 4: It is a very opportune trend that Biblical exegesis, as practiced in Christian communities for the past 50 years, is now a part of most Christian communities. This is not yet the case in Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu communities.

It is now considered self-evident that Divine Revelation’s formulation is influenced greatly by the culture in which it originated, and that this form of presentation is not revelation itself. Although these presentations and interpretations undergo a continuous change appropriate to the believers’ ever-changing knowledge and ever-higher conscience level, the essentials never change. The revolution in Biblical exegesis from literalism to a culturally appropriate describing and relating interpretation, especially in Christian theology, is the most valuable evolution and development of the last 50 years toward interfaith dialogue and real inculturation. The liturgical changes in Catholic eucharistic ceremonies, such as replacing Latin with the local language, have been so many steps in this evolution of adaptation.

Accepting this position causes one to accept others as equals and limits, to a reasonable degree, any remaining feelings of superiority. These renewals also have been at the origin of the increasing number of interfaith dialogue meetings in the past 40 years, which saw one of its first happenings in Chicago’s international interfaith meeting, organized by the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893.

All of this has resulted in a growing understanding of other religions and cultures, and a growing mutual respect and acceptance of the values of others. This even has resulted in an integration effort of others’ cultural and religious values in one’s own faith-life as a rethinking and a deepening of personal faith. Advances in communication, as well as global migrations and the resulting inculturation process, have made a global interfaith dialogue possible.

Par. 5: Many of us accept the existence of a spiritual power or spiritual being, whether a person with a sublimation of human characteristics (compassion and love) or as a difficult-to-define karma or buddhahood, to which the spiritual existence of everything belongs as its origin and final destination.

Most religious scholars now admit that each world religion has its origin in a particular culture, of which the eternal truth’s wording and each religion’s religious ceremonies are a part. Culture changes over time, due to increased general knowledge, science, and lifestyles. Life, as it was experienced at the time of the founders of the world religions and other faith traditions, bears almost no resemblance to modern life and conceptions. Thanks to philology, archeology, and anthropology, we can better understand and interpret sacred texts and how they originated and developed in their contemporary contexts and surroundings.

Therefore, no faith community should claim to have the whole truth or be the world’s savior. Christians and Muslims, as well as other people of religion, should admit that claims of exclusivity have led to abuse.

Many fear that accepting other cultures or religions within their borders means losing their own values. In fact, each such encounter enriches one’s culture and values. A unification and further homogeneity of the world population, based on accepting and acknowledging the cultural values of others, enriches our own culture as well as the world’s culture.

This can be applied to religious perception. In the absence of claims to absolute truth, there is no need to convert others. As each world religion has its own unique values, passing them on to deepen the faith of others is an important element in drawing closer together. This realization also could end the rivalry between faith communities and allow people to choose the faith tradition they will follow. Such an acceptance and experiencing of these values and truths also will increase knowledge and perception of the Divine Mystery, the final and eternal truth.

Interfaith dialogue seeks to reach a better mutual understanding and to engage in common activities. Its main attitude is reconciliation in order to create a better and more peaceful world, to share the world’s resources more equally, and to help the underprivileged. Doctrinal, communal, or religious union should not be the real aim; rather, we should work for union in collaboration to do something together, to rise above discussions on doctrinal and ceremonial similarities and differences. Such union in collaboration is possible only in diversity and in conserving as much as possible our own identity in an increasingly homogeneous world. These are converging, not contradictory, developments. This is true for nations and countries where borders are becoming less important or even disappearing, and also for religions. It seems evident that such a union can be realized only by collaborating with each other in a common global range of activities.

Par. 6: The West’s growing contact with Hindu and Buddhist spirituality and meditation probably has contributed greatly to the recent interest in all kinds of spiritual practices, from yoga to Zen meditation and New Age meetings. Where the West has been used to more active prayers and active intellectual meditation as religious practices, the East has surprised us with other, more passive ways of approaching the inexpressible Divine Mystery. In their dictionary, there is no God as understood in the monotheistic religions. The Divine lives and is present in everything, especially in each person’s self. Buddhist and Hindu meditation and contemplation do away with the self to discover the real Self by becoming free of thought and desire, by becoming empty of the self so that the Self can reign. This way still might be reserved for a few, but the numbers of such people continues to grow markedly. Daily meditation can be practiced by anyone, for it is a matter of living in conscious awareness of others as members of the same family and of all the things around us. Just being aware helps us to concentrate on essentials, to eliminate stress, and especially to become aware of our brothers and sisters of the one Earth-family under the same Heaven.

Par. 7: The world religions and other faith traditions, given actual conditions, clearly are not ready to come to a unity of fusion. The unity that interfaith dialogue should seek is possible only in collaboration.

If the organizations active in interreligious/intercultural dialogue and in dialogue for peace really believe what they say they believe, then the most direct and efficient way to realize a one-voice world forum for all faith communities, the object of the United Religions Initiative, would be for the main interfaith and peace organizations (e.g., the Parliament of the World’s Religions, the World Conference of Religions for Peace, the World Congress of Faiths, the International Association for Religion and Peace, and many others in Southeast Asia) to transcend their self-interests and join forces with the United Religions Initiative in a kind of federal combination. Then they could work to create this kind of global organization, whose most appropriate name would be the United Religions Organization, as a worthy collaborating partner to the United Nations. This would be the expression, reverberating throughout the world, of a real human spirit of mutual love and compassion, and also of the Japanese and Eastern spirit of harmony in forgetting the self for the common welfare.