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.

This mystical unveiling, found in Ibn `Arabi’s vision of The Universal Tree and Four Birds, appears in his work entitled, Cosmic Unification in the presence of essential witnessing, through the assembling of the Human Tree and the Four Spiritual Birds. Ibn `Arabi’s vision offers a mystical grounding for dialogue among religious traditions, echoing the forms of dialogue identified by contemporary scholars and practitioners of interreligious dialogue. Ibn `Arabi’s distinctive philosophy of the Oneness of the Many or Diversity within Unity is an insight that will provide the basis for such mystical grounding (Chittick 1998, 169).

Background

If we are to understand Ibn `Arabi’s writings, the background for such concepts is important.

Five centuries after the advent of Islam in 1165 CE, Muhyiddin Muhammad Ibn `Arabi was born at Murcia in southern Andalusia in the Golden Age of Islam. During that period, the Iberian Peninsula witnessed an extraordinary cultural interaction between Muslims, Jews, and Christians under Islamic rule,which existed until the Christian domination of Spain became complete under the reign of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in the year 1492, thereby ending this cultural interaction (Hirtenstein 1999, 9).

Diversity within Unity

As a young boy growing up under such extraordinary conditions, Ibn `Arabi displayed visionary

abilities. His greatest vision occurred nearly thirty years later when he experienced a spiritual ascent beyond the seven celestial bodies, arriving at “the Universal Tree surrounded by four mystical birds: the Ringdove, the Royal Eagle, the Strange Anqa and the Jet Black Crow” (Jaffray 2006, 35). From this vision Ibn `Arabi came to develop his philosophy of Diversity within Unity (Jaffray 2011, 1).6 Author Angela Jaffray says, “Ibn `Arabi clearly acknowledges the monotheistic sense of God, but acknowledges Diversity among the different religions, but in Diversity, God wills unity” (Jaffray 2011, 1).

In the Universal Tree is observed a diverse unity based on the multiplicity of beings rooted together in one Divine Being. The tree and four feathered creatures that sit upon its branches bring forth a type of mystical grounding, fostered in unity for dialogue among religious traditions. The types of dialogue revealed within the tree will be the dialogues of life, of study, of prayer, and of spirituality, all of which, if followed in an atmosphere of mutuality, will have the potential to facilitate people toward the dialogue of action—an action bringing forth a vision of justice for all.

Discourse of the Universal Tree

Upon meeting the Universal Tree, Ibn `Arabi greeted it and the tree responded by saying:

Listen, O wayfarer, O king. I am the Universal Tree of synthesis
and likeness. I have deep roots and my branches are lofty…
… I am the synthesis of the divine words… (Jaffray 2006, 35-37)

In her commentary, Jaffrey interprets for us: the Tree consists of unity and multiplicity. The well-rooted trunk represents unity, and multiplicity reflected in the leaves. The leaves represent human beings, and the branches a synthesis of all the Divine’s Names and Attributes manifested to the leaves [humankind] (Jaffray 2006, 82, 83).

The Tree demonstrates the universality of God’s all-inclusive infinite ways in which He manifests Himself to creation. Ibn `Arabi writes, “People of God say there are as many ways to God as the breaths of the creatures…” (Twinch 2011, 3). In other words, there is one Divine Being, but God manifests Himself in infinite ways to each person.

In today’s global village of numerous religious and cultural traditions, we come together on a daily basis as the multiplicity of leaves on the Universal Tree interacting with one another. The daily interaction of people, known as the Dialogue of Life, is what Cardinal Arinze, past President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, describes as the form of dialogue most within the reach of anyone. “It is interreligious relationships … of daily life … we draw on the values of … different traditions … without discussing religion” (Arinze 1997, 17). This, according to Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, is the way in which during the course of daily living that “the common Abrahamic prophetic moral and spiritual heritage can help the children of all three families of Abraham come together to face the problems of the modern world, striving together for the common good of society” (Ayoub 2004, 313-319).

Discourse of the Ringdove (al-mutawwaqa al-warqa)

The Ringdove states,

I am the Dove of oft-repeated praises. Beautiful realities descend upon threads toward the hearts… in search of the One [Divine Being]. (Jaffray 2006, 41, 21)

The Ringdove receives melodious sounds offered by the tree’s branches so that She may carry the tree’s rhythmic song of unity and love (Jaffray 2006, 36) encapsulating God’s offer of grace to all. Jaffray notes that in another of Ibn `Arabi’s writings, entitled The Tarjuman Al-Ashwaq, Poem XIII, the ringdove, with her dark neck ring, represents the covenant entrusted to her by the Real(representing God or Allah). In this covenant, she is given the special job of bringing forth the inspiration of the Divine (Jaffray 2006, 84).

According to Ibn `Arabi, the Divine’s inspiration “is all the words of the Great Koran, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the Scriptures…and it is through speech, listening, and hearing, wecome to know what is in the Self of the Real, since we have no knowledge of Him except through the knowledge given to His messengers on earth by the Divine Spirit” (Almirzanah 2011, 88-89).

Discourse of the Royal Eagle (`uqab)

The Royal Eagle states,

I am the Intellect … I am the bearer of everything known, high and low
… I am His … the light of His existence. (Jaffray 2006, 43, 46)

Jaffray says that Ibn `Arabi calls the Eagle `uqab, which is associated with the ProphetMuhammad, and in philosophical terms is known as the First Intellect. The Royal Eagle is illumined with knowledge from God, the same spiritual knowledge that was given to Muhammad. Ibn `Arabi states, “the intellect [is] the bearer of everything that is known high and low … which takes from God … and is set forth … in the Qur’an” (Jaffray 2006, 46).

The grace-filled words of Allah given to Muhammad—words that verify the Torah and Gospels are, according to Muslim scholar and spiritual leader M. Fethullah Gulen, ” words that descended to the Earth [issuing in] a deep understanding of balance … heralding to its followers a path that leads to universal harmony” (Gulen 2010, 145). Such inspired wisdom given to the Messenger on earth and recorded in the scriptures according to Ibn `Arabi, “is that which God has made clear that He is in every direction turned to, each of which represents a particular doctrinal perspective regarding Him, and confirmed in the Qur’an 2:115, wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God” (Almirzanah 2011, 116).

Understanding the Divine knowledge imparted in each other’s scriptures is important for interreligious dialogue and is supported through the hard but necessary work of study, which is referred to as the Dialogue of Study (Knitter 2002, 204), or as Ayoub describes it, the Dialogue of Belief, which “engages the minds and hearts of people [together]…in their search for truth” (Ayoub 2004, 318). Discovering the truth of every faith through study, remarks Cardinal Arinze, is a way “to appreciate objectively the religion of the other and not run the risk of misrepresenting it” (Arinze 1997, 96).

Discourse of the Strange Anqa (`anqa mughrib)

The Strange Anqa states:

I am the one who has no existent entity. I am Dust in which God reveals the bodies of the world … Nothing can be manifested that I am not in … I wander through the gathering of those with bowed heads. (Jaffray 2006, 46, 47, 91)

Commentary notes from one of Ibn `Arabi’s earlier works entitled “Anqa mughrib,” according to Jaffray, identifies Jesus as the Anqa (Jaffray 2006, 93). Philosophically speaking, the Strange Anqa is also a metonym for the Greek notion of hyle (Arabic: hayula), or prime matter, which according to Ibn `Arabi, citing from Qur’an 56: 6, “. . .was scattered dust” (Jaffray 2006, 94). Dust, according to Ibn `Arabi, “is God’s desire to bring the cosmos into existence and His Theophany” (Jaffray 2006, 95). The Anqa [Dust] Ibn `Arabi says, “comprises every form…[but] human minds cannot know it by … their thinking … It is concealed, but without being absent … [and] in any form it wills, it manifests itself” (Jaffray 2006, 96).

The Anqa further explains its reality: “Although the door of my existence is sealed nothing can be manifested that I am not in… I wander through the gathering of those with bowed heads” (Jaffray 2006, 47). Ibn `Arabi claims, “Allah is revealed in every face, sought in every sign … and pursued in the unseen and the visible. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him in its primordial and original nature” (Jaffray 2006, 1). In other words, bowed heads (prayer), “is the means of seeing God … [where] the form of God becomes visible to the heart” (Corbin 1969, 248).

Approaching God through prayer is essential to interreligious dialogue. Prayer, according to Gulen, “is a mysterious key to His everlasting treasures…[to] a most secure shelter… Those who step into this shelter are considered to have obtained [the] key…” (Gulen 2003, 4). Together in prayer we have the ability to obtain the key of God’s treasures, which may offer a solution to suffering stemming from the disease of prejudice and collectively help bring forth a “breeze of hope for those who are suffering…” (Gulen 2003, 4). Asking for the Divine’s guidance through prayer must always be preliminary to meeting on the level of words. Calling on the Divine, known as the Dialogue of Prayer, brings an openness to the conversation says Cardinal Arinze, “an openness to the action of God’s Grace in the person through the dialogue” (Arinze 1997, 95).

Discourse of the Jet Black Crow (al-ghurab)

The Jet Black Crow states:

I am of numbers, the singular among counted numbers. The Real summoned me into His presence and I came … His knowledge flows in me… (Jaffray 2006, 48, 50)

Although many equate the Crow with evil, Jaffray says from a philosophical and cosmological point of view, Ibn `Arabi saw that the crow represents the Universal Body—the Perfect Human Being. The Crow in Ibn `Arabi’s vision is Abraham, the intimate friend of God (Jaffray 2006, 101). In the reading of scripture and according to the commentary by Jaffray, Abraham demonstrates the true qualities of the perfect human, in trust completely abandoning the self, and filling the self with God, for he was called and he “readily responded” (Jaffray 2006, 101).

Abraham’s attribute of abandoning and filling the self with the Divine is needed in interreligious dialogue. This is a deep spirituality according to Gulen, that is very important in devotion and servitude to God, for the person who has reached complete spiritual knowledge of Godis the one according to Quran 66:6, who “do not disobey God in whatever He commands them, and carries out what they are commanded” (Gulen 2011, 149). Such souls experience the pleasure of intimacy with Him at every moment so long as they keep their “eyes fixed on the door of the Ultimate Truth” (Gulen 2011, 150). According to Cardinal Arinze, this is the Dialogue of Spirituality—”a dialogue that calls on a person to go to the higher self and indeed to go beyond self and aspire to some form of relationship with a Divine Being, or God” (Arinze 1997, 101).

This deep spirituality, according to Gulen, “should turn and direct others to God from the bottom of [our] hearts, thereby leading us to work toward improving and reforming the world…” (Gulen 2012, 219). Such spirituality allows one to be more aware of what “the faith Spirit [brings] down upon [the] heart” (Ali 2010, 219)—bridging an awareness of what the Divine commands for the world. This is an awareness that can bring about the Dialogue of Action—an action, according to Cardinal Arinze, “referring to Christians and other believers cooperating for the promotion of human development and liberation in all its forms,” (Arinze 1997, 18) demonstrating to the world how we are to dwell within God’s creation with the attributes given to us by God to promote mutuality and unity.

A Good Word Produces Action

Produced within the tree is:

A good word is as a good tree; its roots are firmly established and its branches are in heaven; it gives its produce every season by permission of its Lord. (Qur’an 14:25)

The good fruits of dialogue require us to “invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious…” (Ali 2010, 156).

In interreligious dialogue, we come to see the universality of God’s love and concern for everyone. According to Cardinal Arinze, “When deeply committed spiritual leaders of different religions meet … something wonderful happens … because they are sincerely looking for God, they are better able to understand each other” (Arinze 1997, 110). Interfaith dialogue seeks to bring about a cooperative, constructive, and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions with the ultimate goal, according to Ayoub, of making possible “the ability of all women and men of faith to listen to and obey the voice of God as it speaks to all faith communities…,” (Ayoub 2004, 319) thereby bridging a path to forming new relationships and unity among believers. In creating new relationships, Cardinal Arinze considers it important that “every believer…should strive to be more open to the action of God … and be willing to go where the divine light leads” (Arinze 1997, 70, 71).

Following the divine light in spirit and in an atmosphere of common mutuality, interreligious dialogue has the potential to bridge the path toward a global ethic of love and tolerance seeking solutions to the immense social, economic, and ecological crises facing the world today. The Universal Tree demonstrates to us a well-rooted trunk from whose branches bring forth the multiplicities of God’s Names and Attributes manifested to all people in diverse ways. From Ibn `Arabi’s point of view, only through “the acquiring of gnosis (spiritual knowledge) can the Heart be receptive…to the universality of God” (Austin 1980, 146) and find “that despite the multiplicity of God’s names, attributes, and acts, there is but a single Being…” (Jaffray 2006, 12).

In an unconventional way, The Tree raises a type of cosmic conversation weaving together the dialogues of Life, Study, Prayer, and Spirituality, directing us toward the dialogue of Action—an action working for peace and justice. In the spirit of love, may we all come together like Birds of a Feather in the hands of the Divine. As Mr. Gulen notes, may we come together “as limbs of the same body … ceasing the duality that violates our very union. We should clear the way to unite people; this is one of the greatest ways in which God grants people success in the world, and how He transforms this world into a Paradise. It is in this way that the door of Heaven will be opened wide in order to give us a warm welcome. Hence, we should remove all ideas and feelings that pull us apart, and run to embrace one another.” (Gulen 2010, 7)

Brenda Pletcher is a student of religious studies at Seton Hill University in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, who has a special interest in Interfaith Dialogue.

References

• Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. 2010. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Madison Park, Pacific Publishing Studio.
• Almirzanah, Syafaatun. 2011. When Mystic Masters Meet: Toward a New Matrix for Christian-Muslim Dialogue, New York: Blue Dome Press.
• Arinze, Cardinal Francis. 1997. Meeting Other Believers; The Risks and Rewards of Interreligious Dialogue, Huntington, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division.
• Austin, R. W. J. 1980. The Bezels of Wisdom, Mahwah, Paulist Press.
• Ayoub, Mahmoud. 2004. “Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles.” Muslim World 94, no 3 (July): 313-319. Academic Search Elite, EBSCO host (accessed July 3, 2012). p. 318.
• Chittick, William. 1998. The Self-Disclosure of God, Principles of Ibn al-`Arabi’s Cosmology, Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Corbin, Henry. 1969. Alone with the Alone; Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah. 2003. Time to Pray, The Fountain 42 p. 4,
• ——. 2010. Toward A Global Civilization of Love & Tolerance, NJ: Tughra Books.
• ——. 2011. Emerald Hills of the Heart: Key Concepts in the Practice of Sufism 1, NJ: Tughra Books.
• ——. 2012. Reflections on the Qur’an: Commentaries on Selected Verses, NJ: Tughra Books.
• Hirtenstein. Stephen. 1999. The Unlimited Mercifer; The Spiritual life and thought of Ibn `Arabi, Oxford: Anqa Publishing.
• Jaffray, Angela. 2006. The Universal Tree and the Four Birds, Oxford, Anqa Publishing.
• ——. 2011. “Water with One Water,” Ibn `Arabi on the One and the Many, http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/watered.html Retrieved 8/30/2011.
• Kakaie, Ghasem. 2011. Interreligious Dialogue: Ibn `Arabi and Meister Eckhart, http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/interreligious-dialogue.html Retrieved 9/12/2011.
• Knitter, Paul. 2002. Theologies of Religions, Maryknoll, Orbis Books.
• Steindle-Rast, David. 1996. Meister Eckhart from Who God Hid Nothing, Boston and London: Shambhala.
• Twinch, Cecilia. 2011.”The Circle of Inclusion,”
• http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/circleofinclusion.html Retrieved 9/12/2011.

We encountered Judaism at the local synagogue, Hinduism at a Vishnu temple in a nearby city, and Islam at a mosque in the suburbs. We could also have studied Buddhism, Sikhism, and two other branches of Hinduism since there was a meditation society, a Gurdwara, and Shirdi and Jain temples in the city, as well as five additional mosques. Religious pluralism surrounded us, but we knew nothing about it because religious dialogue was not an ordinary activity.

Since taking students on such interfaith field visits was not common practice at the time, it stirred a mix of reactions. Many students approached the project with eager curiosity; they were rainbow optimists, following an arc of hope and expecting good at its end. Other students were reluctant, apprehensive, and afraid of the unknown; they armed themselves with intellectual rocks of protection for their worldview. Some parents even called my office to express their concern about the nature and purpose of such study for their children. Could curiosity weaken their child’s faith, the parents wondered. Even though religious pluralism has been a reality throughout human history, and is certainly an element of our societies today, for many people, then as now, it has remained a distant reality, remote from the routines of daily life. When the opportunity for an interreligious encounter is offered, it can evoke both curiosity and fear. As human beings we are equipped to wonder about and seek the new or unknown, but we are also endowed with a certain caution about, even fear, of what is different. Both of these reactions have characterized the debate about religious dialogue today, often to the irritation of one another, as students have encountered in classes. But both of these approaches have something important to share and should be heard.

Enthusiasts for religious dialogue bring a desire for mutual enrichment and learning, and a confidence that coming to know one another better will bring benefits for all. The rock-wielding cautious fear that interreligious dialogue is a dangerous and misguided endeavor brings a deep sense of what is treasured and unique in our own traditions that must not be lost or sacrificed to the inevitable encounter. In listening to the concerns and hopes raised by both voices, it can become clearer what interreligious dialogue is not and also what it is intended to be; caution and enthusiasm together can shape encounters among various believers that are fruitful and inspirational.

The mirror of dialogue A frequent concern raised about dialogue is that it will be a disguised effort at proselytizing for conversions to one faith or another. This is certainly not the intention of genuine interreligious dialogue, and this approach should not be brought to the table of dialogue. Faithful and committed believers of a religious tradition are asked to respect the faithful believers of other religious traditions who share a similar devotion and joy in their commitments.

The holy Qur’an states, ‘O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.’ (49:13) The Roman Catholic Church also exhorts her members that ‘through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions…they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among them.’ (Nostra Aetate, 2)

Of course, believers engaged in dialogue will explain with great enthusiasm the faith that they hold dear, but the primary goal of interreligious dialogue is simply to listen to and come to know others. Far from converting believers away from their faith, interreligious experiences usually deepen original commitments. It has been suggested that ‘those who know only one, know none.’ In comprehending another faith, we come to a far deeper understanding and appreciation of our own belief. In our reflection in the Other, we come to see ourselves anew.

In my own experience over the years, leading dozens of classes on field visits to various houses of worship, I observe similar outcomes each time. Though the fear of parents that their children might be lured into a conversion by a persuasive speaker would seem to have even more ground today, since students often have very little religious knowledge when entering the classroom, the common response of students is not conversion to a new tradition but rather a renewed interest in the faith traditions of their own families. Even when students have been raised by their parents to make their own choice, as if a faith tradition were simply a matter of consumer preference in the marketplace, I have found that they want to ‘come home.’ If home does not provide much religious substance, to find spiritual roots students are more likely to turn to their grandparents than to convert simply because of exposure to a new tradition.

Not the baking method Sometimes the cautious question if interreligious dialogue is aiming to bring religions together in a way that creates a new and improved religion, a combination of the ‘best of all,’ so to speak. The technical term for this is syncretism, but it is also (derisively) known as the ‘baking method’—take a little of this and a little of that and a little more of something else and bake it into a new tasty religion for all to follow. This approach, too, is certainly not an element of genuine interreligious dialogue but rather is an attitude born in the individualism of consumer culture—finding something that suits my taste. True interreligious dialogue takes places among faithful and committed believers of established religious traditions who intend to remain that way. It is not a casual comparison of recipes, but a sincere effort to know one another as we are.

Again, in my own field visit experience with classes, it is precisely when faced with the devotion of a believing community at worship that students are inspired to look at their own tradition to see what they have missed. The prayer practice of Islam has led students to discover the Angelus and the Liturgy of the Hours in the Catholic tradition, or the practice of daily scripture devotion in other Christian traditions. This is not syncretism, but rather interfaith inspiration that strengthens.

But can we disagree? Two other objections I have heard raised about dialogue seem to be from opposite sides of the same coin. First, some fear that participants from other traditions will judge our beliefs or practices and condemn them unfairly because they are based in a different set of values or cultural apprehension. The second worry is that as we listen to others we may hear some things with which we profoundly disagree but, prevented from expressing this by the ‘etiquette’ of dialogue, be reduced to tacitly supporting relativism. I believe the question raised by both objections is essentially the same—where is Truth to be found and how do we act upon it? Can we truly listen to one another without discovering all the places we disagree? And what then do we do with that disagreement?

In response to these foundational questions, two points must be kept in mind. One is that each of us has the human obligation to sincerely seek for Truth, for the objective reality at the heart of the universe. This will necessarily entail that we must make judgments for ourselves in regard to various Truth claims. However, it is important to be clear that the basic purpose of interreligious dialogue is simply coming to know and understand those varied claims made by religious traditions; we are not expecting to reach agreement on them in regard to religious doctrine or practice.

The second point clarifies this further. In coming to know one another we may find real and significant differences in the lived moral consequences of our beliefs and practices. It is very important to remember that we do not grapple with these differences in interreligious dialogue. Rather, the proper sphere for that work is in political debate. In a multicultural democracy we engage one another in political discussion, convincing one another of the value and efficacy of our moral vision and why it should prevail in law. It is at the table of interreligious dialogue that we come to understand one another, but it is at the table of political discourse that we try to persuade one another, not for a religious conversion to our Truth claims, but for a moral consensus regarding lived values. The conversation at each table is better because of the work of the other.

Wisdom of the heart With these cautions and clarifications in mind, we are better able to hear the enthusiasts in explaining the benefits of dialogue. At center is the inspiration that dialogue can renew our own spirituality. I certainly see this result in the classroom. Most parents have encountered a stage in their adolescent children’s development when they listen to advice with greater openness if it comes from someone other than their parents. Interreligious experience is a similar inspiration, and not just to questioning teens, but to developed believers as well. Hearing others share their deepest convictions about the Divine can renew the vigor of our own quest for holiness. Often in dialogue our hearts meet before our heads agree and we find that it is in the wisdom of the heart that God’s presence is made known. Understanding one another and how very much our traditions hold in common can bring mutual enrichment on local and global levels as well. Citizens in society are better equipped to live in peace and work for justice when they have had interreligious encounters to share and learn about one another. Prejudice is exposed and broken. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, I received several email messages from former students who expressed their gratitude for the field visits they had made to mosques in earlier years. Having met Muslims as prayerful, welcoming human beings was helping them, at that difficult national moment, to share with others that Islam is not a religion of terrorism and all Muslims were not responsible for, nor rejoiced in, the events of that tragedy. They were able to be voices of peace in the midst of great national confusion.

Sustained encounters When it is possible for interreligious dialogue to become a sustained encounter among individuals or groups, over time it can begin to reshape those who participate in profound and beautiful ways. Though most of my students are only able to have one or two field experiences during their study, I am privileged to be on every trip, returning year after year and building friendships with the generous believers who host our visits. The encounters have gradually ceased to be between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ learning about their ways and teaching them our ways. Instead, as we have continued to listen and share, we find ourselves becoming a ‘we’ in our common humanity, a commonality that honors, and yet also transcends the differences of culture and faith, of geography and economics. I am deeply grateful to my dialogue partners for the depth and strength they have added to my own faith journey.

Religious pluralism is a reality; it surrounds us and permeates the culture. But interreligious dialogue is a choice. Burying our heads in the sand and throwing rocks when we come up for air will not change anyone’s heart, including our own. Instead we can choose to move toward a mind of greater perception, a heart of greater love, a world of greater peace, by accepting the invitation to know one another, carefully and respectfully crossing the arc of dialogue into mutual understanding.

Frances M. Leap is associate professor of religious studies at Seton Hill University in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.