Many Shades of Dialogue - CCJ Vicccjvic.org.au/wp-content/themes/gesher/booklet/pdf/Gesher 2013.pdf · Many Shades of Dialogue Dialogue, ... religious and racial causes of conflicts

Vol. 4 No. 4 November 2013 Price $10

The official journal of The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) Inc.

Many Shades of Dialogue

Dialogue, Between Two Families by Irris Makler pg 31

Reflections of an Interfaith Relations Practitionerby Bishop Philip Huggins pg 48

Is the Dream of Interfaith Dialogue Dead? by Edward Kessler pg 66

encountering

encouraging

challenging

exploring

The Council of Christians and Jews Victoria aims to:• educate Christians and Jews to appreciate each other’s distinctive beliefs, practices and commonalities• promote the study of and research into historical, political, economic, social, religious and racial causes of conflicts between people of different creeds and colour• for the benefit of the community, promote education in fundamental ethical teachings common to Christianity and Judaism that relate to respect and understanding between people of different creeds.

Gesher ISSN 1037-2652Published by The Council of Christians and Jews (Vic) 326 Church Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, AustraliaT/F: 61 3 9429 5212 E: [email protected] W: www.ccj.org.au

Design Marchese Design, 7 Carinda Road, Canterbury 3126T: 03 9836 2694 E: [email protected]

Disclaimer The views, opinions or conclusions expressed in this publication are those of their authors and not necessarily of the editors nor of the CCJ (Vic).

Gesher 2013Editor Walter Rapoport B. Ec.Walter Rapoport is the Immediate Past Chairman of the Council of Christians & Jews (Vic) and was the inaugural Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission. He was also Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of two Commonwealth Government Living in Harmony Grants; these oversaw the Building Bridges and the Embracing Youth programs. He is regularly invited to address audiences on matters of dialogue between faith communities.

Editorial BoardRev Newton Daddow, Chaplain, Swinburne UniversityRev Dr John Dupuche, Chair, Catholic Interfaith CommitteeBishop Philip Huggins, Bishop of the North West Region, Anglican Diocese of Melbourne.

Our symbol is the gift of the late Louis Kahan to the Council of Christians and Jews. The shell is a symbol of eternity and of pilgrimage and contained in it are a number of things which are common to both faiths and traditions.

The motifs of the tree of life, burning bush, and flames of spirit stand at the centre of the design. Behind the tree can be seen the cup of blessing, and surrounding the whole is the rainbow, the symbol of universal peace and a reminder to God and us of the covenantal promise.

Gesher 2013 Many Shades of Dialogue 1

Editorial Walter Rapoport 2 CCJ Chairman’s Message 4 Message from our Patron, the Governor of Victoria 5 Message from the Premier of Victoria 6 MessagefromtheLeaderoftheOpposition 7 MessagefromChairperson,VictorianMulticulturalCommission 8 Exploring What is the Point/Aim of Dialogue? Prof Gary Bouma 10 The Role of Dialogue Sheikh Riad Galil 11 Some Thoughts on Dialogue Dr Debbie Weissman 13 Dialogue 4 Success Rabbi Fred Morgan 14 TheCCJLuncheonClub 18 The Charter for Compassion 19

Encountering Jews&ChristiansintheFirstCenturies ProfMartinGoodman 22 ChristianityandIslam BernieTranter 26 The View from the United Kingdom Zaki Cooper 29 Dialogue,BetweenTwoFamilies IrrisMakler 31 CooperationonaDailyBasis ElysaRapoport 33 The School of Dialogue in Poland Zuzanna Radzik 35 MyJourney RosalindBlades 37 FridayNightMay3rd2013 IanGrinblat 39 ReflectionsonMyInterfaithJourney RevMarkDunn 41 Three New Faith Leaders 43 FaithCommunitiesCouncilofVictoria 46

Encouraging ReflectionsofanInterfaithRelationsPractitioner BishopPhilipHuggins 48 Silence and Dialogue Rev Dr John Dupuche 52 RespectfulDialogue:AMuslimPointofView ProfAbdullahSaeed 55 Jewish Approaches to Dialogue Rabbi David Rosen 59 TheHeartofInterfaith RabbiShimonCowen 63

Challenging IstheDreamofInterfaithDialogueDead DrEdwardKessler 66 TheRiskofDialogue RabbiRamiShapiro 73 ViveleDifference! RevDrPatrickMcInerney 76 DialogueinanAnxiousWorld ProfJosephCamilleri 79 PossibilitiesandLimitsofInterreligiousDialogue ProfCatherineCornille 83 ContemporaryChallengestoReligion MarkBrolly 85

ValeFrPaulDuffySJ 86 Vale Geza Vermes 86Donors 87

Contents

2 Gesher 2013 Many Shades of Dialogue

Dialogical encounters can leave us with a full gamut of emotions:many of uswillhave had feelings of frustration, delight,disappointment, accomplishment. For my part,theenduringemotionisappreciationof community. Everyone is a neighbour, and each isentitled tobe treatedwith respectanddignity,nomatterrace,religion,colour,gender,oranyotherdifferentiation.Doweeven need to invoke Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” tobolsterourposition?

Religious differences, above all, seemto create the most daunting obstacle todialogue. Why should we engage? Where dowe start?Howdowe “dialogue”? Who should/could we dialogue with? What are thedangers,pitfalls?Whatarethebenefits,or rewards? All, most appropriate and pertinentquestions!

This issue of Gesher is, to some extent, aimed at resolving the reservations,anxietiesorhesitationswemayhaveaboutengaging in dialogue and, for those of us alreadysomewhatcommitted,toemboldenus to contribute even more.

We’ve given Gesher2013aninvitingsub-title, Many Shades of Dialogue, and we’re confident that readers will feel compelledto explore the edition avidly, studiouslyencounterwith each article, be challengedtoponder,andultimately,beencouragedtodialogue.

So, in inviting the reader to explore,to encounter, to be encouraged, and to be challenged,theedition’sarticlesaredividedintothesefoursections.

In Exploring, we endeavour to identifywhat is meant by dialogue through the lens of people from three different faiths.We consider the point/aim, by a Christian;a Muslim reflects on the role of dialogue;

andsomethoughtsondialogueareofferedbythe InternationalCouncilofChristians&Jews’ President, a Jewess.

Wedelvedeeperintothissection,withaProgressive Rabbi exploring ways of actually measuring success. He probes: by whattangiblecriteriacanwetrulyverifypracticaloutcomes?

A read through the extensive report on the CCJ Luncheon Club will attest tothe scope of illustrious speakers who have addressed us to date, and should tangibly demonstrate how vitally important knowledge, information, and awareness is,in transforming the way we manage and approach dialogue.

InEncountering, we begin by taking the reader back two thousand years to reveal how Jews and Christians related to oneanother, in a theological sense, and then we movetothepresentdaywithadescriptionofencountersbetweenChristiansandMuslimsin Pakistan, and on to an observation ofinterfaith relations in the United Kingdom.WetakeyoutoIsrael,withadescriptionofamovingencounterbetweenaJewishIsraelifamilyandaMuslimPalestinianfamily,andalsohowdialogueandco-operationoccurinthefieldsofhealthcareandmedicinethere.We also take you to Poland, to the School of Dialogue, where school students are lead to research the local history of past Polish Jewry.

To our local Melbourne community, we invited individuals to report on their Encounteringinvolvements;frompromotingharmony through dialogue at a Shabbat dinnerataCaulfieldsynagogue,todescribingthe strength of our diversity in Dandenong and Moonee Valley.

We also report on the personal interfaith experiences and encounters of three newly

elected, prominent faith leaders; thePope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a Chief Rabbi. Readers may speculate on how ardently these leaders might involve themselves in interfaith dialogue. Can their past involvements foretell how important Encountering might be to each of them during their tenures?

To underscore the importance of Encouraging the reader, we feature fivearticles by: an Anglican Bishop, a CatholicPriest, a Muslim academic, and two Orthodox Rabbis.

In the reflectionsby thebishop,of hispersonal experiences, he provides us with his own blueprint, a guide intended to encourage us to engage. And the priest, in explicating the code of silence as onecentral element of dialogue, points us to a way of perceiving the other, encouraging us to listen, and to turn a deaf ear to unresolvedconflictsintheheart.

By expanding on models of dialogue, and communicating theQur’an’s repeatedadvocacy of the importance of dialogue and of its vouchsafed recognition of thereligiousscripturesofothertraditions,ourMuslim academic emboldens us to cast our dialogical net even wider than we may otherwise have done.

In examining Jewish approaches todialogue, and probing into faith and religion as the heart of interfaith encounters, the two rabbis rouse us to value ourselves, acknowledge our foundations, appreciateshared ethical and social concerns, all the while Encouraging us to connect with one anotherinthepursuitofjusticeandpeace.

In Challenging us to contemplate the many shades of dialogue, reflect on thepast, and consider how we can shape the future,ourfinalsectionprovidesthereader

Editorial

Dialogue with an “other”, especially another of a different religious tradition, is not a natural inclination. Why indeed do some people, self-assuredly, seek out the antidote to this aversion to dialogue?

Walter Rapoport

with some thought provoking and perhaps unsettlingarticles.

Whataretheimplicationsforthefutureof interfaith relations if they are only built on foundations of guilt? Dare we dreamof a greater popularisation? In examiningthe risks of dialogue are we persuaded that nothing will happen if dialogue is scripted?Isfocussingondifferencecounter-intuitive, or should we concentrate onour commonalities? The celebration ofdifference, according to one contributingwriter, is not a hindrance but a way forward.

We are also challenged by another contributor to consider the propositionthat dialogue offers the most promisingpathway to heal our anxious world and that whilst dialogue has gained considerable momentum,there isstillmuchtobedone.He posits that the classroom is a valuableplace toactivate thecontribution,and thatcareful nurturing, both intellectual and emotional,isessential.

Is our religious identity challenged,indeed threatened, by interreligious dialogue? Are there limits we must be mindfulof?Dothepossibilitiesandpromisesoutweigh the dangers and challenges? The reader is beckoned to consider all these questions in another thought provokingarticle.

An Archbishop and a Rabbi have a conversation over lunch! We invite youto read the account of a Luncheon Club event where the two candidly discussed contemporary challenges to religion, with particularreferencetotheAnglicantraditionof the Archbishop, and of Judaism and his owncongregationbytheRabbi.

And so, it is with all these represent-ations, expressions and thoughts that wehopetofindfavourwiththereader.

Iwishtorecordmysincereappreciationtoallcontributors.Itisrightlythrougheachof their erudite and scholarly articles that

this edition will strive to make its impact,emphatically, in the way that the EditorialBoard had originally formulated.

This Gesher Editorial Board comprised an Anglican Bishop, the Right Reverend PhilipHuggins;aBaptistMinister,ReverendNewtonDaddow;aCatholicPriest,ReverendDr John Dupuche; and your editor, a Jew.Each of us has been involved in interfaith dialogue for a considerable time andindeed, we’ve also shared many dialogical experiences together, each one enriching our lives.This,initselfthough,doesnotqualifythreeChristiansanda Jew to sermonise toreaders – by dint of the articles offered inthisedition–thatastudyofGesher (with its deluge of words) will reveal the full reality of dialogue.Farbeit!

Nonetheless, we are uniquely placedto excite the reader with Many Shades of Dialogue by having been excited ourselves. It is our hope that readers will share ourexperience in consuming Gesher 2013.


Walter Rapoport


Welcometothis2013editionofGesherwithitsthemeofdialogue.Nothingismoreimportantininter-faithrelationsthangenuineandrespectfuldialogue.

Throughdialoguewiththeotherwecometoadeeperunderstandingandappreciationofthe other, and we also learn how the other sees us and our faith community. Dialogue takes usbeyondfriendlinessandpolitenesstoadeeperlevelofcommunication.

Dialogue requires attentive listening as much as talking. Christian-Jewish dialogueis a relatively recent phenomenon. For centuries our two faith communities, or theirrepresentatives, have talkedat eachother andachieved little. It is only aswe sit downtogether and talk with, not at, each other and listen with respect to each other, that we cometoanewunderstandingandappreciationoftheother.Anditisalsothenthatwecanbegintoworkalongsideeachotherinwaysthatinfluencethewidercommunityforgood.

TheCouncilsofChristiansandJewsareapartoftheChristian-Jewishdialogueandarecommittedtothiscontinuingtaskthatwillstrengthenandenrichbothfaithcommunities.ThisCouncilwouldencourage localcongregations fromourtwocommunitiestoexploreways of engaging in dialogue.

IamlookingforwardverymuchtoreadingthearticlesinthiseditionofGesher.Ihopethatyouwillfindtheminformative,thought-provokingandinspiringsoastoleadyouintoadeeperrelationshipwithyoursistersandbrothersoftheotherfaithcommunity.

CCJ Chairman’s Message

Rev Graham McAnalley

The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) Inc.

PatronTheHonAlexChernovACQCGovernor of Victoria

Honorary Life MembersRev Prof Robert Anderson AMGadBen-MeirWilliam Clancy AMMichael S Cohen OAMRev George Grant OAMRabbi Dr John Levi AMSrMaryLottonNDS

PresidentsRev Daniel BullockDirect of Ministries BaptistUnionofVictoria

Bishop Ezekiel of Dervis Greek Orthodox Archdiocese

The Most Rev Dr Philip Freier Archbishop of Melbourne Anglican Archdiocese of Melbourne

TheMostRevDenisJHartDDHisGraceTheCatholicArchbishopofMelbourne

RabbiPhilipHeilbrunnOAMChief Minister Emeritus StKildaHebrewCongregation

Rabbi Fred Morgan RabbiEmeritus,TempleBethIsrael

Rev Greg Pietsch The President Lutheran Church of Victoria and Tasmania

DanWootton,Moderator,UnitingChurchinAustraliaSynod of Victoria and Tasmania

ChairmanRev Graham Mcanalley

Vice-ChairmanDr Philip Bliss

Hon Secretary AlbertIsaacs

Hon Treasurer Edwin F Carter

Executive CommitteeProf Anthony BaileyAdrian BartakTzipi BorodaJohn Cohen OAMRev Newton DaddowFreda KaufmanWalter RapoportRysia Rozen OAMDr Morna Sturrock AMBernard TranterThilo TroschkeMark Walsh

Graham McAnalley


Message from our Patron, the Governor of Victoria

The Hon Alex Chernov AC QC

The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) furthers the work of the internationalcouncilatalocallevel.ChristianityandJudaismsharemanycommonvaluesand,inaspiritofcooperation,collaborationandsolidarity,theCouncilworkseffectivelytopromotethistotheVictorian community. Among these values are respect, integrity, human dignity, tolerance, honestyandloyalty.SuchprinciplesarenotexclusivetotheJewish-ChristianconditionbutalsocomprisetheplatformuponwhichAbrahamicandotherbeliefsarefounded.Inrecenttimes, the Council has assumed a leadership role in addressing, promoting and affirmingthis fact inourcommunity. Ithasencouraged inclusivedialoguebetweenVictoriansofallfaithsandreligionswiththeultimategoalofre-shapingdistortedorprejudicedattitudesandperspectives.

Itisapt,therefore,thatthisyear’seditionofGesher takes as it’s central theme, Dialogue. Open,frankandhonestdiscussionandexchangeorexperiencesacrosscommunities,culturesandreligions,hastheuniqueabilitytoinformandeducate.Withthatcomesknowledgeandwith knowledge, a strengthened sense of understanding and tolerance between people of differentreligionsandcultures.

AsGovernorofVictoria,IamproudtobePatronofanorganisationthatiscommittedtomaintaining the fundamental values our society holds dear, while also encouraging Victorians to preserve their integrity through a commitment to their own personal faith. On behalf of all Victorians,IthankandcongratulatetheCouncilthisanditsmanyotherpursuits.

TheHonourableAlexChernovACQCGovernor of Victoria

TheHonAlexChernovACQC


In last year’s editionofGesher,Council ChairmanGrahamMcAnalleyquotedCatholictheologianHansKung:“Nopeaceamongthenationswithoutpeaceamongthereligions.Nopeace among the religions without dialogue between the religions.”

The focus on that dialogue in the pages of this year’s Gesher could not be more appropriate. Inatimeofunprecedentedglobal interdependence,dialoguebetweenfaithsandcommunitieshasneverbeenmoreimportant.

Inter-faithcooperationanddialoguemakeavaluablecontributiontothesocialfabricofourState.Victoriahasbeenenrichedbygenerationsof immigrants fromevery faithwho,togetherwithour Indigenouscommunities,havebuiltaharmoniousmulticultural society.Wedonottakethisforgranted,andwewelcometheCouncil’sinitiativestopromoterespectand understanding between faiths.

Good relations among faiths and communities ultimately rest on the recognition ofsharedhumanity.TheexampleofthelateRaoulWallenberg,whothisyearbecamethefirstpersontoberecognisedasanhonoraryAustraliancitizen,givespowerfulexpressiontothissharedhumanity.AsadiplomatpostedtoHungaryduringtheHolocaust,MrWallenberg,aSwedish Lutheran, led a mission that rescued tens of thousands of Jews.

Few are called by circumstances to such acts of heroism. But each of us can contribute tostrengtheningthemutualunderstandingandrespectthatmakeourmulticulturalStatesospecial.

I wish the Council of Christians and Jews well in its continuing contribution to thisimportant dialogue.

TheHonDrDenisNapthineMPPremier of Victoria

Message from the Premier

The Hon Dr Denis Napthine MP

TheHonDr Denis Napthine MP


I’mproudtoliveinVictoria,hometosomeofAustralia’smostdiversecommunities.ItisthefoundationstoneofAustralia’smulticulturalism.

It’sorganisationsliketheCouncilofChristiansandJewsthatbestembodytherespectandtolerance at the heart of our society.

Victoriaisamoreharmoniousplacebecauseofyourefforts.Whilechallengesstillexist,we have made great strides over the last few decades.

Aclose,workingrelationshipbetweenVictoria’sChristianandJewishCommunitiescanachieve so much for our state and its people.

Thenotionofdialogueandexchangeshouldbeatthecentreoftheseefforts,andIknowthat’sacausetowhichtheCouncilissotirelesslydedicated.

ItrustthepublicationofGesher 2013 will be a great success. On behalf of the Victorian LaborParty,Icommendyourachievements.Mayyourgoodworkcontinue.

Yours in friendship,

Daniel Andrews MPLeaderoftheOppositionShadowMinisterforMulticulturalAffairs

Message from the Leader of the Opposition

Daniel Andrews MP

Daniel Andrews MP


I am pleased to welcome another inspiring issue of Gesher. As Chairperson of theVictorianMulticultural Commission (VMC), Iwould like to congratulate you on your hardworkinbuildingandstrengtheningtherelationshipbetweenChristiansandJews.

YourCouncilandtheVMCsharesimilarqualitiesandvalues.Webothadheretoreligiousfreedomandtolerance,respectforallregardlessofrace,ethnicityornationality,andafreeand peaceful society.

We are fortunate to live in such a harmonious State were these values are upheld and valuedby thevastmajorityof citizens.Weare fortunate, too, thatorganisations, suchasyours,arepreparedtoworksotirelesslyandwelltorealisethesepositivevalues.Thankstoyourexample,Victoriaenjoysareputationasaprogressive,dynamicandsociallycohesivesociety.

Gesher upholds and promotes its values through the written word. It is, therefore,entirelyappropriatethatdialogueiscentraltothethemeofthisedition.Together,throughdialogue,wehavebuild–andwillcontinuetobuild–apeacefulandprosperoussociety.

IcommendyouontheproductionofanotherwonderfuleditionofGesher,andwishyouall the best in years to come.

Chin TanChairperson,VictorianMulticulturalCommission

Message from the Chairperson, Multicultural Commission

Chin Tan

Chin Tan

exploring...


Ifthepointofdialogueweretoconvincethe other of your views, beliefs and practicesthenmanywouldsayyouarenotengagedindialogue,butinproselytization,an attempt to convert. However, mostwould agree that to engage in dialogue requires setting aside the desire to coverteven if only for a while for those who are of the view that they must change the other.

But, is the aim of dialogue to come to an agreement? Anyone who has engaged in inter-religious dialogue for any lengthof time soon encounters differences thatjust will not go away. There are points over which there can be no agreement. The denialoftherealityofdifferenceinsultstheother, claiming they are unable or unwilling to change. Similarly, appeals made to a “greatertruth”thatincludesthedifferencesisanactofdifferencedenial.Nearlyeverymonth I get an invitation to subscribe toyet another grander more inclusive truth which, if only all would accept peace would flowoverthefaceoftheearth.Theaimoffinding agreement quickly becomes justanother form of dialogue to convert.

To my mind dialogue is about gettingto know another person and how their religion or life philosophy/worldview works for them. Religions are not disembodied sets of beliefs and practices, but are partof the daily lives of real people. To abstract religions from where they are lived is to denature them and to deal with cartoons ratherthanrealities.

Dialogue that seeks to know and understand another person’s religion requires that each person is prepared tonot only listen to the other but also to reveal something about themselves. This takes openness, trust and risk. It requiresbeing quiet and listening, which is one

of the hardest things for us to do. But it also requires honesty and clarity in thepresentation of positions, views, beliefsandpractices.Suchhonestywould includebeing frank about doubts.

One example of dialogue that worked particularlywelloccurredattheParliamentof the World’s Religions 2009 in Melbourne. Inthisexercisewhichinvolvedpeoplefromat least five different religious groups– Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim andSikh – people paired off with someonefrom a different group to their own. Theinstructions were: First, each person isto say one thing they like about their own religion. Second, each person was to say one thing they liked about the other person’s religion. Third, each person says one thing they do not like about their own religion. Fourth, each says one thing they donotlikeabouttheother’sreligion.THENthey began to dialogue to learn about each otherthroughsharing.Itworkedatreat.

If the aim of dialogue is to get tounderstand how another religion works this is best seen in the lives of those who live the religion.Whatdotheydoandwhy?Howdotheyhandledifficulttextsandbeliefs?Whatdoes their religion or worldview lead them to say and do?

What is the Point / Aim of Dialogue?

What is the aim of interreligious dialogue? Some even ask what is the point of it? These two questions are related in that the answer to one shapes the answer to the other.

Gary D Bouma AM Gary Bouma is Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Monash University,

and UNESCO Chair in Intercultural & Interreligious Relations, Asia Pacific

and is Associate Priest St John’s Anglican Church, East Malvern

Dialogue... requires

being quiet and

listening, which is

one of the hardest

things for us to do.

But it also requires

honesty and clarity

in the presentation

of positions...

Exploring

Gary D Bouma AM


Thatwasaturningpointinmylife.Itwasthe startof adeterminedeffort to involvemyselfindialoguewiththe“other”.Thelastthree decades of my life have been greatly enriched by so many ideas and thoughts, contributed by the widest possible range of people of varying beliefs and backgrounds. I’m grateful to so many people who havehelped me to appreciate that most human of endeavours – of understanding and acceptingthe“other”.

Such understanding was achieved through the simple process of dialogue. The role of dialogue, however, is to be found not solely at the dizzy heights of internationaldisputes and major national conflicts,but also at the more simple levels of life. Dialogueprovidesthefirmfoundationuponwhichconstructivecommunicationisbuilt.

Although dialogue by no means guaranteesasolutiontoourproblems,wecan be assured that the lack of dialogue will inevitably make things worse. Without dialoguewearedestinedtofalleverdeeperintotheabyssofhopelessnessthatsooftenleads to physical and emotional violence.Dialogue at any level is always good, while the lack of dialogue is at best, precarious.

Althoughinter-religiousdialoguecanbea complex and demanding task, the simple truth is – that it is worthy to dialogue. Through inter-religious dialogue we learnnot only about our brothers and sisters of otherfaiths,butalsoaboutourownfaith.Itis uncanny, that at every concluding session oftheJewishChristianMuslimConferencemost attendees expressed a feeling that

they felt that their own faith had been reaffirmed.TheConferencehasbeengoingfor ten years now.

Through dialogue we are led into that sacred space that lies within each of us, and, in turn, we are led to stand together as witnesses to the sacredness of the natural world and to each and every person within ourworld.Inter-religiousdialogueisaquestfor the sacred.

The following ten dialogue principles havebeenadoptedbyTheJewishChristianMuslimAssociation.

Principles of Jewish Christian Muslim dialogue:1. Dialogue invites us to come together

as people, not as belief systems. Itacknowledges that each religious tradition is pluralistic within itself andrealises that each dialogue partner speaks from a particular religiousperspectivethatcannot–anddoesnot- represent all adherents of that faith.Dialogue also recognises that each participantislocatedwithinaparticularcultural, political, and economicperspective and inevitably bringsparticular loyalties, commitments, andpreconceptions to the relationship.Through dialogue, we get to know one another as individuals.

2. Dialogue, which is characterized by courtesyandrespect,ismostproductivewhen its participants are considerate,open-minded, and genuine in theirdesire to learn from the other partners. Each tradition’s scripture, beliefs, andpracticesdeserveourrespectforhavingbrought countless diverse people into a relationshipwithGod.

3. Dialogue is enhanced if participantshave engaged in a preliminary investigation of the other faithtradition,aswellasinaninformedandself-critical reflection upon their ownfaithidentity.Wemustcomepreparedto the best of our ability, for dialogue enjoins us to listen with and speak from the heart as much as the head, to be open, vulnerable, honest, and sensitive to feelings of frustration oroffence.

4. Dialogue enables us to confront inherited preconceptions. It asks usto remember that Christians andMuslimsshareahistoryofbothfruitfulexchange and peace as well as of misunderstanding and fierce conflict.

The Role of Dialogue

Back in the eighties, I was called to the old SBS studios in South Melbourne for a radio interview. I got there rather early and had to wait at the reception near the entrance to the building. I was amazed at the flow of people in and out of the building. Some wore turbans, others saris, black, white, olive, red, and other rainbow colours. The thought occurred to me then: these people are conducting themselves with dignity and purpose. They deserve my respect. Yes, they may have different views to mine, but nevertheless they conduct themselves with intelligence and deserve my attention.

Sheikh Riad Galil Riad Galil OAM has been the Imam of the West Heidelberg Mosque of over 20 years

and is the current President of the Jewish Christian Muslim Association

I’m grateful to so

many people who

have helped me to

appreciate that most

human of endeavours

– of understanding

and accepting the

“other”

Exploring

In dialogue, we are mindful thatambiguous situations sometimes canbe misinterpreted or misrepresented. Dialogue deliberately seeks to identifyand dispel common stereotypes and inherited misconceptions based onmisinformation.

5. Dialogue recognises that in order to reach a clear understanding, we must pay attention to vocabulary. Somewords have specialised meaning within a religious system; the meaning ofothersvariesovertimeorwithincertaincontexts or between cultures. Dialogue entailsacarefulclarificationofouruseof language.

6. Dialogue asks us first to understand,and only then to be understood. In dialogue, we listen in order tounderstand the other’s point of view and seek to understand each person as they understand themselves. We seek to understand each religious system

“from within” or on its own terms,whiletemporarilysettingasideourowncriticalpresuppositions.

7. Dialogue is enhanced by each participant’s strong faith convictions.Inacontextofcourteous listeningandmutualtrust,wecanofferanauthenticexpression of our own personal faith. Dialogue involves a humble and sincereexchangeof informationabouteach participant’s faith journey andsustainingreligioustradition.

8. Dialogue seeks to share, challenge, and be challenged. Insisting one’sown religious tradition’s superiorityinevitably undermines productivedialogue.Wecanbetrulyrespectfulofthe integrity of our dialogue partner’s Religious identity only if we avoid allattemptsatproselytizing.

9. Dialogue can occur on many levels besides that of theological discussion. For example, it is enriched through

interactions of friendship andhospitality, working together in community projects and celebrations,and making common cause to solve social problems. Dialogue is most vital and effective when we pray together,open our homes to each other, and actually share our lives together.

10. Dialogue should be transformative,opening the windows of the mind and spirit to a broader vision of God’s presence in the world.

Exploring

The Role of Dialogue continued


Sheikh Riad Galil

Dialogueisanopportunityformutuallearning.“Peopleofdifferenttraditionscanbothsharewith,andlearnfromoneanother.Thisissometimesreferredtoas‘mutualwitness’,andisrootedinabeliefthatitispossibleforsharingtobeatwo-wayaffair–tolearnfromthoseofothertraditionsaswellasteachandsharewiththem.”1

According to the World Council of Churches, dialogue can be recognised as a welcome wayofobediencetothecommandmentoftheDecalogue:“Youshallnotbearfalsewitnessagainst your neighbor.”2

Perhaps we can discuss the goals of dialogue in terms of three phrases from Psalm 34, verse14:“turn away from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.”Under“turn away from evil,” dialogue couldbe awayof combating stereotypes andprejudices, and seeingtheOtherasahumanbeing,likeourselves,whichisthefirststeptowardsamoreempathicrelationship.Whenwe encounter each other as people, we begin to communicate on ahumanlevel.Aprocessofhumanisation,ratherthandemonisation,canoccur.Hopefully,thiswill, at the very least, stop us from killing each other, and, at best, will provide the basis for themutual recognitionofour legitimateneedsandrights,suchasself-determinationandsecurity.

Unfortunately,wehaveacounter-examplefromthebloodyexperienceinBosnia.People,whohadbeeneachother’s neighbors fordecades andhad sipped coffee in eachother’shomes, ended up engaging in violence against one another. Perhaps not all conversationisnecessarilytruedialogue;perhapsdialoguemustbestructuredinsomewayinordertobeuseful.But justbecauseaparticularmethodisnotfool-proofdoesn’tmeanweshouldabandonit.Perhapsdialogueisnecessary,butinsufficient.

Butourgoalisnotonlyto“turn away from evil;” it is, also, to do good. Dialogue can be a springboardforjointactiontowardssocialjusticeand,inthespiritofthePsalm,thepursuitofpeace.Peaceisnottobeachievedthroughsyncretism.TheWCCdocumentadds:”…theaimofdialogueisnotreductionoflivingfaithsandideologiestoalowestcommondenominator,not only a comparison and discussion of symbols and concepts, but the enabling of a true encounter between those spiritual insights and experiences which are only found at the deepest levels of human life.”3

A 20th century Jewish philosopher and mystic Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kookwrote:“Someerr,andthinkthatworldpeacecanbebuiltonlythroughtotalconsensus…Butthe truth is that real peace, on the contrary, can come to the world only through precisely the multiplicityofpeace,andthisiswhenallsidesandopinionscometolight,andareproventoeach have their own place.”4

1 Jay Rock and Mahinda Degalle, Thinking Together on the Issue of Conversion,Section3:WhatMotivatestheSharing ofFaithandPractice?AnunpublishedpaperfortheWCC,2009,p.3.2 WCC, Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies,1.2.2010,no.C-17,accessedthrough www.oikoumene.org 3 Ibid,no.D-22.4 Olat HaRa’ayah, p. 330.

Exploring

Some Thoughts on Dialogue

Debbie Weissman Debbie Weissman is currently Co-Chair of the Inter-Religious Coordinating Council in Israel, as well as President of the International

Council of Christians and Jews (the first Jewish woman to be elected to that post in the Council’s more than sixty-year history.)

She has a Ph.D. in Jewish education from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Dialogue can be a

springboard

for joint action

towards social

justice...


Debbie Weissman

A well-known Israeli joke defines “monologue” as “one person talking to himself,” and dialogue as “two people talking to themselves.” But, as stated, this is a joke. From my experience in inter-religious dialogue throughout the world (including on some wonderful visits to Australia,) some of us have experienced real dialogue. Dialogue is at least as much about listening as it is about talking.

Exploring

Dialogue 4 Success:Four measures of success and failure in Jewish-Christian dialogue

Rabbi Fred Morgan Rabbi Morgan is the Emeritus Rabbi of Temple Beth Israel, Melbourne, Professorial Fellow, Centre for Interfaith Dialogue,

Australian Catholic University, and an Honorary President, CCJ (Victoria).


Giventhisfocusondialogue,itwouldstandtoreasonthatthefirstquestionmanypeopleaskabouttheCCJisabouthowtheparticipantsin dialogue know that they are successful. What are the criteria by whichsuccessindialogueismeasured?Indeed,cansuccessindialoguebe measured at all?

Therearetwopolarresponsestothisquestion,andaseriesofmorenuanced responses in between. On one extreme, there are those who arguethattheaimofdialogueisthedialogueitself.Justgettingthetwofaithcommunitiestocometogether,whether itbetodiscussspecifictopicsofcommonconcern, to inquireaftereachother’sbeliefsor toengageinactivitiesthatbenefitsociety,isitsownmeasureofsuccess.According to this view, dialogue proceeds through the opportunitiesthatarecreatedforsocialinteractionwithinaformalinterfaithcontext.This view is championed, for example, in a recent handbook of interfaith dialogue.1 From my experience over many years, it is clear to me that many participants in Jewish-Christian dialogue hold this view eventhoughtheyrarelyarticulateit.Atthisendofthespectrum,wemaysaythat success is intrinsic to the process of dialogue.

Bycontrast,therearethosewhoquestionthevalueofinterfaithdialogue at all precisely because they doubt whether there are any practicalresultsemergingfromit.Practicalresultsmightfallwithinthe realms of politics, economics or social welfare. For peoplewho argue that dialogue is inconsequential, external standards to measuresuccessorfailureareall-important.Totakesomepertinentexamples, on an international level, towhat extent does dialoguereduce conflict between Israel and the Palestinians?More locally,candialogueleadtotheChristianpartnerswithdrawingtheirsupportfrom the “Boycott Divestment Sanctions [against Israel]” (BDS)movement?CandialogueresultintheJewishpartnersacceptingthebeatificationofPopePiusXII?

Mypositionisthatthosewhoseekexternalmeasuresofsuccessare looking in the wrong place. They are supporting particularpoliticalorideologicalpositionsandattemptingtouse“dialogue”topromotethoseendsbyseekingalliesfortheircause.Iftheyfailtowinadherents then, in their eyes,dialoguehas “failed”. Thereareseriousflawsinthisapproach,andIshallreturntoitattheendofthisarticle.Fornow,Iwishtostartfromtheoppositeview.I’dliketoclaimthatthosewhoarguethefirstposition,thatdialogue’ssuccessis intrinsic to the process, are closer to the mark.

However,Ibelieveitisnotenoughsimplytoclaimthispositionwithoutgivingitsomesubstance.Otherwise,thecriticismmayjustlybe raised that dialoguemaymake its participants feel good, andtheremay be positive spin-off effects from social action projects,but there is little of lasting value to commend it. We can makeourselvesfeelgood,orindeedcarryoutusefulprojectsthatbenefitoursociety,inlotsofways;why,then,shouldweadvocatedialogueas the means to achieve our goals?

Letmegoevenfurtheralongthisroad.Ifweclaimthattheonlyway to achieve the success of dialogue is to actually engage in the process – to “do” dialogue – then what we are saying is that the success of dialogue cannot be achieved through any other means. ButIdon’tthinkwecanclaimthisunlesswearemorespecificaboutthe potential areas of conflict that only dialogue can succeed inredeeming.Inotherwords,wecan’tbeairy-fairyaboutthis;weareboundtoprovidemoresubstantialindicatorsormeasuresofsuccessto defend our claim that success is intrinsic to dialogue.

There may be several of these measures of success in dialogue, butIwouldliketoidentifyfourthatareofparticularinterest.Icallthese, dialogical symmetry, opening the hermeneutical circle, thehospitalityquotient,andtheMenschlichkeitfactor.I’dliketoaddresseachoftheseinturn,explainingwhattheymeanandconcentratingon the ways in which they act as intrinsic measures of success in dialogue.

Thefirst,dialogical symmetry, isaboutcorrectingthehistoricalimbalance between Jewish and Christian understandings of theirrespectiveroles indialogue.2 Imentionedat thestartofmypaperthat the CCJ emerged out of concerns with antisemitism and themurderof Jews inNazi Europe.As the startingpoint fordialogue,this has proved to be problematic. The Christian participants feltthat, in one way or the other, Christian theology and teachingsover several centurieswere responsible for these atrocities.ManyChristians, especially those inWestern Europe, suffered fromguiltoverthetreatmentofJews,notonlybytheNazisbutbytheChristianinhabitants of continental Europe. As a result, the dialogue thatdevelopedwasone-way: theChristianpartners sought forgivenessforthesinofantisemitismborneofChristianteachingsthroughtheages,andtheJewishpartnersweretheretoabsolvetheChristiansof their sin.

The CCJ is committed to dialogue between Jews and Christians. Though the main impetus for the inception of the Council in the United Kingdom in 1942 by Chief Rabbi Joseph H Hertz and Archbishop William Temple was to combat antisemitism, in more recent decades it is dialogue that has dominated its agenda. For example, according to Wikipedia, which as we know is the standard for the popular understanding of any topic, “The International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) is an umbrella organisation of 38 national groups in 32 countries world-wide engaged in the Christian-Jewish dialogue.”

Exploring


Wecan see this kindofasymmetric relationshipby comparingevensuperficiallythetwoseminalICCJdocuments,theTenPointsofSeelisbergpublishedin19473 and the 12 Points of Berlin published in 2009.4 There is a dramatic transformation aswe shift fromonedocument to the other. The Seelisberg document is addressed solely to the Christian world and focuses heavily on Christianattitudes and behavior towards Jews. The Berlin document is an‘egalitarian’statementaddressedequallytotheJewishandChristiancommunities,withathirdsectionapplyingtoboth.Itsconcernsgowellbeyondracismtotouchonawiderangeofothermattersthataffectthewaythatthetwocommunitiesvieweachother.TheBerlindocumentismovingtowardssymmetryindialogue;inthisregarditdisplays the success of the dialogical process over the decades that separate the two documents.

Other statements in Jewish-Christian dialogue, such as Dabru Emet, show the same shift towards dialogical symmetry. Dabru Emet is a document published in 2000 and signed by 220 Jewish thinkersfromacrossthedenominationalspectrum.5ItacknowledgestheologicalreciprocitybetweenJewsandChristians,andasaresultithasbeencriticisedfromtheJewishsideforthisverytransformation.6

Ithinkthecriticismmissesthemark.Experience of dialogue is showing us that the prevalent mode of

asymmetricrelationshipcannotsustaindialogue.Suchanapproachto dialogue is based on concepts of power and powerlessness. They are intrinsically weighted to favour one party over the other. Inourpost-modernageweinvertthepowerrelationshiptofavourthe perceived victim over the perceived aggressor. It is only bytranscending this kind of skewed relationship and viewing it as amore equal relationship that we can succeed in dialogue. But asymmetrical relationship can only be achieved by two partnerscoming together to hear from one another about the asymmetries oftheirhistoricalrelationshipandthencorrectingthemintandem.This is the very process of dialogue at work.

Oneofthewaystoovercometheinequitiesofpastrelationshipsin thecaseof Jewish-Christianencounter is to learnoneanother’sScriptures. The dialogical challenge is to understand Scripture not as aclosedbookboundwithinaparticulartraditionofinterpretation,but as an open book the meaning of which is illuminated but not limitedbytraditionalreadings.Icallthisopening the hermeneutical circle.

There are two facets to this measure of success in dialogue. One facet is to allow the partner in dialogue the space to share Scripture astheyseeitthroughthelensoftheirowntraditionalhermeneutic.Indialogue,thisprocessshowseachofusthatitispossibletoreadScriptureotherwise thanhowwenormallydo. It also requiresus

to take seriously our partner in dialogue, though their readings of Scripturemayatfirstblushseemstrangeorfancifultous.

Theother facet is to allow the readings offeredby theotherfaith to impact on our native understanding of Scripture. Theinterpretations that come from another faith perspective mayraisenewquestionsorcreateamorehighlysensitisedawarenessthatchallengestraditionalpatternsofmeaninginScriptureasweunderstand it.

By opening the hermeneutic circle in this way, we alsobecome more attuned to “tough passages” in Scripture. Theseare the very passages that may cause one dialogue partner to feel uncomfortable or misrepresented by the other. Examples in the TenakharepassagesthatdealwiththeconquestofCanaan;intheNewTestament,descriptionsoftheroleoftheJewsinthedeathofJesus. Italsoenablesustoseemoreclearlythedifferentways inwhichScripturefunctionsassacredtextforeachofus,andhowthismayimpactonourrelationship.Finally,itallowsustobringintothediscussionpost-Biblicalsacredliterature–thetwoTalmudsandthemidrashiccollectionsforJews,theChurchfathers forChristians–andshowhowthesebearoncurrentunderstandingsandattitudesrelating to the “tough issues” that arise from Scripture andchallengeusinourrespectivetraditions.

There are references to opening the hermeneutical circle inthe Berlin document, though they are expressed instrumentally rather in terms of measuring success in dialogue. For example, it callsonChristians“Tocombatreligious,racialandallotherformsof antisemitism… by underscoring the immense religious wealthfoundintheJewishtradition,especiallybystudyingitsauthoritativetexts.”ThisrevertstoidentifyingChristianantisemitismasthemajorimpetus for interfaith education, a position that Iwould contest.Conversely,theBerlindocumentcallsuponJews“toacknowledgetheeffortsofmanyChristiancommunitiesinthelate20thcenturytoreformtheirattitudestowardJews…bystudyingtheNewTestamentbothasChristianity’ssacredtextandasliteraturewrittentoalargedegreebyJews...”Itcallsuponbothfaithcommunities“toenhanceinterreligiousandinterculturaleducation…byencouragingmutualstudy of religious texts...”

Allofthisrequiresavenue,andthatiswherethethirdmeasureof success, the hospitality quotient, comes into play. Discussion is generallycarriedoutin“neutralsettings,”andwhenthisisthecaseit oftenhas adetachedor academic character.But truedialoguetakes place when we can welcome the stranger into our home and be welcomed in turn into the home of the stranger. The reciprocity means that each partner in dialogue has the opportunity to show sincere hospitality to the other.

Hospitality,thebreakingdownofsocialandemotionalbarriersbywelcomingthestrangerintoone’spersonaldomain,isnotaby-productofdialogue.Itisattheveryheartofdialogue,sinceitdefinestherelationshipthatweseekasoneofgenerosity,consideratenessand respect. It highlights the tension between security andvulnerability that exists within dialogical encounter and it enables the participants in dialogue to experiment with ways in which tocreate a workable balance between them.

Hospitality as a religious value essential to dialogue isconspicuous by its absence from the Berlin document. The document refers to Jewishnotionsofpeoplehood (“communal identity”)andtheexpressionofpeoplehoodthroughtheconnectionoftheJewishpeoplewiththelandofIsrael.Thisshiftsattentionindialogueawayfrom theology and towards social experience. But the document does not posit acts of “breaking bread together” as a principalway to create enduring bonds between interfaith partners. Inmyexperience, sharing hospitality is one of the most potent forces in promotingdialogue.

Hospitality can contribute to overcoming the sense of“strangeness”, exclusion and alienation that inhibits dialogue. Butunless hospitality is itself grounded in a serious regard and respect for the other, it risks being mere tokenism. Respect for the dignity of others, accompanied by or expressed through acts of generosity andrighteousness,iscalledinJewishcultural-religiousterminologyMenschlichkeit,“human-ness”.

MenschlichkeitmeansmorethantheEnglishterms“humaneness”or“humankindness”,thoughitincorporatesthese.Tocallsomeoneamensh(theYiddishequivalent)isthehighestaccoladethataJewcanaccordanotherperson. It suggests that theperson thushonouredis totally reliable, honest and forthright; there is no duplicity ordeviousness in them. They can be trusted in all things, and they are always ready and prepared to give support when needed.

Menschlichkeit, being a mensh,doesnot requireanabdicationofone’s individual identity.Onthecontrary, itemergesfromone’sidentityasauniquehumanbeing,andtheconfidencethatonehasinwhoheorsheisasahumanbeingwithauniquepersonality.Thatconfidenceenablesthemenshtoreachouttoanotherintrust.Hecan be trusted to treat the other seriously and with respect, precisely becauseheknowswhatitmeanstobeahumanbeingwithauniquepersonality. To use the Biblical idiom, the mensh understands that others are like him, created b’tzelem Elohim, “in the divineimage.” This idea is present in the Berlin document: “To enhanceinterreligious and intercultural education… by combating negativeimagesofothers,teachingthefoundationaltruththateachhumanbeing is created in the image of God.”

Iwouldsaythat,totheextentthatthisnotionofbeingcreatedinthedivineimageisindeedrecognisedasa“foundationaltruth”,dialogue may be judged to be successful. To reach this level of successrequiresthepartnersindialoguetostrivetowardsthegoalofimbuingtheirinteractionswithMenschlichkeit.

In interfaith dialogue, the degree to which the partner indialogue can be trusted and relied upon is a crucial test of success. For two people to relate in a Menschlichkeit manner does not requirethemtoagreewitheachotherorholdtothesameoutlookontheworld.Itdoes,however,requirethemtorelatetoeachotherhonestlyand respectfully, to relyon theother toactdependablyand to have their trust reciprocated. Each partner must be able to treat the views of the other seriously, not merely as products of human fantasy and imagination but as narratives conveyingspiritual truths that are meaningful to the one who holds them. This kind of trust can only be tested in dialogue.

Each partner in dialogue finds the confidence to act in thismanner from the resources they find in their own tradition. It istheirdistinctivetraditionthatprovidesthemwiththestrengthtoface the dialogue partner in their “otherness” and deal honestlyand forthrightly with whatever comes up from that encounter. This hasbeenreferredtoasa“texturedparticularity”thatleadstoanhonest acknowledgement of pluralism.7 A mensh knows how to disagree without denying the humanity of the other, reducing the othertoalabelordenigratingtheirbeliefsorpractices.

Menschlichkeit does not deny the particularity of eitherpartner indialogue.On the contrary, it affirmsdifferencesbut inapositiveway. Itrelatestothemannerofthe interaction,not itssubstance.It isabonusifdialogueconductedinaMenschlichkeit mannerhappens to result inpositiveexternaloutcomes, suchasthose highlighted by the Berlin document under the headings of socialjustice,politicalandeconomicwell-being,andenvironmentalstewardship. But prior to these outcomes is the success of the process.

Ifthesuccessofdialoguecanbemeasuredintermsofthefourcriteria Ihavepresentedinthispaper(andtheremaybeothers),then we must also be able to determine when dialogue has failed. Inparallelwiththefourmeasuresofsuccess,Ihaveidentifiedfourmeasures of failure. These are the homogenisation of religious views, conversion, the deployment of power, and maintenance of the status quo. Each of these reveals that the adherent is using dialogue to promote a hidden agenda or goal. In this instance,dialogue is being conceived of as means to arrive at an ulterior end.

Inthefirstcase,thehomogenisation of religious views, dialogue becomes themeans to reduce theparticularityof thedialoguing

Exploring


Dialogue 4 Success continued

faiths to an all-encompassing universalism by emphasising theircommonalities and ignoring or dismissing their differences asbeing of little significance. This is a commonploy in some formsof “dialogue”:wehear that all religions areultimately the same,they all teach the same ethical principles, they all acknowledge the same divine spirit, etc. This is failed dialogue because it does notallowtheparticipantstobewhotheyare,inalltheir“texturedparticularity”.Theresultisthatthedialogueisinauthenticandtheparticipantsareonlypartiallyrevealedtooneanotheraspersonsof faith.

Following recent historical precedent, the Berlin document rejects conversionasanendofdialogue.ItcallsupontheChristiancommunity “to promote interreligious dialogue with Jews… byunderstanding dialogue as requiring trust and equality amongall participants and rejecting any notion of convincing others toacceptone’sownbeliefs;”andfurther,moreexplicitly,“todeveloptheological understandings of Judaism that affirm its distinctiveintegrity…byopposingorganisedeffortsattheconversionofJews.”

The deployment of power occurs when dialogue is used by one side to manipulate or disarm the other. Controversially, it may bearguedthatattimeswhenthe Jewishparticipants indialogueaddresstheHolocaust,theyareaimingtoawakenasenseofguiltin theChristianparticipants.Rightlyorwrongly, the result is thattheyarefelttodeploypowerinordertocontrolthedirectionofthedialogue.ItisindicativeoftheunequalpowerrelationshipthatthesameisnotthecaseifthetopicoftheHolocaust israisedbytheChristianparticipants.

Apart from its intrinsic inappropriateness, the danger inherent in using dialogue as a means to display one’s power is that the balanceofpowercanshift,andthiscreatesfurtherdifficulties.Forexample,inreactiontoaccusationsabouttheChristiancontribution

toNaziantisemitism,theChristianpartnersmightadoptHolocaust-basedlanguagetodescribeactionscarriedoutbytheStateofIsraelagainstthePalestinians.Thisisanend-gamewithnowinners,anditisinherentlydestructiveofdialogue.

The final indicator of failure of dialogue in my view is themaintenance of the status quo.Iftheparticipantsindialogueleavethe table untouched by what has happened there, then the dialogue hasfailed.Thatis,ifnoneofthesuccessesIhavedescribedhavebeenachieved, ifthestatusquo ismaintained,thenthedialoguehas not succeeded in its purpose. I say this because dialogue isa process, and themaintenance of the status quo suggests thattheparticipants, thoughtheymaybeenrichedbytheexperienceinotherwayseg.bytheacquisitionofknowledge,havenottrulyparticipated intheprocess.Theyhavenotallowedthemselvestolisten to the other openly and with trust, sharing hospitality and breaking through the closed circle of their understanding.

Successfuldialogue in interfaith relations changes thepeoplewhoengageinit. It leadsustolearnmuchthatisnewaboutourown world as well as the world of the other. Successful dialogue changes the way that the world appears, forever.

Exploring


1 Making Dialogue Effective,publishedbytheDialogueSociety,London,2013,andavailableon-lineatwww.dialoguesociety.org/publications/community/828-making- dialogue-effective.html2 See my address to the AGM of the CCJ(Victoria) in 2009, Pursuing Interfaith Dialogue: From Security to Redemption, published as a booklet and available from the CCJ(Victoria)andon-linewww.assembly.uca.org.au/rof/images/stories/resources/papersandstatements/rabbimorganpursuing.pdf3 ProducedbytheICCJin1947.ThetextoftheTenPointsisgiveninthebooklet,A Time for Recommitment, details in the next note. The Ten Points of Seelisberg document wasdistributedamongthechurchesbytheICCJwithapreamblethatmakesitcleartheyweredraftedinresponsetoabeliefthattherewasChristiancomplicityinanti- SemitismandtheeventsoftheShoah,howeverunwittingorillicit.4 A Time for Recommitment,availableon-lineatwww.iccj.org/?id=3595,downloadableeitheronitsownorwithanexcellentcommentaryandessays.5 Foundon-lineatwww.jcrelations.net/Dabru_Emet_-_A_Jewish_Statement_on_Christians_and_Christianity.2395.0.html.Theprincipaldraftersofthestatementhave producedavaluablebookofessayswhichactsasacommentaryonthestatement:TikvaFrymer-Kenskyetal,Christianity in Jewish Terms, Westview Press, 2000. 6 JonD.Levenson,“HowNottoConductJewish-ChristianDialogue”,CommentaryApril2002,Vol.113(4);availableon-lineatwww.commentarymagazine.com/article/how-not- to-conduct-jewish-christian-dialogue/7 Thisconceptof“texturedparticularity”anditsconnectiontopluralismisintroducedinMaryC.BoysandSaraS.Lee,Christians and Jews in Dialogue: Learning in the Presence of the Other, Skylight Paths Publishing, 2006.

But true dialogue takes place when we can welcome the stranger into

our home and be welcomed in turn into the home of the stranger.

Rabbi Fred Morgan

Exploring

The CCJ Luncheon Club

Editor


On 14th March this year, with an address by Irris Makler, the Council celebrated thethird anniversary of this Luncheon Club. Its inaugural speaker, in March 2010, wasthe American historian Professor Kenneth Waltzer, the Jewish Studies Director at Michigan State University.

The East Melbourne Synagogue’s communal hall at the rear of the synagogue has proved a most convenient locationas a venue, comfortably accommodatingthe typical luncheon attendances. TheSynagogue’s Rabbi Dovid Gutnick and staffhave been most obliging hosts to the Council and its guests.

The Buchenwald Concentration Camp,and the boys who were liberated from it, was the subject of that inaugural address by Professor Waltzer, who described his archival research which led to severable notable findings about the Camp; his renownedexpose of a fraudulent holocaust memoir, published in No Angel at the Fence, was also well depicted.

Irris Makler, the award winningAustralian foreign correspondent and author based in the Middle East for the last nine years, in the third anniversary event, talked about her new book Hope Street, Jerusalem, setduringtheIntifada.Shegaveawonderfulinsight into the career of a reporter absorbed with those who struggle across divides in troubled places.

Two further talks followed in 2010. Dr Peta Stephenson spoke about her book, Islam Dreaming: Indigenous Muslims in Australia, in which she described Aboriginal conversion to Islam within Australia’s long

historyofindigenous-Islamicencounters.In the final talk for 2010, Dr Piotr

Cywinski,theDirectorofAuschwitz-BirkenauMemorial & Museum and a member of the Polish Council of Christians & Jews,described the important contribution theMuseum ismaking in holocaust education,with thousands upon thousands of people arriving yearly to learn and to pay their respects.

In February 2011, Jewish Christian Relationships, Poland, Today was the subject of the address by the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Rabbi Michael Schudrich. He spoke of thevastchallengesfacingthetwocommunities,at the same time expressing enormoussatisfaction at the momentum in dialoguetaking place today.

In June 2011, a Catholic priest, FatherPatrick Desbois, the Director of the French Conference of Bishops for Relations withJudaism, described his own research of the Holocaust, in particular recounting hisuncovering of the truth behind the murder of 1.5 million Jews in Ukraine during World WarII.

The following month, My Journey was the subject of Helen Dwyer’s address. ShewasthefirstrecipientofRidleyMelbourne’sindigenous scholarship and, at the time,a soon-to-be ordained Anglican minister.She described her upbringing (in the HighAnglican tradition) disclosing that herAboriginal heritage had been hidden from her for more than twenty years.

With conflicts between religiouscommunities, particularly in Indonesia, amatterofgraveconcern,theLuncheonClub

In keeping with its pivotal guiding objective, namely, to promote the study of, and research into, historical, political, social, and religious conflicts, discords and other tensions between people of different creeds and colour, the Victorian Council established a forum for writers, diplomats, priests, rabbis, teachers, academics, and others, to communicate their thoughts, their judgments, their beliefs. This, it was thought, would best be achieved in a luncheon setting – and so the CCJ Luncheon Club was born.

...the Victorian

Council established

a forum for writers,

diplomats, priests,

rabbis, teachers,

academics, and

others,

to communicate

their thoughts, their

judgments, their

beliefs.

Exploring


invited Melissa Crouch, a Research Fellow at Melbourne University Law School and at the Asia Law Centre, to explain the reasons for theconflictstakingplacebetweenMuslimsandChristiansinIndonesia,andspecifically,the concerns over the introduction oftighterlegalregulationsonpermitsforthebuilding of churches.

The final presenter for 2011 was DrAlbrecht Dumling, a musicologist and music critic from Germany and the Chairman ofTheSocietyforthePromotionofComposersPersecuted by the Nazis. He portrayedhow German refugees were received into Australia and the outstanding contributionto Australian cultural life so many had made.

The Luncheon Club began its 2012 year with an address by the Polish Ambassador, His Excellency Andrzej Jaroszynski, whodescribedthestateofPolish-Jewishdialogueafter1989 in theaftermathof the collapseof Soviet hegemony, and of its progression uptilltoday.

The award winning Australian writer, Anna Lanyon, addressed the Luncheon Club in May 2012 with her portrayal of a Jewish martyr in 16th Century Mexico, the story of Louis de Carnaval, his family, and their resistance to religious persecution andloyalty to their faithduring thetimeof theMexicanInquisition.

The Council Executive Committee itselfhas provided three Luncheon Club speakers.

One, Tzipi Boroda, who organises synagogue teaching programs alongside her husband, Rabbi at Kew HebrewCongregation, spoke with creativity andclarity about finding pathways to religiousexperience through prayer in her topic Speaking the Truth in your Heart.

AtanotherLuncheon,Executivemember,Mark Walsh, who has been teaching at the Institute of Formation and ReligiousStudies in Manila for the last four years, gave an account of the unheralded dialogue

between Christians and Jews taking placeoutsidetheWesterncontext–particularlyinthe Philippines.

A third presentation from an Executivemember was by Albert Isaacs, the HonSecretary of the CCJ (Vic) for many years and a Board Member of the Leo Baeck Centre for Progressive Judaism. The talk focussed on the life and achievements of Sir John Monash, highlightingthemanywaysMonashshapedthe Melbourne we know today.

Rarely can an opportunity arise to listen toanarchbishopandarabbiinconversationover lunch. Luncheon Club guests were indeed so fortunate, when Archbishop Philip Freier and Rabbi Dovid Gutncik delighted us in discussing Contemporary Challenges to Religion. A full report, by Mark Brolly, of this most fascinating luncheon can be found inthiseditionofGesher.

Readersarecordiallywelcometoattendthe CCJ Luncheon Club. Whilst munching on bagels and fruit, and sipping tea, coffee orsoftdrink,theoccasionsofferopportunitiesto hear outstanding speakers. Notificationsof upcoming Luncheon Club events can be sent to readers who provide the Council’s officewithanemailaddress.

Exploring

The Charter for Compassion

Editor


The Charter for Compassion was unveiled in 2009 (www.charterforcompassion.org) The Charter was written by leadingactivists and thinkers representing six of the major world faiths:Judaism,Christianity,Islam,Hinduism,BuddhismandConfucianism.TheCharterhasnowbecomeaglobalmovement,andisparticularlyactiveinPakistan,theNetherlands,theMiddleEastandtheUnitedStates.Armstrongandotheractivistsarenowcreatinganetworkof“CitiesofCompassion.”Shehassaid:“Myhopeisto‘twin’someofthesecities, so thatacity in theMiddleEastcan twinwithone inthe USA to exchange news, and encourage email friendships and visits. In Pakistan, we are creating a network of CompassionateSchools to train the leaders of tomorrow, and in September 2012, the Islamic SocietyofNorthAmericaendorsed theCharter,making itsschools‘SchoolsofCompassion’andurgingitsmosquestobecome‘CompassionateMosques’.”

On 28th June 2013, the British Academy awarded KarenArmstrong the inaugural Nayef Al-Rodhan Prize for TransculturalUnderstanding, a new award from the British Academy whichisopen tonominations fromaround theworld. It isnamedafterInternational Relations scholar, Dr Nayef Al-Rodhan, who is theauthor of numerous works, including The Role of the Arab-Islamic World in the Rise of the West: Implications for Contemporary Trans-Cultural Relations (2012). This new prize – worth £25,000 andtobeawardedannuallyforfiveyears–isdesignedtohonouroutstandingworkillustratingtheinterconnectednatureofculturesandcivilisations.

Onreceivingherprizeshesaid:I am so honoured to receive this prize. I am also most grateful to

Dr Nayef Al-Rodhan and the British Academy for drawing attention in this way to the need for transcultural understanding. One of the chief tasks of our time must surely be to build a global community where people of all ethnicities and ideologies can live together in harmony and mutual respect: if we do not achieve this, it is unlikely that we will have a viable world to hand on to the next generation. Religion should be making a contribution to this endeavour but, sadly, for obvious reasons, it is often seen as part of the problem. Yet I have been enriched and enlightened by my study of other faith

traditions because I am convinced that they have much of value to teach us about our predicament in our tragically polarised world.

The Charter for Compassion is a document that transcends religious,ideological,andnationaldifferences.Supportedbyleadingthinkersfrommanytraditions,theCharteractivatestheGoldenRulearound the world.

TheCharterforCompassionisacooperativeefforttorestorenotonly compassionate thinking but, more importantly, compassionate actiontothecentreofreligious,moralandpoliticallife.Compassionistheprincipleddeterminationtoputourselvesintheshoesoftheother, and lies at the heart of all religious and ethical systems.

The charter has been translated into more than 30 languages.

Charter for CompassionThe principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical

andspiritualtraditions,callingusalwaystotreatallothersaswewishtobe treatedourselves.Compassion impelsus toworktirelessly toalleviatethesufferingofourfellowcreatures,todethroneourselvesfrom the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctityof every singlehumanbeing, treatingeverybody,withoutexception,withabsolutejustice,equityandrespect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speakviolently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish,exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others – even our enemies – is a denial of ourcommon humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred ordisdain is illegitimate~toensurethatyoutharegivenaccurateandrespectfulinformationaboutothertraditions,religionsandcultures~toencourageapositiveappreciationofculturalandreligiousdiversity~ to cultivatean informedempathywith the sufferingofallhumanbeings – even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarised world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can breakdown political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries.Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential tohuman relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path toenlightenment,andindispensabletothecreationofajusteconomyand a peaceful global community.

In 2008, on receiving the TED Prize, Karen Armstrong, a former Roman Catholic nun well known for her work on comparative religion called for the creation of a Charter for Compassion. Karen Armstrong rose to prominence in 1993 with her book A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She has drawn attention to the commonalities of the major religions, such as their emphasis on compassion.

encountering...

EncountEring

Jews and Christians in the First Centuries

Martin Goodman Martin Goodman is Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Oxford.

He is a Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford, and of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies.


The date and causes of the partingof the ways between the Church and the Synagogue have been long discussed and showno signof resolution. It is true that,as implied by recent claims that the ways never parted at all, from the perspectiveof a total outsider, Jews and Christians inantiquity might seem to share so muchthat they should best be understood as streams within a common movement. But it is a common phenomenon, not least in religious history, that apparently small differences can constitute major barriersbetween groups, and it is an error to imagineJewsandChristians intheancientworld accepting the degree of fluidityin religious identity to be found in somesocietiestoday.

Thecrucial issue isoneofperspective:just because some Christians came toidentifythemselvesasseparatefromJews,it does not follow that this separationwas acknowledged by Jews or by other Christians.Andreligiousgroupscouldretainsocial cohesiveness while accommodatingdoctrinal diversity, so that what in hindsight appears to have been the moment of theological innovation which made theparting inevitable, may have passedunnoticedatthetime.TostatethatJesusorPaul taught or behaved in ways that other Jews will have regarded as radical does not in itself explain why their followers could not continue to think of their faithas a variety of Judaism. The sociological observation that by the end of the firstcentury many, probably most, Christianshad not been born as Jews does not help, since all Jews (and indeed all Christians)accepted the notion that gentiles couldconvert to Judaism if they so wished.

The Nature of the Christian EvidenceEarly Christian literature has a great

dealtosayaboutJewsasparticipantsinthenarratives of the life of Jesus and the firstChristian missions. The depiction of Jewsin the Gospels is notoriously ambivalent:individual Jews (notably Jesus himself and his disciples) are of course portrayed positively,but Jewsasagroupareattimesshown as wholly opposed to Jesus and his message,particularlyintheGospelofJohn.Some scholars have suggested that the Greek term ioudaios is used by the author of this Gospel to refer not to Jews as a religious group, but only to Judaeans – that is, the Jews from Jerusalem and its environs – but such a distinction, though possible,is unlikely in light of the widespread use of ioudaios with its wider meaning in other first-century literature,notably thewritingsof the philosopher Philo and the historian Josephus. It is more likely that the desireof the Gospel writer to blame Jews for the execution of Jesus derived from a need toexculpate the Roman authorities for thecrucifixion which they had carried out, inorder to present the new faith as acceptable within Roman society.

InChristiantextsofthefollowingcenturythewordioudaiosreferssometimestoJews,but just as frequently to other Christians.Oneofthemainissuesofcontentionwithinthe Early Church lay in the extent to which Christiansshouldberequired,encouragedoreverpermittedtoadoptJewishcustoms,andin some Christian writings those attackedas “Jews” may be better understood as“Judaising” Christians – although since insuch literature ”Jew” is a term of abuse, it is unlikely to have been adopted as a self-designationbytheseChristiansthemselves.

So, for instance, in the debate over the date of Easter, those who advocated basing the dateontheJewishPassoverweresometimesattackedas“Jews”bytheiropponents.

The Nature of the Jewish EvidenceThe historian Josephus is the only Jewish

author known to have written in the firstcenturyanythingatallaboutChristians.Apartfrom a brief reference (Jos. AJ 20. 200) to the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, at the hands of the Sadducean High PriestAnanus (later a leader of the Jewish rebels againstRome),themostinformativepassageappears to be a paragraph (AJ18.63-4)aboutthe career of Jesus himself. But this passage, which survives only through the copying of the manuscripts of Josephus’ histories by numerous Christian scribes, unfortunatelycontains so many Christian interpolationsthatitisdifficulttoextractanythingmoreofhistorical value than the evident fact that a JewwritinginRometowardstheendofthefirstcenturyknewboththatJesushadlivedas a Jew in the time of Pontius Pilate andthat “the tribeofChristians, socalledafterhim,hasstilltothisdaynotdisappeared”(AJ 18.64).

Josephus is our best source of evidence for the extent to which first-century Jewstolerated religious variety in their society, but he neither confirms nor denies that inhis day Christianity constituted a type ofJudaism. According to him, groups such as Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes espoused dramaticallydifferentphilosophiesonissuesas crucial (one might think) as the possibility of life after death, but they managed tocooperate not only in the government of the country but also (more remarkably) in worship in the Temple. The abundance of

It is a commonplace observation that Jesus was a Jew who spent his life among Jews, and in many respects his career and teachings can be well understood in the context of first-century Jewish society. But among the unique properties of Jesus which set him apart from his contemporaries is the establishment of a movement in his name which in due course became separate from the rest of Judaism.

EncountEring


idiosyncraticformsofJudaisminthisperiodhasbeenconfirmedbythediscoveryamongthe Dead Sea scrolls of the communal rules and other literature of at least one previously unknown Jewish group. The more evidence that emerges of the prevalence of such variety, themore difficult it becomestoexplainwhyChristiansshouldhavebeenunable to live within the broad church of Judaism in their day.

The parting of the ways is itselfresponsible for the loss of Jewish Greek writingscomposedafterJosephus:fromtheend of the first century, Christians ceasedto preserve newwritings by Jews becausethey could increasingly turn to their own distinctive literature. The Jewish writingswhich survive from later periods were all preserved not by Christians but by rabbis,andarethusallineitherHebreworAramaic-therabbismayhavebeenconversantwithGreek, but they preferred to discuss religious matters either inHebrew (as the languageof piety) or in Aramaic (the vernacular). The earliest rabbinic works, such as the Mishnah, were compiled only in the early third century CE, but they made extensive useof earlier oral traditions reachingbackinto the first century.Unlike Josephus, therabbis of this early period had little to sayaboutother,non-rabbinictypesofJudaism,which some have taken as evidence of a desire for unity and a willingness to end earlier divisions, but others (more plausibly) asa reflectionof a lackof interest in Jewswho espouse what the rabbis deem to be incorrectbeliefsandpractices.AllsuchJewsare treated equally as minim, ‘heretics’,whether their fault is to deny the possibility of life after death, to declare that thereare two powers in heaven rather than one, or to heal the sick through incantationsin the nameof Jesus. In the last case, theheretics to whom the rabbinic texts referareevidentlyChristiansofsomekind,butit

wouldbeanerrortoassumethatChristianspredominatedamongthehereticsofwhomthe rabbis expressed disapproval. There is every reason to suppose that Sadducees and Essenes were to be found in Jewish society in the second century as much as in the first, and the Jews who apparentlyasserted a second power in heaven were probablyGnosticsofsomekind.

It is importanttoemphasisethispoint,that the rabbis did not necessarily (or perhaps even usually) have Christians inmind when disparaging minim, because much has been written on the Birkat haMinim, a blessing pronounced by rabbinic Jews in the statutory daily prayers, in which thanksaregiven for thedestructionof theminim. According to one version (found in the fifth-century Babylonian Talmud[Berakhot 28b]) of the origins of thisbenediction (actually, of course, a curse),it was composed by a certain Samuel the Small (otherwise obscure) towards the end of the first century CE. It is clear that thiscurse could be taken by Jewish Christiansas referring to them, but it is less obvious thatitwouldbeseenbygentileChristiansastheir concern. In theeyesof rabbinic Jewsinantiquity,gentileChristianswereseenasdedicated to idolatrous worship as much as pagans, which is why the conversion of theRomanempiretoChristianityduringthefourth century made extraordinarily littleimpact on rabbinic attitudes to gentiles,even inwhat rapidly became the ChristianHolyLand.

The Nature of the Pagan EvidenceEarly Christian accounts of the first

Christian missionaries such as Paulpresuppose that pagan authorities, boththe magistrates in Greek cities and therepresentativesoftheRomanstate,treatedthe first Christian generations as part ofthe Jewish community: according to Acts

(18:15), Gallio dismissed the complaintsbrought about Paul by the synagogue leadersofCorinthasmattersofJewishlawwith which he had no need to be involved. But by the early second century, when pagans themselves first began to refer toChristians, Christians and Jews were seenas quite separate groups. The historianTacitus, writing (Ann. 15.44) about the persecution of Christians by Nero afterthe great fire in Rome in 64CE, referredto the origins of the Christian movementin Judaea, but described the Christiansspecificallyasa“deadlysuperstition”whichhadbecomepopular in Romebecause “allthings horrible or shameful in the world collectandfindavogue”inthecapitalcity.Tacitus’contemporarySuetoniusspecificallydescribedtheChristiansinthetimeofNeroas given to a novel superstition. Anothercontemporary, the younger Pliny, definedChristiansasworshippersofChrist,inwhosehonour “they chant verses alternatelyamong themselves… as if to a god” (Epp. 10.96).

The separationbetweenChristians andJewsintheeyesofpagansbythetimetheseauthorswerewritingmayhavehadlesstodowith the self-definition of either Christiansor Jews than the definitionof Jews by theRoman state. After the suppression of theJewish revolt of 66-70and thedestructionof the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the state imposed a poll tax on all Jews, wherever they lived under Roman rule, as a form of war reparations. Various stories about thecollectionofthetaxinRomeintheeightiesand nineties reveal some of the tensionsthe tax created in communities whereapostate Jews could be compelled to pay up if the tax authoritieswere informed abouttheir origins. For pious Jews, payment, demeaning though it undoubtedly was, had the advantage that, by being marked out as a Jew, an individual could claim the right

EncountEring


nottoparticipate inthepagancultsofthepopulationamongwhom they lived. TheremusthavebeenatemptationforChristiansto pay the tax in order to achieve a similar freedom from the taint of idolatry, but they could do so only by declaring themselves to be Jews. By the early third century at least it is clear that the Church father Tertullian was unwilling to purchase the right to avoid idolatryatsuchaprice:hereferredenviouslytotheJewsofhistimeasenjoyingvectigalis libertas,“freedomatthepriceoftax”.

Jewish Persecution of ChristiansWe have seen that Jewish sources show

littleinterestinChristians,sounsurprisinglythey reveal little about Jewish persecutionof the Early Church. Josephus fails to explain the reasons for the execution ofJames, the brother of Jesus, although he does remark that those Jews “who werethe most fair-minded and who were strictin observance of the law” disapproved (AJ 20.201). Pagan sources have nothing at all about Jewish-Christian interaction. Somostofwhatisknowncomesfromthetestimony

of Christians, who sympathised with thepersecuted and had no reason to attemptanunderstandingofthemotivationofthosewhoattackedthem.Thisisashamenotleastbecause,aswehaveseen, Jews in thefirstcentury generally tolerated a great variety ofreligiousstances,andthepersecutionofChristians is anhistorical anomalynoteasytoexplain. If the sectarians,whoproducedtheTempleScroll, foundatQumranamongthe Dead Sea scrolls, could rewrite the book of Deuteronomy in the name of God, and the extreme allegorists to whom Philo referred (De Mig. Ab. 89-93) could denythe necessity of carrying out physically any of the injunctions of the Torah, it ishard to imagine what doctrines Christianscould espouse which might lead to their judicial punishment. They might be scorned, ridiculed or disbelieved (all of which might count as martyrdom for the recipient of such treatment), and the more unfortunate, like Stephen,mightbevictims,liketheprophetsbefore them, of mob anger at their abuse of the shortcomings of their fellow Jews (Acts 7:51-60), but when early Christianswere put on trial in Jewish courts the reason (whatever the charge) will have been not religious but political. Jesus suffered forthesakeof thepeople: thehighpriestandhis advisors, assigned by the Romans the extraordinarily difficult task of maintainingorder in Jerusalem at the height of the pilgrimfestivalswithoutbenefitofamilitaryforce at their command, stamped on any movement that might get out of control by resort to the standard Roman method for dealing with such potential problems, andhandedoverJesusforexecution.

Dealing with Paul must have been more complicated, because he was a Roman citizen. Paul himself declared that he hadsufferedfivetimesatthehandsofJewsthepenaltyofthirty-ninestripes(2.Cor.11:24),a judicial punishment which must have been

imposed by a court for what was accounted a serious misdemeanour. There has been much speculation by scholars about theprobable charge, but more interesting intermsofJewishhistoryarethecalculationsofthediasporaJewishauthoritieswhothoughtit worth bringing a charge of any kind. Paul couldhavebroughtthebeatingstoanendatanytimebydeclaringhimselfnotpartoftheJewish community. More seriously he could havebroughtthesynagogueauthoritiesintogravedangerbyaccusingthemofassaultingaRomancitizen.Thathechosetosubmittopunishment demonstrates the importance to himofcontinuingtobethoughtofasapartoftheJewishcommunity(“asaJewtoJews…”).IftheJewishauthoritiestooktheriskofpunishing him, it was because his mission to the gentiles was even more dangerousto them if allowed to continue unchecked.In encouraging gentiles to forsake theirancestral paganism, Paul aroused the wrath of the local gentiles themselves, as Actsportrays so vividly in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41).ByactinginthiswayasaJew,hebroughtinto question the delicate relationshipbetween diaspora Jewish communitiesand their host societies, which tolerated aJewish presence so long as the local Jews did not interfere with the religious lives of the majority. Paul, not surprisingly, portrayed Jewish opposition as the product of envyat his success or wilful hostility; but thereal reasons are more likely to lie in the requirements forpolitical preservationof avulnerable diaspora community.

Christian Hostility to JewsIt is impossible to know how much of

the hostility to Jews as a group found inmany early Christian texts was a reactionto such persecution, but what is strikingis the continuation of such hostility to thesecondcentury.ItbecameeasierforgentileChristians to disparage Jews as a whole

Jews in the first

century generally

tolerated a great

variety of religious

stances, and the

persecution of

Christians is an

historical anomaly

not easy to explain.

JewsandChristiansintheFirstCenturies continued

EncountEring


the more they saw themselves as separate from Judaism, but this separation in itselfdiminished the reasons for persecution byJews.InonlyoneoftheChristianmartyractsof the second century, the Martyrdom of Pionios,are Jewsportrayedasparticipants,and even there they are depicted only as bystanders, enthusiastically collectingfirewood,sincethechargeonwhichPionioswas condemned to be burnt was a failure to participate in pagan sacrifices. Memoryof the travails of the first generation ofmissionariesishardlyasufficientexplanationof the representation by Justin Martyr ofJudaismas theantithesis toChristianity, orthe attack by Melito, bishop of Sardis, onJewsaskillersoftheirGod.Itislikelythatthevehemence of such rhetoric was fomented bytheneedofsecond-centuryChristianstopresent their own faith to the wider world as compatible with the political and socialnorms of the Roman Empire – the claim of such apologists as Justin Martyr himself.(TheeventualmartyrdomofJustinconfirms,if it was needed, the urgency of such apologetic.) By the 140s, when Justin waswriting, Jews had become so marginalisedin theRomanworldafter thedefeatofBarKokhbain135thateventhenames“Judaea”and“Jerusalem”hadbeenerased fromtheRoman official vocabulary, and Jews wereno longer allowed to live in their homeland. It made sense for such Christians to makea sharp distinction between the loyalty oftheir own faith to Rome and the pernicious hostilityofthedespisedanddefeatedJews.

Jewish-Christian Interaction in Late Antiquity

Hostility to Jews is thus pervasive inmuch of the literature of the Early Church, but it would be wrong to see this as the whole story. Some Christian groups, suchas the Ebionites, seem, even as late as the fourth century, to have thought of

themselves as Jewish as well as Christian,either because they were of Jewish ancestry or because they saw value in keeping the Torah in a Jewish fashion or for both reasons. Muchhas beenwritten about such ‘JewishChristians’,butinevitablywitharelianceonspeculation, since these groups are knownalmostentirely fromhostile remarks in thewritings of their Christian opponents, suchas the heresiologist Epiphanius.

But even mainstream Christians mightmaintaincontactwithJewsformorepracticalreasons. The Christian Bible, for the firstcentury of the Church, was the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bibletranslated by Jews in the third and second centuriesBCE,anddespitetheattackonthisBible by Marcion in the second century of the Church,mostChristianscontinuedtoaffirmits religious importance in later centuries alongside the new sacred texts, including theNewTestament,producedbyChristiansthemselves. From the mid-third centurysome Christians began to worry about theaccuracy of the Septuagint translation, aconcern doubtless fuelled by the knowledge that the Septuagint had been revised by a number of Jewish writers in order to bring it closer to the Hebrew. In third-centuryCaesarea in Palestine the great Christianscholar Origen compared the differentversions available to him of what he thought of as the Old Testament, turning on occasion to the Jews in the local rabbinic academy forhelp in interpretingdifficultpassages inthe Hebrew. In the late fourth century inBethlehem, Jerome made even more explicit use of the services of a certain hebraeus who advisedhimonthetranslationintoLatinofHebrew phrases in his composition of theVulgate.

Jerome,asmuchasotherChristiansofhisday, could celebrate the downfall of the Jews, relishingtheirlamentationsinJerusalemonthe anniversary of the destruction of the

city,notingthat“rightuptothepresentday…havingkilled the servantsandfinally theSon of God, [Jews] are prohibited to enterJerusalem except to lament, and they pay a price to be allowed to weep over the ruin of their state. Thus those who once bought the blood of Christ, buy now their own fears, and not even their grief is free” (Jer. In Sophoniam1.15.16(CCSL76A,p.673, lines669-84).However,hisdenigrationofJewsasa whole did not prevent him discussing the Bible with individual Jews and according to hisownaccount,profitingbytheexchange.

Editor: This article, offered by Professor Goodman for reproduction in Gesher 2013, was originally published in the Journal of the Farmington Institute. The Institute was founded to support, encourage and improve Religious Education in schools, colleges and universities. It is ecumenical in its commitment to the Christian faith and takes a particular interest in and is keen to develop good relationships with other world religions.

MartinGoodman

EncountEring

Christianity and Islam:The Challenge of Dialogue in Pakistan

Bernie Tranter Bernard Tranter, a member of the Executive Committee of the CCJ (Vic), has taught at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education.

He was a member of staff at Notre Dame Institute of Education, Karachi, from 1992 to 2005. The institute is a B.Ed and M.Ed. college

affiliated with Karachi University for teacher education and training; students are mainly Christians and Shia Muslims.

It was established by the Catholic Bishops of Pakistan in conjunction with the Sisters of Mercy, Australia.


ContextThe founding father of Pakistan, Ali

Jinnah, wanted Pakistan to be a secular state for Muslims, separate from India,in accordance with the “two nationstheory” which declared that Muslims and Hindus should be separated. Soon afterits foundation in 1947, it was declaredan Islamic Republic. Successive politicalleaders, influenced by militant Muslims,havemadePakistanmoretheocratic.

Muslim militancy has been further stimulated by the provision of arms forthe mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan by several countries, including theUnitedStates,andalsobytheinfluenceofWahhabi IslamfromSaudiArabia.Oncethe Soviets were defeated, Pakistan was left with a heavily armed, anti-Americanforce,mostly fundamentalist, with no-onetofight.

Pakistanhasapopulationbetween180and 190 million, of which approximately 97% is Muslim, the majority being Sunni,andabout30%Shia,involvingvarioussects,andalsoSufisandAhmadis,whodonotseeMuhammad as the final prophet. Of theremaining3%,perhapstwo-thirdsoftheseare Christians, with other minorities suchasHindu,Parsee (Zoroastrian),Baha’i,andSikh comprising the balance.Most HindusfledtoIndiaduringPartitionin1947.

Dialogue, in the sense of developing mutual respect and understanding, assumes recognitionofpluralismandheterogeneity,but Pakistan has endeavoured to create a monolithic and homogeneous society. This is in spite of the obvious ethnic and religious divisions that exist within Islamitself, let alone the Christian and otherminoritiesoutsideitspurview.

Most Christians, originally lower casteHindus, were attracted by the prospectof escaping the inequalities of the castesystem by conversion, but this has never

been achieved. A few (mostly Catholic) are the descendants of Portuguese Goans, congregated around Karachi. Christians,despite Muslim claims to be egalitarian, are still seen by the majority Muslims asChuhras, the derogatory term for lower caste. (This also applies to lower caste HinduswhohaveconvertedtoIslam).

Obstacles to DialogueSome of the specific obstacles to

dialogueinclude:• Theallocationofdhimmistatusand

‘protection’tonon-Islamicminorities,andallitsimplicationsofsecond-classcitizenship.

• Electoral laws specify four seats in the NationalAssemblyforChristians,thusdenyingthemthepowertoinfluencegovernment more broadly.

• TheintroductionofShariaandblasphemy laws. These laws include ‘defiling’theQ’ranortheHolyProphet.

• Legally, women’s evidence in court has only half the value of male evidence, andanon-Muslim’stestimonyisvalidonlyinrelationtoanothernon-Muslim.

• ChildrenwhoconverttoIslamareplaced in the custody of Muslims. ConversionfromIslamtoChristianityis forbidden.

• IntroductionofIslamisation,aprocessofshapinginstitutionsandbehaviourin accordance with the customs and beliefsofIslam,inparticular,SunniIslam.Inallgradeschoolsforexample,IslamicStudiesiscompulsory,withnooptionforChristians.Thus Christians are alienated from full

participation in Pakistani society. Theyassert that they should be treated as full citizens; they are original Pakistanis, andsupported its creation along the lines of

Jinnah’s wish for a secular state; they arenot conquered peoples, and do not needthe“protection”ofdhimmistatus.

However, they are still identified todayasmarkedwithaghettomentality,theyhavean inferiority complex and poor self-imagedue to the Chuhra background of the vast majority, as well they suffer discriminationand prejudice due to caste consciousness. Islamisationhasinstitutionalisedsegregationin the legal and political sphere andencouragedisolationism–outoffear.

Christian IntimidationChristiansfeelaneedtobecircumspectin

theirdailylives.Naturally,noChristianchurchwould countenance proselytising their faith.Apartfromeducation,ChristianityinPakistanis accepted only insofar as it serves its own members.

Christian villages have been attacked bymobs of vengeful Muslims. Churches have even been bombed; such events haunt theoutlookofmostPakistaniChristians.

OutsideLahore,inaChristiancommunity,a Pakistani pastor had festooned his church with loudspeakers, just as mosques do, toconveyhismessageabroad.OtherChristiansof the same community were appalled, seeing itasapotentiallydangerousprovocation.

NotreDameInstituteofEducation(NDIE)is required by Karachi University (KU) tosubmit the names of their best students each year.ShouldaChristianindeedbenominatedas the highest achiever, it is not uncommon for KU to elevate a lower achieving Muslim studenttotheprimeposition.

Other instances of intimidation ofChristiansfollow:

A Christian peon at NDIE in Karachidecided that, because electricity supply had been constantly cut by a nocturnal thief pinching the copper transmission wire, he would stake it out. On one night, he actually caught the copper thief in the act as he

EncountEring


shinned the electricity pole. He releasedhim immediately as the thief called him a blasphemer. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are most intimidating for all minorities.They are often exploited to settle scores,to try to claim land, to intimidate. Even ifa court were to exonerate an accused, it is not uncommon for zealots to execute the accusedblasphemerafterrelease.

In 1998, John Joseph, the CatholicarchbishopofFaisalabad,committedsuicidein protest against the death sentence for blasphemypassedonapoorChristian,AyubMasih.

A KU professor and this writer were observing a practice teaching test in aChristianschool.Inthecourseofthelesson,the student teacher displayed a large portrait ofIslamicpoet,AllamaIqbal.Theprofessorleapt to his feet, strode to the front of the class, tore the picture down and cast it to the floor. It wasmost disconcerting to thestudent teacher, but for the professor, it was perceived as an insult to Allah, Creator of all things. How dare any attempt bemade toreplicateHiswork!

Islamic DiversitySome newspapers have suggested

that perhaps up to 10% of PakistaniMuslims are jihadist, militants, or extreme fundamentalists. Many despair at what they regardasthehi-jackingofIslambythemoremilitant and over-zealous factions. Theygreatly appreciate the Christian schools,clamour to have their children enrolled there, and proudly proclaim the Christian schooleducation they themselves had received;the Convent of Jesus and Mary, Karachi Grammar, St. Joseph’s, St Patrick’s, are some well-knownChristianschools,manyofwhichhave schooled the military, political andprofessional elites. On a more personal level they offer hospitality, understanding, and adeep compassion.

On the other hand, there are, indeed, Muslimswhosee Islamic revivalascentredin a nuclear armed Pakistan, a return to the traditionsofthe“goldenage”ofIslam,andSharia discipline. Many of these are literalists anddeclarethattheQ’ranisAllah’sword,notopen to human interpretation. Confrontedwith endemic corruption, bribery, drugsandcrime,theyseethesolutioninareturnto a pure form of Islam by eliminatingapostates, heretics, blasphemers, andsinners. Consequently Ahmadis and Shiaare declared as non-Muslim and outcasts.Alongside such internal enemies, Christianinfidels are largely irrelevant bystanders.Hindus,averytiny,povertystrickenminority,are singled out for particular opprobrium.One textbook, designed for tertiary degreestudentsandexamcandidates,evenclaims:

The socialisation of Arab countries produces brave Muslims. The Hindu produces non-believers in God and hatred for Muslims is socialised by Jews. The Pakistani society produces Muslims in faith, brave in courage, and hard working in their profession.

While this extraordinary claim does not directlyimplicateChristians,itdoesillustratetheclimatethatpoisonsinterfaithrelations.

Currently, with the global reassertionof Islam, Muslims are being challenged toelectwhichIslamtheyshouldadoptamongthe competing interpretations. Christiansmust react, and not sanction the moreviolent interpretations; thesewouldnotbeacceptable for dialogue.

DialogueNonetheless,someChristiansandsome

Muslimsareengagingindialogue.Interfaithunderstanding at NDIE is promoted forevery cohort of students. Prayer and reflection are encouraged, and there isalso an annual student project to present variousworldfaiths–Judaism,Christianity,Islam,Hinduism,Zoroastrianism,Buddhism,

Baha’i – to their fellow students via drama, dress, ritual, talk and power point followed byquestionsanddiscussion.Theresults,bynecessity, are a huge over-simplification,but theproject isenthusiastically receivedbyallstudentsincludingMuslims.Itclearlymanifestsastheirfirstexposuretoanotherfaith, and is considered a highlight of the year.

Morepertinenttotheformalexpressionof dialogue is the Christian Study Centrein Rawalpindi, established in 1967. It isecumenical and maintains contact with Islamic scholars and social scientists, asreflected in its journal, Al Mushir. TheCentre also works with non- Governmentorganisations(NGOs)onavarietyofhumanrights issues, and tries to counter bigotry, stimulatesocialharmony,peace,justiceandtolerance.

The Centre is particularly critical ofChristiansandtheirghettomentality,whichis seen as a major reason for not reaching out toothers. Christians are alsourged toshedtheir“Western”identity,withitslinkstocolonialoppression.Christiansthen,areencouragedtobethe“leaveninthebread”or the “salt of the earth” – a challengingrole for such a small and fearful minority.

There are notable leaders who express views on dialogue with optimismthat meaningful interfaith dialogue can be achieved, for example the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury in 2005, and the Rev.CanonPervezAugustine.

The Catholic Church, too, has made efforts to promote better relations withIslam.According toAyden, itacknowledgesAllah as identical to the ChristianGod, thesharing of the Abrahamic-Mosaic tradition,and common customs like prayer and fasting. It also acknowledges the statusallocated to Mary (Mariam) by Muslims. Morecriticallythough,heclaims,ithasnotgrantedduerespecttothepropheticnature

EncountEring


ChristianityandIslam continued

of Muhammed (pbuh). Yet, it can be noted, Muslims recognise Christ as a prophet, albeitnotthefinalone.

The challenge for Muslim-Christiandialogue globally is critical if a “clash ofcivilisations” is to be avoided. Perhapsthe increasing diaspora of Muslims as minority settlers in other parts of theworld, includingAustralia,offersasingularopportunity for a more open dialogue to occur,withthepotentialto influencetheircountry of origin.

BibliographyAugustine,P.,(2013)Inter –Faith in

Action Perspectives: An Introduction to the Country of Pakistan, Anglican Communion Officehttp://nifcon.anglicancommunion.org/work/perspectives/pakistan.cf

Ayden, M.,(2002) Teaching about Non-Christians in General and Muslims in particularwithspecialreferenceto2ndVaticanCouncil

Beg,M.A.,(1987)New Dimensions in Sociology,HumdardFoundationsPress,

Carey, F., (1999) Dalit, Dhimmi or Disciple? The Importance of Pakistani Christian Identity for the Formulation of Contextual Christian Theology in Pakistan, UnpublisheddissertationfortheDegreeofMaster of Theology, University of Edinburgh, Master of Divinity

Esposito,L.,(1999/3)“IslamicFundamentalism”articleinSidic V. XXXII

http://www.notredamedesion.org/en/dialogue_docs.php?a=3b&id=16

Goodenough,P(2003)AsElectionsapproach

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/elections-approach-pakistan-s-non-muslim-minorities-call-voting-changes

ImmigrationandRefugeeBoardofCanada, Pakistan: Situation of Christians in Pakistan, including social and government attitudes, treatment and rights(2010-2012),14January2013,PAK104259.E,availableat:http://www.refworld.org/docid/510f8dbd2.html

Moghal, D.,(2001) Building the Kingdom of God on Earth with Special Reference to PakistanthroughtheWorkoftheChristianStudyCentre,AlMushir,V.43,N.2http://sedosmission.org/old/eng/moghal.htm

Moghal,P.,(1998)From Dialogue of Mind to Dialogue of Hearts Al Mushir, V.40/1

Rabbani,M., & Sayyid, M.A.,(1992) An Introduction to Pakistan Studies, 5th ed., Caravan Press, Lahore

Taga,A.H.,(1990)Sociology: An Introduction,IsmailBros.Publication,Lahore, Revised Ed.

Bernie Trantor

Overthepastfouryears,inter-faithhasrisenfurtherupthenationalagendaintheUK. Inter-Faith Week, established by theLabour government in 2009, has become part of the annual calendar in November. In 2011, 507 registered events took placeduring the designated week, with several more likely to have occurred. These ranged from dialogue sessions and talks, such as those run by the respected St Ethelburga’s CentreinthecityofLondon,tosocialaction,music, arts and cultural events. Last year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in London hasfosteredarenewedspiritofcooperation,with 162 chaplains from different faithsall working together to fulfil the religiousand spiritual need of the thousands of competing athletes. Furthermore DannyBoyle’s opening ceremony for the London Olympics in July had strong depictions ofBritain as a multi-faith and multi-ethniccountry.

Inter-faith dialogue in the UK hasbeen enthusiastically embraced by theJewish community, particularly from thetime of the establishment of the Councilof Christians and Jews (CCJ) in 1942. Atthe time, Archbishop William Temple andChief Rabbi Dr J H Hertz, disturbed byreports of what was happening to Jews on the European continent, formed a neworganisation to combat anti-Semitism. Atthe pivotal meeting on 20th March 1942tosetuptheCouncil,theattendeesagreedthat“theNaziattackonJewryhasrevealedthat antisemitism is part of a general andcomprehensive attack on Christianity andJudaism and on the ethical principles

common to both religions which form the basis of the free national life of GreatBritain.”

As well as CCJ, Britain is home to a number of other interfaith organisations,both bilateral and multilateral. Besidesfaith leaders, such as the Archbishop of CanterburyandtheChiefRabbi,akeyfigureremains the effervescent nonagenarian, SirSigmund Sternberg, the founder of the Three Faiths Forum. Recent census results showed that the Jewish community identifying byreligion in the UK numbered 263,000, which is 0.5% of the total population marking asteep fall from the mid-twentieth centuryfigure of 430,000. Given the relativepaucity of our numbers, it is imperativethat the community has positive channelsofcommunication to theChristianmajority(33.2millionor59.3%ofthepopulation)andminoritygroupsparticularlyfromtheMuslim(4.8%of the totalpopulation),Hindu (1.5%oftheUKpopulation)andSikhcommunities(0.6%oftheUKpopulation).

At the epicentre of the Jewish community’s inter-faith commitments

stands CCJ. Several years ago, in the course of an informal conversation with a juniorbishop, he made an interesting commentabout the Christian-Jewish relationship.Over a cup of coffee, he toldme “we areold friends but we sometimes take eachother for granted.” Even though it was some years ago, the remark has stayed with me. Itcamefromsomeonewhorecognisedtheimportance of the relationship, but wasconcerned that it could slip down people’s listofpriorities.

Alongside this well-meaning anxietyabout Christian-Jewish relations, thereare those who take a pessimistic view ofthis bilateral relationship, arguing that itis not a priority or, at worst, passé and irrelevant. From a Christian perspective,it is argued that numbers in the Jewish community are significantly smaller thanotherminoritycommunities,andthefocusshould be on developing relationshipswith newer minority faith groups. From a Jewish standpoint, some argue that the major investment in inter-faith should bein Jewish-Muslim relations with a viewtowards calming tensions on polarised attitudestothepoliticsoftheMiddleEast.There are people in both communitieswho believe that inter-faith relations arebest seen in a wider multi-faith contextrather than a bilateral one, at the very least involving the three Abrahamic faiths in a threeway conversation. In addition, thereare voices in both our communities whoargue that dialogue within, rather than between, our faith traditions should takeprecedence.

EncountEring


The View from the United Kingdom

Zaki Cooper Zaki Cooper is a Trustee of the UK’s Council of Christians and Jews, and writes on inter-faith and other issues.

He lives in London and works full-time in communications.

In 1962, the American statesman Dean Acheson famously remarked that the UK has “lost an Empire and has not yet found a role”, but despite this apparent identity crisis, it has over recent years established itself as a leader in inter-faith relations, with Christian-Jewish relations at the forefront of this. According to figures from the UK’s Inter-Faith Network, there are over 300 inter-faith organisations in the country, compared with just 80 such bodies in the year 2000. The terrorist attacks in London in July 2005, perpetrated by Muslim extremists, have reinforced the need for authentic dialogue, which had already been kick-started as a response to the atrocities of 9/11 in 2001 and the Bali bombings in 2002.

Inter-faith dialogue

in the UK has been

enthusiastically

embraced by the

Jewish community...

EncountEring


ChristianityandIslam continued

Withsomanyviewsontheprioritiesandrelative importance for inter-faith relations,it is not surprising that CCJ can feel at the heart of navigating complexity. All thismakes the terrain for theorganisationverychallenging. Yet in spite of all this, having been a Trustee of CCJ since 2008, I havegrowninmyappreciationoftheimportanceof its work. Reflecting on it, there are fivekeyreasonswhyIthinktheChristian-Jewishrelationshiphasacrucialroletoplayinthefuture, with CCJ as the bridge.

First, CCJ can help to educate each communityabouttheother.Anyrelationshipis deepened through knowledge and understanding about each other. As Christians and Jews in the UK, we livealongside each other, but don’t always know thatmuchaboutour traditions,beliefsandpractices (often relying on the elementaryreligious studies classes we took at school). In this country it is particularly importantthat Christians are taught about Jews andJudaism, since many will never have met someoneJewish.AnumberofmyChristianfriends from university days remarked that the first time they met a Jew when theywere studying away from home and came toa“multi-faith”campus.Inaneraofhigh-speedcommunicationstechnology,wehavemore potential both to understand andmisunderstandeachother.Littleknowledgecan be dangerous and it is therefore helpful to make meaningful relationships withpeople of other faiths.

Second, CCJ has an important role in countering current-day antisemitism.As is well documented, much historic antisemitismcamefromtheChurchesintheUK and the rest of Europe. The massacre of the Jews of York at Clifford Tower in 1190serves as a shameful reminder of the period when the Jews of England were persecuted before being expelled in 1290. Chief Rabbi Sacks alluded to this, when he was given the

honour of addressing the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 2008: “Friends – this is forme a profoundly moving moment. You have invitedme,aJew,tojoinyourdeliberations,andIthankyouforthat,andforallitimplies.There is a lot of history between our faiths, and for me to stand here counting as Ido the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York as beloved colleagues, is a signal of hope for our children and the world they will inherit. Many centuries ago the Jewish sages asked, who is a hero of heroes? They answered, not one who defeats his enemy but one who turns an enemy into a friend. That is what has happened between JewsandChristians:strangershavebecomefriends.”

Third, the recent episode of the Church of Scotland’s report on Israel shows howmuch work there is to do to have a sensible discussion about the Middle East, to reach a point where we truly internalise each other’sanxietiesandperspectives.Itfollowson the heels of reports and motions fromothers Churches, such as the Anglicans andMethodists,whichhave ledtodisquietamongst the British Jewish community.Whilst CCJ needs to help Christiancommunities become better informedabout the history of Israel and its currentconcerns, itcanalsosupporttheeducationoftheJewishcommunityabouttheChristianpopulations of and attachments to theMiddle East.

Fourth, CCJ has an important role to play in countering aggressive proselytisingmovements within the Church, which make the Jewish community feel uncomfortable. Therehavebeenpositiveeffortstoaddressthe potency of groups such as “Jews forJesus”, and significant progress has beenmade in this area over recent years. For instance,soonafterbecomingArchbishopin1991, George Carey refused to be a Patron of the Churches Ministry to the Jews.

Fifth, CCJ should be at the forefront ofencouraging the common ground between our communities on ethical teachings. Toborrow Chief Rabbi Sacks’ terminology, there are issues where we can collaborate side-by-sideratherthanface-to-face.Astwogreat religions with profound wisdom and teachings founded on ethical monotheism, Christianity and Judaism have much tocontribute to the discussion of contemporary issues. This was the rationale for startingCCJ’s City Seminar series in 2009. Since then, we have held nine seminars in central London, mainly focused on the moral issues around the so-called “crisis of capitalism”,withanumberofseniorbusinessfiguresandclerics.

CCJ in Britain has stood proudly as a channel between the two communities forover70years,andhasacrucialroletoplayin the future, as part of the overall inter-faith landscape. We do not always agree or see things in the same way, nor will we, but throughourcollectiveefforts,wecanhelptodeepen the respect for and understanding of each other in the future for our mutual benefit,andforthebettermentoftheentiresocial fabric of Britain.

Zaki Cooper

With so many views on the priorities and relative importance for

inter-faith relations, it is not surprising that CCJ can feel at the

heart of navigating complexity.

EncountEring


Dialogue, Between Two Families

Irris Makler Irris Makler, an Australian award-winning foreign correspondent and author, has been based in the Middle East for

nine years. She has filed stories from Jerusalem, Gaza, Baghdad and Cairo for radio, television and online news servicesaround the world - including the ABC, and Channels 7 and 9.

The Palestinian family – The IbhisadsOn a hot morning in June 2013 music

therapistDanHalperin is sittingnearabedinside a bright ward at Schneider’s Children’s hospital in Tel Aviv. He is playing guitar.Accompanyinghimondrums is thepatientlying in the bed, ten year old Yaakoub Ibhisad, a plump curly headed Palestinianboy wearing a blue pyjama and a face mask, who looks smaller than his age. A nurse, walking by, advises Yaakoub in Hebrew tobangharder,ashardashecan.Heobliges.As each day passes, he has more energy. Yaakoub has been transformed following a kidney transplant in May. (All paediatric organ transplants in Israel are carried outhere at Schneider Hospital.) Yaakoub’smother Suhaila, watching her son with pleasure,sayshe’sadifferentchild.

“Whilehewashavingdialysishewasinaterriblestate.Itwashard,andithurt,andhecouldn’teat forhoursafterwards–andwedidit4timesaweek.”saysSuhailaIbhisad.

SuhailahadbroughtYaakoubtoIsraelfordialysis from their home in the West Bank town of Hebron for six years. Dialysis isn’tavailableintheWestBank,sothePalestinianAuthority helped to pay for Yaakoub to be treated in Israel. But his condition wasdeteriorating. It reached the stage whereYaakoub needed a kidney transplant. There was no match in his family – not even from his twin sister. Doctors began to fear Yaakoub might not survive, when they were told a kidneyhadbecomeavailable. It camefromanIsraelichild.

The Israeli family – The NaorsInMay this year, three year old Noam

Naor was playing in his home in Ramle, when he slipped out of a window, and fell head first onto concrete two floors below.Hewasrushedtohospital,wheretragically,they realised they couldn’t save him. Six days later, when doctors confirmed to Sarit and

Avi Naor that their youngest son was brain dead,theyweredevastated.However,theyalso agreed to donate Noam’s organs to save other children.

Noam’s mother Sarit Naor says it was an agonising decision.

“If I went only on feeling, then I’dobviouslysayno”,saysSaritNaor.“ButonceIwenton reason instead, I had to say yes,because Noam wouldn’t return any more anditwasbettertosavealife.”

Her cousin Pini was by her side at thehospital.

“We come from a traditional Jewishfamily and so we checked everything according to Jewish law”, he says. “Weconsulted rabbis to be sure we were allowed to do it. And once Sarit had made her decision on religious grounds, she had no doubts. She had tears streaming down her face, but her ‘yes’was bold and clear. Shewas simply amazing.”

Inconflict-riddenIsrael,whatisperhapsmost amazing was that Sarit Naor and her husband Avi made no distinction betweenIsraelisandPalestinians.Theywerepreparedfor Noam’s organs to be used to save the life of any child who needed them.

“I didn’t think – Arab; Jew. For meeveryone’s the same, it wasn’t the issue –saving a life was what was important. And we did it with love.”

ThatwasrecognisedbyIsrael’sPresidentShimon Peres, who phoned the couple to express his admiration for their actions.He said, “Whoever saves a life, serves theessence of Judaism. You have made us all proud.”

The OperationThe best match for one of Noam’s kidneys

wasfoundtobethePalestiniantenyearold,YaakoubIbhisad,bynowindesperateneedof a transplant. His mother Suhaila hadwatched the TV news report of Noam’s fall

at a Jerusalem hospital where Yaakoub was having dialysis. But she had never connected that child’s misfortune to the fate of her son.

“We cried when we saw the news. Allthe mothers there in the ward that day prayedtheboywouldbesaved.ButItdidn’thappen,” says Suhaila sadly.

Yaakoub comes up and asks his mother whether he can eat some chips, because otherchildrenonthewardareeatingthem.Suhaila ishappythathisappetiteiscomingback – it’s another sign of recovery – but she saysno.Untilhisbloodpressuregoesdown,he can’t eat such salty food, she explains to him. Instead Suhaila reminds Yaakoub thatthey have to prepare for a special visit today. TheparentsoftheIsraeliboywhosekidneyhas been transplanted into his body are coming to see him.

“Iwanttothankthefamily,first,beforethe doctors”, says Suhaila, “but still it willbe hard for me to see this mother who has sufferedsomuch.Iwanttoseeher,butIamalwaysintearswhenIthinkofher,becauseIknowitismuchharderforherthanforme.IpraythatGodwillgiveheranotherchildtohelp ease her pain.”

I didn’t think –

Arab; Jew. For me

everyone’s the same,

it wasn’t the issue

– saving a life was

what was important.

And we did it with

love.

Dialogue: The two families meetAvi and Sarit Naor arrive late at

SchneiderChildren’shospital,carryingagiftwithballoonsattached.EveryoneisnervousbythetimetheyreachYaakoub’sroom.AfterSaritgivesYaakoubthegift,shestaresathimasifsheismesmerised,repeatingoverandover that he’s sweet, before bursting intotears. She hugs Yaakoub’s mother and the two fathers shake hands. Then Sarit sits on Yaakoub’s bed and asks him if he will give her ahug.Hethrowshisarmsaroundherneck.The ice is broken.

“It’s comforting for me to see him,because I feel as if some part of Noam isstillalive”,saysSarit,herfacestreakedwithtears.

The Naor family quotes from the Bookof Genesis, saying that God made man in Hisimage,andthatthisappliestoallpeopleequally. Everyone watching is moved –including the cameramen recording the emotionalmeeting,andthehospitaldoctors.They confirm that Yaakoub’s operationwasa success but say he can’t go home yet, for the drugs that will prevent his body from rejectinghisnewkidneyarenotavailableinthe West Bank. The hospital won’t discharge him until they can provide him with the

medicines, or can be sure he has a reliable sourceofsupplybackinHebron.

Dr Efrat Har Lev is Deputy Director ofthehospital, in chargeof its co-ordinationwiththePalestinianAuthority.Shesaysthatwhenever there is a transplant, involving a child who has died, she is moved by the generosity of the parents.

“Everytime!I’vebeenaphysicianinthishospital foralmost20years,and I’mmovedeverytimeafresh,”saysDrHarLev.“Butthereisalsoanotherdimension.Ifeelthatfromthisstory we can reach a much larger audience on the Israeli and Palestinian sides; so wearetreatingthepatient,butIseeitinamuchwider context.”

When the medical staff and the medialeave Yaakoub’s bedside, the two families areable to relax together for thefirsttime.Sarit Naor has come to the hospital with a number of family members, including her twin sister. They are thrilled to learn that Yaakoub has a twin sister too. It’s anotherpoint of connection. Suhaila tells Sarit thatshe was following the news of Noam’s accident on the news in hospital, along with the other mothers on the ward that day. The information that theywereall cryingmakesSarit cry again, too. But she is happy to hear it.

The Israeli family repeat over andover how much Yaakoub resembles Sarit’s oldest son. Sarit and Avi tell Yaakoub they have a boy his age at home, and invite him to come over when he feels better. Theyscribble down their address and the parents exchange phone numbers.

It’s rare to see such good-will here – amoment of grace, where the daily hatred and suspicion are overcome. These two families know they are bound by a tragedy that has robbed one family of a son and given another boy a new chance at life. Sarit Naor says she hopes this transplant will have alargereffect,andwillalsoprovideasparkforpeace…

EncountEring


Dialogue, Between Two Families continued

IrrisMakler

Programs are designed to promote lastingpeaceandadvancementintheMiddleEast, by fostering tolerance, economic and technological development, cooperationandwell-being,allinthespiritofPresidentPeres’ vision. ThePeresCentre’s innovativeprograms comprise a diverse and multi-faceted spectrumof participants – old andyoung; women, men, children and youth;professionals and agents of change, with an emphasis on residents of disadvantaged communities. Programs empower thepopulationsoftheMiddleEasttobeactivelyengaged in peace building in order to advancethecreationofareal,effectiveanddurable peace, in fields such as medicine,sports, agriculture, the environment, business,education,youth, technology, thearts, and more.

ByfocusingoncommonArabandIsraelisocial, economic, developmental, cultural andeducational interests, thePeresCentrecontinues to successfully forge lastingpartnerships between Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians and neighbouringcountries, based on mutual respect and understanding. Barriers are broken down, fears are overcome, dialogues are conducted and friendships are formed, paving the way toarealandlastingpeace.

For over 10 years the Peres Centre has beenengenderingdialogueandcooperationbetweenIsraelisandPalestiniansinthefieldofmedicineandhealthcare.ThePalestinianhealthcare system faces increasing demands on its limited resources as the conflictcontinues. In cooperation with the Israelimedical community, the Peres Centre assists in the creation of an independentPalestinianmedical system through human

resource development, advancement of complexmedical services and cross-bordercooperation and knowledge transfer, aswell as providing humanitarian medical aid to Palestinian babies and children. Theseprojects are a contribution from heartto heart, forging real, people-to-peopledialogue at its most basic, human level.

The Saving Children project, for example, was initiated in 2003 by President ShimonPeres and has since become one of its central projects. This humanitarian project treats Palestinian babies and children in Israelihospitals for complex medical procedures and diagnoses in cases where such services areunavailableinthePalestinianAuthority.The Palestinian population is very young –50% is under theageof 15–whichplaces

high demand and great pressure on the paediatric capacities of the Palestinianhealthcare system.

In partnership with the Palestinianpaediatric community, since 2003 this project has facilitated the referral of over 10,000 Palestinian babies and children toIsraeli hospitals for complex investigations,diagnoses, and surgical procedures such as cardiac surgery, bone marrow transplantations, cochlear implantations,brain and neurosurgery, cancer treatment and more.

The project brings together the best in the Israeli and Palestinian civil societies,incorporatinganetworkofover60Palestinianand Israeli doctors, referring, treating andmonitoring the children. Furthermore, the projectcreatesconnectionsbetweenparentsfrombothsides,PalestinianandIsraeli,whoare bound by a common purpose and hope of seeing their children recover from illness.

Suha Atrash, an Arab Israeli from Jaffaand a Project Manager in the Medicine and Healthcare Department tells us about herexperiences running the Saving Children program:

“Even after the treatment is over, many children continue to be monitored by the medical team in Israel, and this unique connection between the Palestinian family and the Israeli team continues… the mutual respect that is formed throughout this difficult experience goes a long way to changing mindsets on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, and demonstrates the special outcomes that can result from cooperation.”

Hand-in-hand with the humanitarianproject, the Peres Centre also runs a

EncountEring


Cooperation on a Daily BasisDialogue in Medicine and Healthcare; at the Peres Centre for Peace

Elysa Rapoport Elysa Rapoport joined the Peres Centre in 2010 as the Grants, Marketing and Communications Officer in the External Relations and

Development department and in this capacity has been involved in the successful establishment of numerous partnerships and cooperationwith foundations,corporations and individuals abroad. Elysa was born in Australia and immigrated to Israel in 2007.

...the Peres Centre

conducts dozens of

projects, involving

thousands of Israelis

and Palestinians,

Jews and Arabs,

fostering socio-

economic cooperation

and people-to-people

interaction.

The Peres Centre for Peace is Israel’s leading non-profit organisation promoting peace building between Israel and its Arab neighbours, particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel. Founded in 1996 by the President of Israel and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres, the Peres Centre conducts dozens of projects, involving thousands of Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, fostering socio-economic cooperation and people-to-people interaction.

capacity-building program for Palestiniandoctors in Israeli hospitals. Unfortunately,there are very limited opportunities inthe Palestinian Authority for doctors todevelop professionally and complete any sort of structured residency program. Most Palestinian doctors study overseas onscholarships or heavily subsidised programs in Eastern Europe, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or other Arab countries. When they return to their home cities, they need to completeresidencies in order to specialise and gain professional experience.

In the highly developed Israelihealthcare system, with over 30 state-of-the-artmedicalcentresequippedwithhighlyqualified specialistsandadvanced facilities,Israel offers a key to the development ofPalestinian healthcare services throughthe sharing of resources, know-how, andin particular, human resources training,whilstalsopresentinga tangiblemeans forreconciliation.

Accordingly, this cooperation betweenthe Israeli medical community, withits state-of-the-art facilities and highly

trained doctors, and the marginalised, underdeveloped Palestinian healthcaresystem is awin-win for both sides, both interms of building trust and understanding about“theother.”

The Training Doctors project also represents a fine example of cross-bordercivil society cooperation at themost basic,humanitarian level: to date over 170Palestinian doctors have been trained.In a region of conflict, it is the sick, theneedy, and children who are most reliant on the strength of the healthcare system for their personal health and wellbeing. StrengtheningtherelationshipbetweentheIsraeliandPalestiniancivilsocieties,throughtheir respective healthcare systems andhealthcare professionals, has the power to produce concrete peace dividends – as both benefitthroughexposure,people-to-peoplecontactandcooperation,andaccordinglytotheirqualityoflife.

Basedonthetrainingneedsidentifiedbythe PalestinianMinistry of Health, medicaltrainees participate in residencies andfellowshipsinIsrael’sleadinghospitalsforup

tofiveyears.TraineesliveinIsraelandlearnHebrew,becomingpartofthemedicalteamat the hospital at which they are placed. Upon completion of training, the doctors returnto their Palestinian hospitals, significantlyincreasing the capacities of the Palestinianhealthcare system. The project generates concrete cross-border cooperation andknowledgeexchange,aswellasdeep-rootedprofessionalandpersonalrelations.

For more information about the PeresCentre for Peace, and its many programs thatbringtogetherthousandsofIsraelisandPalestinians,JewsandArabsannually,canbefoundbyvisitingwww.peres-centre.org.

EncountEring


CooperationonaDailyBasis continued

Elysa Rapoport

The School of Dialogue has already given thousands of Polish middle and high school students from one hundred and fifty schools the opportunity to makeindependent discoveries, uncover hitherto-unknown history, and to experience poignant moments. At the same time, ithas given them a sense of responsibility for preserving the memory of past Polish Jewry. We start with intriguing students about the Jewish past of their own town, lead them to research local history, and oblige them to should share their discoveries with other people. This way, by working for four days with 25-30 teenagers, we are often ableto influencehundredsof others in theonetown.

An overwhelming sense of surprise predominates among the School of Dialogue participants.“UptillnowIhadnocluethattherehadbeenJewsinprewarBoguchwała,”admitsastudentfromBoguchwała.PaulinafromWadowice isequally shocked to learnthat the town usually associated with Pope John Paul II had a rich Jewish history aswell. “These workshops help you discoveran alternative universe,” says Kasia fromSkarzysko-Kamienna. “I look at my townfrom an entirely new perspective, I walkthesamestreets,butnowIknowwhatwasherebefore.”Thispositivechangeisgainedin the course of four workshops conducted by trained Forum educators during which students discover their towns’ Jewish history inahands-oneducationalexperience.Mostof them confess later, that owing to the project,theirperspectiveontheirhometownhadchanged:thestreetstheywalkmaybethe same, yet the context in which they see those streets is markedly different. All the

School of Dialogue participants agree thatthe town’s residents should see these places as they themselves now do. “Every singleBochnia resident should know at least some Jewish history of our town,” argues Justyna. “WhenI tellmyfriendsandrelativesaboutwhatIhavelearned,theyareoftenshocked,”addsZuziafromLegionowo.Ioftenhearthesamereaction–“Jews lived here?!”

The School of Dialogue program goes beyond the school walls, as it requiresstudents to research the topic on their own, interview residents and experts, and discover forgotten places. In small townsthese activities cannot but attract people’sattention. Anna Janus, a teacher fromKońskie, has observed that through theirquestions theseyoungpeopleengage theirentirefamilies,parentsandgrandparents,inaconversationaboutthepastanditsimpacton the present and future.

When their projects are complete the students love toflaunt theknowledgetheygained.Theyoftencommentthattheywouldlike their own neighbors to be similarly aware. One great paradox of the School of Dialogueworkshopsisthattheparticipants,teenagersthemselves,areofteninapositionto teach their own parents and teachers about local Jewish history and culture. It

quickly turns out that there are no betterexperts on the subject than these students themselves. As part of the project and using all their newly acquired knowledge, Schoolof Dialogue participants are expected toinitiateguidedtoursof Jewishsites in theirown home towns. The students select the participants, and the formof the tour. It istheir project; they decide! Typically, theyoung participants arrange something fortheir friends, clearly sharing with them what they have learned.

Inmanyplaces,studentsorganiseatourfor their own schoolmates. For some of the projects, about thirty peers are invited, while some tours are attended by a largerparticipation–asinthecaseofthemiddle-school students from Małkinia Górna whoinvited students from most of the local middle-schools to attend. What is more,they repeated the same tour for a group who couldnotmakeitfortheinitialdateset.InKońskie, the entire school joined the tour:every fifteenminutes a small groupwouldleave the school accompanied by their own “guide.”

One of the most gratifying elementsof the workshops is seeing how involved the students become in their project work. They do not shy away from appealing to localauthorities,aswellastothemedia,topromoteandamplifytheproject’simpact.Itisnotuncommonfortheiractionstoreachsurprisingly largeaudiences;manytimesallof the students at a given school elect to take part in the town tour tracing the history of its former Jewish community.

The majority of the program’s participantshavenevermetaJewishperson.They learn little about Jewish culture at

EncountEring


The School of Dialogue in Poland

Zuzanna Radzik Zuzanna Radzik is a Board Member of the Forum for Dialogue Among the Nations, a non-profit Polish organisation whose mission is tofoster Polish-Jewish dialogue, eradicate anti-Semitism and teach tolerance through education. The Forum fulfills its mission through

seminars, publications, exhibitions, and exchange programs targeted at Polish and Jewish youth and leaders.

The majority of

the program’s

participants have

never met a Jewish

person.

Almost every small town in central-eastern Poland has some Jewish history, as well as having material remnants of a Jewish community that lived there and contributed to that town’s life and development. Forum for Dialogue Among Nations strives to be present with its educational project, the School of Dialogue, in places where Jewish history is gradually being forgotten. It is an educational program created and implemented by Forum for Dialogue Among Nations since 2008.

school, focusing mostly on the history of the Holocaust rather thanon thedaily lifeof aJewish community. This lack of knowledge is often the root of prejudice. Ania andDamian from Busko Zdrój confess that theworkshops had provided food for thought:“Weunderstoodthatourperspectivewasallwrong.” A classmate adds that, thanks to the workshop,shelooksatJewsdifferentlyandsomeday would like to meet a Jewish person.

The School of Dialogue programs do not offer real and tangible Polish/Jewishdialogue as a part of its curricula, but we believe its programs do prepare students for potential future encounters with Jews.Students become more knowledgeable and develop a deeper understanding of Jewish perspectivesandsensitivities.

What would happen if descendants of Jews from your town came to visit you? If they wanted to see the cemetery andthe synagogue, wanted to see the town? Would you be able to help them? This is how the conversation about the participants’responsibility to keep alive the memory of the perished Jews begins. Soon they are bewitched with the vision that there are people in the world who also care about theirlittletown.Theybegintolongforsuchameetingtotakeplace.“NowIknowenoughtotakeadescendantofWęgrówJewsonatour of the town,” assures a student from Węgrów. “If youwant to learnmore aboutyour ancestors, visit our town; my friendsandIwillbehappytohelpyou,”promisesastudentfromJasło.Similarly,astudentfromOtwockadds: “To tell you the truth, Ihavenever seen an actual Jew in my town, which doesnotmeanthatIwouldnotliketomeetoneandhaveaconversationwiththem.”

For the descendants of Polish Jews, returning to the hometowns of ancestors is all too often a bittersweet experience,especially since family memories, handed from one generation to the next, stand instark contrast to the void which remains after a community has perished. The factthat remaining traces of the community’s existence have turned to ruin only adds pain to the visitors’ experience. Thus, visitors encountering a group of sensitiveandwell-informedteenagersattunedtothecomplexitiesofPolish-Jewishrelations,ableto show them around their hometown’s Jewish sites, and share with them extensive knowledge of its local Jewish community, isoneof thebestwaysof alleviating someinitial tension. Suchameeting leads toanaltogether different experience of Poland,withitscomplexPolish-Jewishheritage.

With our assistance, such encounters havetakenplaceinabouttwentylocations,demonstrating how the School of Dialogueis not only restoring the memory of Jewish presence in Poland, but is also fostering reconciliation between Poles and Jews ona personal and local level that is especially heartfelt.

EncountEring


The School of Dialogue in Poland continued

Zuzanna Radzik

...its programs do

prepare students

for potential future

encounters with

Jews.

IattendedthelocalmixedschoolduringtheweekandwenttoHebrewclassesontheweekend. I was an avid reader, enthralledby the storieseg. goodQueenEsther, andremember listening avidly and intensely to the rabbi as he wove his way through the history of our people.

Often I went to the library, becominga lover of historical books. I wrote andread Hebrew at a young age, causingme problems at school, as Hebrew waswrittenfromtherightsideofthepage.Myfavourite times thoughwere spent onmygrandfather’s (zeida) lap, as he recounted in Yiddish his story as a migrant to a country where they changed his name from Schmall Shivok Levi to Sam Levy. Amongst my proudest possessions are his barmitzvah ring,whichIhavewornsinceheleftus,andmy late Aunt Celia’s prayer book which was printed in 1923.

I loved being Jewish, it was special –thefood–thehistory–thetraditions.And1948, the year of my birth, was also theproclamationoftheStateofIsrael.

Times were tough for the Jewish kids at our school, in an area that would become a melting pot – with little knowledge ofJudaism leading to even less tolerance of our faith and way of life. There was resentment that we had Jewish as well as Christianholidays–eventhoughIdidoffertoattendschoolduringEaster!Ilearntveryquickly how to deal with ignorance andmisinformation. But to those who didn’tfocusondifference, IwasRozwhoplayedrounders in the playground or you had lunch with.

We moved from North London to live with my great aunt in Staines, Middlesex. She kept a kosher home and was famous

for her chicken soup, despite much competition!Attendinganotherschoolwasa new experience, especially coming from a bustling city to a provincial one. Neither teachers nor students knew any Jewish peopleandonceagainIspentmuchtimeinlibraries, losing myself in religious historical literature.

ThelastschoolIattended,inMiddlesex,had an interesting mix of religions. Lunchtime was spent in heated debates aboutwhose religion was “the right one.” I wasespecially interested in the works of Mary Baker Eddy and still have the copy I wasgiven as a wedding present.

It was entirely apparent that I wasdifferent, not just because I didn’t fit thestereo-typical profile look, but becauseI had been born into a race upon whichhorrificatrocitieshavebeenperpetrated.

And now to the 1960s, “tell it like itis”, flower power, hippies, free thinking.We were a generation that hadn’t livedthrough two world wars and a depression. At this time, I managed comfortablywithoutashulorarabbi.In1969ImarriedTerry in a registry office in Epsom, Surrey,England. Seven months later we were on our way to Australia to start our journey. We unknowingly came to a place which would become themostmulticultural cityin Victoria and the second most in Australia.

There was much to learn about our new country as we started our journey.

Istartedmyinvolvementincommunitylife as we accessed the family services offeredbythelocalcouncilwhenourthreesons started arriving. Their interests were many and varied, which helped us become enmeshed into the community. I becameinvolved with school councils, the local

tennis club, health committees, and soon. I started attending Springvale Councilmeetings and finally, in 1987, decided tostand as a candidate for the then Council of Springvale. One of my new colleagues was a lay preacher who suggested that newly elected mayors have a religious service in their own tradition. However, when Ibecame the Mayor of Springvale, there was nolocalsynagogueinthecouncilarea.Aftermuch discussion it was decided to hold the service at the Keysborough Parish of the Resurrection,whereIread,inHebrew,frommy Auntie Celia’s prayer book, wearingmy zeida’s barmitzvah ring, in a Catholic Church.Iamsuremyzeidawouldhavelikedthat. Iamaffectionately referredtoas theJewish Catholic. The Parish priest couldn’t recall this happening before and everyone attendingfeltpartofsomethingwarmandunique.Thissymbolismisinescapablegivendiscussionswhen Iwasyoungerabout thepossibility of becoming a rabbi.

The Enterprise Migrant Hostel inSpringvale was established in 1970 andbecame the home to many courageous migrantsandrefugees.Ithousedupto100peopleatanygiventimeanditisestimatedthat more than 30,000 people have lived there. Many stayed in the area, even when itcametimeforthemtoleave,becauseofthe warm welcome they received, which resulted in Springvale becoming one of themostculturallydiversecommunities inAustralia.

Ahistoryof thistimecanbe foundonwww.enterprise.org.au. This website is a record of an exhibition developed for theMelbourne Immigration Museum, and isregularly updated with records of recent activities.

EncountEring


My Journey:Dialogue in the City of Greater Dandenong

Rosalind Blades Rosalind Blades was first elected to the former Springvale Council in 1987, served as Mayor of Springvale 1992/93, elected to Greater Dandenong

Council in 1997, was the first woman and overseas born Mayor in the City of Greater Dandenong, elected in 1998/99 and again in 2010/2011.To date she has been the only Jewish Mayor of Springvale and Greater Dandenong and has been involved with the Interfaith Network

of both cities since its inception. Rosalind received an AM this year for significant service to local government and to the community of Greater Dandenong.

I grew up in the suburbs of London, one of which, (Stamford Hill) was known as little Israel. Back then I could buy a delicious potato latke for the grand amount of sixpence. On Sundays I took a bus to the Jewish baker in Stamford Hill for beautiful rye bread and stopping on the way at the delicatessen to buy smoked salmon for our breakfast.

The Springvale Interfaith Network wastheinspirationofaformerCityofSpringvalestaffmemberwhobroughttogetherpeoplefrom many faiths to discuss ways in which faithcommunitiescouldprovideleadership,and promote harmony both within their own faith and in the wider community.

This Interfaith Network – the firstin Australia – was borne as a result and after municipal amalgamations it becameknownastheGreaterDandenongInterfaithNetwork. It is my view that this Network,in a city of 156 different nationalities, isthe “bedrock on which we stand.” Thenetwork is well supported by Greater DandenongCouncilwith in-kindgrantsandadministrative support. We (keep saying“we”) comprise representatives fromBuddhism, Sathya Sai, Sikh, Hindu, HariKrishna,Judaism,ChristianityandIslam.

There is also a prayer roster, where members of the Network recite a prayer from their particular faith, prior to the Councilmeeting. At one meeting the prayer wasgiven by a member of the Baha’i community. Occasionally, if there is a last minute apology, incaseI’mcalledupon,Ihaveaspareprayerin my council desk. On one occasion, when I had to give the prayer, I’d inadvertentlytaken my chiropractor’s notes rather than theJewishprayer–luckilyIrememberedtheShema and recited this instead.

Annually, the network presents a signed common statement of faith to the City of Greater Dandenong. As a network, we have a schools working group, where we liaise with approximately 17 schools to promoteharmony, peace and tolerance. For example, the children from particular local primaryschoolsgiveapresentationon Islam,alongwith two faith leaders.

Interfaith Network tours are wellsubscribed. The Network supplies volunteer tour guides to take visitors to the many temples and churches within Greater DandenongsuchastoanAlbanianMosque,a Buddhist temple, to the Brahma Kumari retreat in Baxter – which no one wants to leave! The Network has good workingrelationships with places of worship andtheyareallmostgenerouswiththeirtime.

I occasionally host interfaith bus toursfortheNationalCouncilofJewishWomen,where I normally have to convince themthatIamactuallyJewish(yes,bothparents)because I have the wrong colouring andcertainly the wrong surname. My maiden name was Press (Russian). Occasionally I have to resort to a Yiddish phrase toconvince them. We took one such tour to anAboriginalsite.Wehavecordialrelationswith our Koori community, having made an apology to themwhen IwasMayor ofGreaterDandenongin1998.

Hopefully, the passion expressed inthesewordswillconveymytotaldedicationto this multicultural city, giving peoplewhat everyone should have a right to – democracy, a roof over their head, peace and tolerance.

EncountEring


MyJourney:DialogueintheCityofGreaterDandenong continued

Rosalind Blades

Hopefully, the

passion expressed

in these words will

convey my total

dedication to this

multicultural city,

giving people what

everyone should

have a right to –

democracy, a roof

over their head,

peace and tolerance.

TheMultifaithDinnerbeganasoneofaseriesofactivitiestocontinuetheengagementof the participants in the annual three-day residential Multifaith Future Leaders Program(MFLP) held the previous February. This program is not designed as an interfaith event in whichtheparticipantssetouttolearnabouteachother’sbeliefsandpractices;itisdesignedtoequippotentialleadersfromabroadrangeoffaithgroups(includingatheists)withmediaskills,negotiationandconciliationtechniquesandthelikethatwillbeneededinleadership.It includes trust-building exercises and recreational activities designed to foster continuingrelationshipsbasedonthattrust.Naturally,inthecourseoftheprogram,theparticipantsdodiscuss their religiouspractices, their similaritiesand theirdifferencesand,asappropriate,their own feelings about these. One of the great outcomes of MFLP is that some of the friendshipsformedcontinueandgrowwellaftertheprogramhasendedandthatoftentheparticipantswillmakecontacttoorganiseasocialgameofsoccerorcricket.

ADCexpectedthatmostof thepeopleattendingthedinnerwouldbepeoplewhohadattendedMFLPsoitwasamostpleasantsurprisethatofthe100youngpeopleatthedinner,fortywerenot Jewishandof those,fifteenwere completelyunknown toADC,broughtbyfriends.

For religious Jews, Shabbat, the Sabbath, is the cornerstone of Jewish life with individual, national(asintheJewishpeople)anduniversalimportance.ItcommemoratesCreationwhenGod rested fromcreationon the seventhdayandhallowed it; it is a remembranceof theenslavement of the Children of Israel in Egypt,when notimewas allowed for rest. TheseremembrancesarerecalledintheKiddush,theSanctificationoftheday,whichisrecitedoverwine or grape juice at the beginning of the Shabbateveningandmiddaymeals.ItmayseemsuperfluoustoreciteKiddushgiventhatthedayisintrinsicallyholy,butitisthemeansbywhicheachindividualJewjoinsGodintheworkofCreation. Shabbatisadayoftruerecreation,adaytoabstainfromallworkandrefreshthesoulthroughstudy,prayerandsong;adayforfamiliestospendtimetogetheratthetableonFridaynightorSaturdayatlunchtime,oratsynagogueor even all three.

In today’s world in which the nuclear family seems to be more important than theextended familygroup,manynon-Jewsfind itdifficult tounderstandthe JewishcustomoffamiliescomingtogetherweekafterweektocelebrateShabbat.“What,goingtoyourparentsagain this Friday? Don’t you get sick of it?” Therefore if we Jews want others to understand us, then Shabbat is an important gateway to that understanding and hence the decision to share aFridaynightdinner.ADCalsodecidedtojoinwithHineni,ayouthgroupbasedatCaulfieldSynagogue, to tap their enthusiasm and energy.

Inorderthatcostshouldnotexcludeanyonewhowishedtoattend,thecostofthefunctionhad to be kept to a minimum and it was decided to cater the event internally rather than engageacaterer.MembersofHineniprovidedlabour,ADCboughtthefoodstuffs,disposableplatesandsoforthandtheactualpreparationwasdoneinthekitchenatCaulfieldSynagogueunder the supervision of the resident cook.

Because Shabbat commencesjustbeforesunsetonaFriday,anearlystartwasrequiredas

EncountEring


Friday Night 3rd May 2013

Ian GrinblatIan Grinblat has been the Operations Manager of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) since October 2004.

In addition, since April 2012, he has compiled and distributed the ADC Update a weekly digest of articles from around the world aboutantisemitism, racism, interfaith and human rights.

The conditions were not promising – an early start, a very cold night with the threat of rain, and a venue some distance from public transport. Nevertheless, an eager young crowd arrived at Caulfield Synagogue in Inkerman Road, Caulfield North at the appointed hour of 5.15pm on Friday 3rd May.

One of the great

outcomes of MFLP

is that some of the

friendships formed

continue and grow

well after the

program has ended.

theservicebeginsinthelateafternoonwithMincha,theafternoonservice.OnaFridaynight,theperiodbetweentheafternoonserviceandtheeveningserviceforShabbat is bridged by a shortbutexquisitelybeautifulservicecalled Kabbalat Shabbat,theReception/AcceptanceofShabbat,comprisingpsalmsandamedievalrhymingpoemofninefour-linestanzassungwitharefrain,composedentirelyofbiblicalverses.CaulfieldSynagogueisalargeandwell-attendedcongregationintheheartofJewishMelbourne.Ithasafinecantor,renownedforhismusicalvoice,andawell-trainedchoirtoassisthimandtoaddbeautytotheservice.

The evening service for ShabbatisbriefbutitisnoteworthythatthespecialpositionofShabbat isreflected inthe liturgy;unlikeanyotherday intheJewishcalendar,theAmidah prayer, the climactic, silentprayerof each servicewhich is saidwhile standing is distinctlydifferentineachserviceon Shabbat. On all other days, the Amidah for the evening, morning andafternoonservicesisidentical.

Aftertheservicestheparticipantsconvenedintheadjoininghallfordinner.Thehallwasset with tables of ten and the guests were asked to please sit with strangers in order to mix thegroupasmuchaspossible.Fortunately,everyoneco-operatedandinshorttimepeoplewerereadyfortheformalcommencementofthemeal.BeforerecitingKiddush, Rabbi Ralph Genende,thechiefministeratCaulfield,welcomedeveryoneandspokeaboutthecentralityof ShabbatinJewishlifeandtheimportanceofinclusiveness.Itwasalsoahappycoincidencethat some of our guests were former refugees and that when Rabbi Ralph spoke during the servicehespokeofourobligationstorefugees.Hethenledtheritualhandwashingandtheblessing over the bread, the formal opening of every meal for a Jew. During the Shabbat meal it is customary to sing hymns composed especially for the table which praise God, Shabbat andCreation;tothesewereaddedsomemodernHebrewsongswhichtheHineniyouthledwithgustowithsomesurprisinganddelightfulcontributionsbysomeofourguests.Hinenialsohadanumberoftable-basedactivitiesdesignedtokeepeveryoneactivelyparticipatingintheevening;oneoftheactivitieswasforeachpersonatthetabletotelltheothersaboutthemselvesor speakaboutan interestingexperience.Theengagementwassuccessful; theroomwasabuzzwithconversation(observantJewscannotplaymusic, liveorrecorded,onShabbat)andthesingingwasfull-throatedandfull-hearted.LeilaGurruwiwi,anindigenousAustralianwhoisapanellistontheTVshow“TheMarngrookFootyShow”,hadneverbeforeinteracted with Jews of her own age. She commented that the prejudice against groups arisesfromfearoftheunknownandthatfunctionssuchasthedinneropendoorstoenablecommunicationbetweenpeopleofdifferentfaithstoidentifyandacknowledgethesimilaritiestheyshareandtheirdifferences.

Themealcontinueduntil9pmwhentheformalitieswereconcludedwiththeGraceafterMeals.Nofurtheractivitieshadbeenplannedbutmostoftheparticipantsstayedontosing,danceandsocialisetogetheruntillate.WhenEdnaLipson,whohadsosuccessfullyorganisedthefunction,admitteddefeatandleftforhomeat11pm,asizeablegroupremainedsinginganddancing.Thatperhapsisthebestmeasureofthesuccessofthisevent–theparticipantsmayhavebeenself-selected,butitistobehopedthattheywillinduceareductionofsuspicionintheirowncommunitiesbytellingtheirfellowsthattheyhavemetmembersofotherfaithsand found them to be people just like themselves. ADC Chairman, Dr Dvir Abramovich, said thatsuchinterfaithinitiativesareimportanttotheADCbecause“theJewishcommunityandotherfaithcommunitiesstandupforeachotherintestingtimesandwillchampiontheideathat diversity is strength and we can all do our part by speaking against bigotry.”

...the Jewish

community and other

faith communities

stand up for each

other in testing times

and will champion

the idea that diversity

is strength and we

can all do our part

by speaking against

bigotry.

EncountEring


Friday Night 3rd May 2013 continued

This searching openness has served me well in the 34 years of my experience working as an ordained full-time ChristianMinister, so the interfaith dimension of my life seems like a natural progressionoroutworkingoftheecumenicalnatureofwhoIam.

My leadership ofMoonee Valley Interfaith Network (MVIN)hasrequiredmetoworkdiligentlytogettoknowtheotherBoardmembers, mentoring the journey to promote respect, harmony andunderstandingofourdifferentfaiths.Iaspiretogivealeadinthequesttobetterlivetogetherinpeaceandgoodwill.Thereisahappy synergy here, because the local Sufi Whirling Dervishes meet weekly in my parish hall – St. John’s Uniting Church, Essendon. I am glad to lead a church community, offering hospitality anda worship place to deeply spiritual Sufi people who are offering a key toheaven for the journeyof the soul. I amquietly proudthatwedothiswhileat thesametime,recognisingthatwhen Icommencedmyministryoverthreedecadesago,Icouldnothaveextendedsuchagracioushand.Ihavechanged–thankGod!

Ihavefoundatheologicalbasisformyinterfaithrelationshipsin the story of Jesus’ encounter with a Syrophoenician woman. For me, this amazing story provides a powerful model for the way we Christians approach interfaith relationships and encounters. InthisstoryitisthestrangerwhochallengesandchangesJesus’understandingofGod’svisionforsalvation.(Mark7:24-30)

This woman was bordered by three boundary markers – her ethnicity, religion and gender set her apart from Jesus in the context of his day. Ordinarily, any one of these barriers would have kept her well away from Jesus, but a strange and unexpected thing happened. Despite these boundaries, she engages him then persists in seeking Jesus’ intervention for the sake of her sick daughter. The woman defiantly crosses her and Jesus’ ethnicboundariestoseekhelpforherdaughter. Indoingsoshechallenges Jesus’ ideology of chosenness. She is determined to share inwhat she believes is “God’s promise to bless all the nations of the earth.”

InthisstoryitisJesuswhohascentrestageasthe“powerfulhost” who is challenged by his vulnerable guest to broaden his vision of God’s salvation. The Syrophoenician woman broadens Jesus’boundaryforthebetter.Iamtryingtolivewiththecourageand grace to do likewise with others who are radically different to me.

So,IleadinterfaithworkbecausemyChristianfaithcallsmetoengagewiththeworldaroundme.Ithashelpedmelookbeyondstereotypes of other faiths and also helped me be clearer about myownfaith.Italsohelpsmetoappreciatehowchallengingitisto be a spiritual person in a very secular world.

Awhileagowe tookourMVINBoardMeeting toAustralia’sonly Yemini Restaurant – in nearby Union Road, Ascot Vale – with some of our friends and partners as invited guests. We reclined on cushions on the floor to enter the mood as we enjoyed the food andsharedmoreofourpersonalstories.Itwasalovelyevening,soeasytoarrangeandIfeltblessedwiththesharing.

InJune2012,IwentonmyfirstIndigenoushistoricalwalkingtour, taking part in a journey involving a traditional welcome and smokingceremonybyanIndigenouselderfollowedbyabushwalkthrough Sunshine listening to stories of Wurundjeri culture, conduct and ceremony. I also visited a stone Quarry site inEssendon,onceusedtomaketraditionaltoolswhereIdiscussedIndigenous culture, landscape and values over afternoon tea. Itwas a lovely day, so easy to arrange and I felt blessedwith thesharing.

InOctober2012, I partneredwithPhilip Feinstein in Sydneyand launched the Making Sad Hearts Glad program in Melbourne to collect donations of musical instruments from the community toenabletheteachingofmusicinImmigrationDetentionCentres.Instruments have been donated and delivered where they arebeing used with volunteer teachers to Make Sad Hearts Glad. MusicbreaksthroughallbarriersandI’vefeltblessedtobepartof such sharing.

I institutedashared“ActofCommitment”–a little ritual tomarkthecommencementofMVINBoardMeetings.AsChairman,Icommencewith:“In a world scarred by the evils of war, racism, injustice and poverty, we offer this joint Act of Commitment as we look to a shared future”. Then everyone responds: “We commit ourselves, as people of many faiths, to work together for the common good, uniting to build a better society, grounded in values and ideals we share: community, personal integrity, a sense of right and wrong, learning, wisdom and love of truth, care and compassion, justice and peace, respect for one another, for the earth and its creatures. We commit ourselves, in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, to work together alongside all who

EncountEring


Reflections on My Interfaith Journey:The Moonee Valley Interfaith Network

Rev Mark J Dunn Rev Dunn is the Minister at St John’s Uniting Church Essendon and the inaugural Chairperson of the Moonee Valley Interfaith Network. From 2002-07 during his ministry in Doncaster, he was the inaugural Chairperson of the Manningham Interfaith Network. He also serves

as a Chaplain to the Australian Army, having recently returned from a four month Peacekeeping deployment in Solomon Islands.

I’m a work in progress as I grow and learn on the journey. Being raised in a healthy Christian home and experiencing the love and support of an open church community (Albion Church of Christ) as a young person certainly contributed greatly to my theological DNA and spiritual formation. I’m forever grateful for a pioneering woman church Elder way back in the 1960s in my home town of Brisbane, who taught me to think and gave us permission to question what was regarded as given.

share our values and ideals, to help bring about a better world now and for generations to come.”

As I continuemy interfaith journey, grounded in hospitalityand in the relationship of guest/host reversal, I pray that I willbe consistently challenged to broaden my understanding of God’s vision of salvation. May you, the reader, as both guest and host in your personal circumstances, be open to learn from faiths different from your own so that your faith experience may be enriched and deepened just as mine has been.

Here are a few ways forward which I find helpful:• Listentopeopleofotherfaithsastheysharewhatisprecious in their faith• Rememberthatthestoryofourpersonalfaithiswhat fascinates others• Listentohowpeopleofotherfaithsunderstandthemeaning of life and be prepared to explain your understanding

It is my hope and prayer that the spiritual DNA inmemaybe a positive influence in God’s amazing world which we steward together. Grace and peace on your journey.

...my Christian faith calls me to

engage with the world around

me. It has helped me look beyond

stereotypes of other faiths...

EncountEring


ReflectionsonMyInterfaithJourney continued

The Archbishop of Canterbury: Justin WelbyOn 6th February this year, the new

Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby,met with Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks at Lambeth Palace.Themeeting,overlunch,offeredanopportunity for the two religious leaders to get to know one another personally and to reaffirm the importanceof the relationshipbetweentheiroffices.

The conversation was wide-ranging,covering matters from business ethics totheimportanceofTheCouncilofChristiansand Jews (CCJ). Also discussed was the place of the Holy Land in Jewish-Christianrelationships,withtheArchbishopaffirmingtheimportanceoftheStateofIsraelfortheJewish community in the UK and in the wider world.

Archbishop Welby, whose decade-longrise in the church is considered meteoric, has had limited experience working with Jewish groups, but activists speak positively of hisrelations with Jews in his former parishesand in the interfaith world.

His father’s familywereGerman Jewishimmigrants who moved to England to escape antisemitism in the late 19th century, andintegrated quickly. His British ancestors, onhis mother’s side, include several clergymen.

The father of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, kept manysecrets. Gavin Welby never told his son the name under which he was born. And, it has emerged, he never told him that he was born a Jew.

Welby’s Jewish grandfather, Bernard Weiler, came to England from Germany in 1886, possibly to escape antisemitism.Together with three of his brothers, he set up a successful company trading in ostrich feathers, which were then a fashion item, and considered a particularly Jewishbusiness. They changed their Germanic-sounding surname toWelby amonth afterBritain declared war on Germany in 1914.

Regardless of his Jewish background, he appears tohave longhadanaffinity for, andinterestin,JewishissuesandinIsrael.

TheArchbishopchosetovisit Israelveryearly in his tenure (he also visited Egypt, the Palestinianterritoriesand,briefly, Jordan).AvisittoYadVashemwasparticularlypoignantas he had only recently discovered that he has relativeswhoperishedintheShoah.

HisearlyaffiliationwiththeChurchofHolyTrinityinBrompton,London,ahighlyinfluentialconservative evangelical institution helpsexplain why Archbishop Welby has always beenperceivedasgenuinelysensitivetoJewsand Judaism. He sees them as “integral toChristianformation,”saysEdKessler,executivedirector of the Woolf Institute, Cambridge,and a leading expert in interfaith relations.“HeisalsoopentoIsraelasaJewishstate.Theconcept of Zionism isn’t alien to him.”

In recent correspondence, Justin Welbyhasspokenofhisownlongexperienceofinter-faith dialogue and conflict resolution work,particularlyinAfricaandtheMiddleEast.Boththe Church of England and the churches of the global Anglican Communion are increasingly engaging with people and communities ofother religions around them, and in ways that are consistent with the Church’s understanding ofitsgospel-basedmissionandministry.

In his first visit to the Holy Land sincehis installation earlier this year, ArchbishopWelbysaidhesought“to serve all the people of this region, without exception” and that he prays for “peace with justice and security.”

The Archbishop spoke at a reception inhis honour in the Peace Garden at St George’s Cathedral, hosted by the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt Rev Suheil Dawani. This was attendedby local Christian leaders fromdifferentdenominations,alongwithdiplomats,ambassadors and Palestinian civil societyleaders.

Acknowledgingtheprofoundsignificanceof Jerusalem for all its faith communities,

the Archbishop said it was “essential” that it remains “an open city”, with Christians,MuslimsandJewshaving“full access” to their holy sites.

InJulythisyear,duringavisittoSouthall,West London, Archbishop Justin told anaudience that diversity was a “gift not a threat” and he did not want to live in a “monocultural”society.Hesaidhe“rejoiced” in the example of inter faith co-operationand community work he had witnessed in Southall. He was speaking after visiting StJohn’sChurch,theShreeRamMandirHinduTemple and the Sikh Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, where 20,000 free meals are servedeveryweek inSouthall.HealsometwithMuslimleadersatamosqueinSouthall;they were observing the Ramadan fast at the time.ArchbishopWelbysaidtheworkdoneby the different faiths he hadwitnessed inSouthall were an example of the “kind of country that I am proud to be in.”

Headded:“When you come to Southall, it is hard to argue against diversity in a place like this. In the Book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament, the Israelites in exile in Babylon are told to bless the community in which they have been put by God. There is a common tradition there of seeking to bless where we are.”

Can the Archbishop have expressed it anybetterthan–“there is no other way than finding each other’s humanity, recognising it, and seeing in it the image of God.”

EncountEring


Three New Faith Leaders

Editor2013 has presented a new Pope, a new Archbishop of Canterbury, and a new Chief Rabbi.

Here, we explore their experiences and inclinations in engaging in interfaith dialogue.

Archbishop of Canterbury JustinWelby

The Pope: Francis I“The Catholic Church is aware of the

importance of the promotion of friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions.”

Four days before the inaugurationof Francis as the new Pope the VaticanInformation Service reported this messageto Dr Riccardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, the oldest Jewish community of the diaspora.

“On this day of my election as Bishop of Rome and Pastor of the Universal Church I send you my cordial greetings, informing you that the solemn inauguration of my pontificate will take place on Tuesday, 19th March. Trusting in the protection of the Most High, I strongly hope to be able to contribute to the progress of the relations that have existed between Jews and Catholics since Vatican Council II in a spirit of renewed collaboration and in service of a world that may always be more in harmony with the Creator’s will.”

At the installation ceremony dozensof Jewish, Orthodox and other Christianleaders came to the Vatican. Those whoknew Jorge Mario Bergoglio in his previous role as Archbishop of Buenos Aires say he considered healing divisions between religions a major part of the Catholic Church’s mission.

At a meeting on Friday, 22nd March,with foreign diplomats accredited to the Vatican,the76-year-oldArgentine,thefirstPontiff ever from thewestern hemisphere,made it clear that an ecumenical revival ishighonhis agenda. “It is not possible to establish true links with God while ignoring other people,” he said – adding surprisingly butemphatically,“I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam.”

Francis was an interfaith pioneer back inBuenosAires.Asanarchbishop,heoftenrubbedelbowswith,andsometimesprayed

with, clerics of numerous other religions, even the Evangelical churches that millions ofdisaffectedLatinAmericanCatholicshavebeen turning to in recent decades.

TheelectionofPopeFrancishasthrilledJewish leaders in Argentina, who predictthat their friend will continue to fosterwarmrelationsandopendialoguebetweenCatholicism and other faiths during his pontificate.They’veseenitfirsthand.

He attended Jewish New Year servicesin 2007 at a synagogue in Buenos Aires.Bergoglio told the Jewish congregationduring his visit that he went to the synagogue toexaminehisheart,“like a pilgrim, together with you, my elder brothers.”

Archbishop Bergoglio has lit the firstcandle on the menorah at Temple NCI-Emanu El during a Hanukkah ceremony.He’s opened the cathedral of BuenosAiresfor interfaith ceremonies. He not onlyparticipates in these events, he promotesthem, according to Jewish leaders who’ve jointly launched projects with him in the slums of southern Buenos Aires.

Bergoglio has brought leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, evangelical and Orthodox Christian faiths into the MetropolitanCathedral to pray for peace in the Middle East.“Everything is lost with war, everything is gained through peace,” Bergoglio said at the service. “With peace wins victory and respect.”

The archbishop also welcomed Jews for a joint service on the 74th anniversary ofKristallnacht,thenightin1938whennearly200 synagogues were destroyed, Jewish shops were looted and tens of thousands of Jews were sent to be exterminated in Adolf Hitler’sGermany.

Bergoglio came often to theheadquarterstheArgentine-IsraeliteMutualAssociationwhichwasrebuiltonthesiteofArgentina’sworst terrorist attack, the1994bombingthatkilled85people.

Pope Francis is very close to the current rector of the Seminario Rabinico Latinoamericano, Rabbi Abraham Skorka,and Rabbi Sergio Bergman, who is now part of the Buenos Aires legislature. The new pope and Rabbi Skorka co-wrote a2010bookon interfaithdialoguetitledOnHeaven and Earth. Their friendly debatesover religion, politics and social issuesbecame so enjoyable that they were taped, and it is these dialogues that were published in 2010 as “On Heaven and Earth.” Then, the two men kept up their dialogues on a program each Friday on the Archdiocesan TV channel.

Bergoglio asks in the book. “…we succumb as victims of attitudes that don’t permit us to have dialogue: arrogance, not knowing how to listen, hostility in our speech, attacking the messenger and so many others. Dialogue is born from an attitude of respect toward the other person, from a conviction that the other has something good to say.”

EncountEring


Three New Faith Leaders continued

The PopeFrancisI

The Chief Rabbi: Ephraim MirvisOn the appointment of Ephraim Mirvis

as the new Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the UK andCommonwealth Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote to him.”...just as I am leaving Lambeth Palace… I want to assure you of my prayers as you prepare to move into your new role. The close relationship that I have enjoyed over the last ten or so years with Lord Sacks has been a continuation and development of the particular relationship between Lambeth Palace and the office of the Chief Rabbi over many years. That relationship led to the founding of the Council of Christians and Jews seventy years ago and I believe that it continues to be vitally important for both of our communities today.”

Cape Town, South Africa born Rabbi Mirvishasheldeducationalandcommunitypositions in Israel, Ireland and the UK.He was the Chief Rabbi of Ireland (1984-92), succeeding Rabbi David Rosen. In thisrole Rabbi Mirvis represented the Jewish community to government, other faith communitiesandthemedia.

Rabbi Mirvis follows in the footsteps of two former Chief Rabbis of Irelandwhowent on to lead chief rabbinates in the UK andIsrael. RabbiIsaacHerzogwasthefirstChiefRabbiofIreland(1921-1936)andwentonthereaftertobecomethefirstAshkenaziChief Rabbi of the State of Israel; ChiefRabbiEmanuel Jakobovits served in Irelandbetween 1949 and 1958 and went on tobecome Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and a respected member of the House ofLords.

OnhisappointmentasChiefRabbi-electhe proclaimed that “A sense of religious identity has never been more relevant, or more necessary, in our fast-changing world.”

HetakesoverfromLordJonathanSacks,becoming only the 11th person to hold the postsince1704.

The United Hebrew Congregations isthe 140-year-old union of 62 Orthodoxcommunities;thechiefrabbiisperceivedastherepresentativeofallBritishJewryandhehimself has said that he intended to speak for all British Jews, not just his particularbrand of Orthodoxy.

He spent 16 years as head of FinchleySynagogue in London where he pioneered a popular adult education program. Oneof the program’s highlight features was his interviews with well-known personalitieswhichincluderepresentativesofotherfaithdenominations,includingformerArchbishopof Canterbury, Lord Carey.

MirvisservedasthePresidentoftheIrishCouncilofChristians&Jews(CCJ)from1985to1992.Hehasparticipatedindialoguewithchurch leaders in the UK at Windsor Castle andatLambethPalace.In2005headdressedaCCJmeetingattheSynodoftheChurchofEngland.

The Co-Chair of the Irish Council ofChristians and Jews, Rev Denis Campbell,recalls the CCJ Presidency of Rabbi Mirvis – “realising the need of a Council of Christians and Jews to have a lobbying function, he encouraged the CCJ to make public comment after a, thankfully rare, instance of antisemitism occurred in Dublin- published in a scurrilous magazine. He felt a united Jewish-Christian response would carry more weight than complaints from the Jewish community alone.”

A keen cricketer he was delighted when, for the first time, the annual service ofthanksgivingforthegiftofsportwasheldinhis Dublin Synagogue. In preparing for theservice he took pains to see that the service didnotoffendOrthodoxJudaism,whilestillbeing inclusive for all faiths.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1988 the Irish Council ofChristians and Jews scheduled a specialevent, to be held in Rabbi Mirvis’ synagogue

hall.Itwaswellpublicisedtotheextentthatanenormouscrowdshowedupandfilledthegroundfloorhall tooverflowing.Confusionensued until Rabbi Mirvis announced, “I think God wants us to hold this event in the synagogue itself.” The throng proceeded upstairs to the main shul and witnessed a mostmovingcommemoration.

Mirvis was the first United Synagoguerabbi to host an address by an imam, Dr Mohammed Essam El-Din Fahim, in hissynagogue.Hehas also led a delegationofmembers of his community to the Finchley MosqueandinitiatedajointprojectbetweenhissynagogueandthemosqueforaJewish-Muslim public service day on 25 December.

Rabbi Mirvis also spoke at the 2013 launch event in central London of Mitzvah Day, a day on which Jewish people perform kinddeedsforotherpeople.Herecognisedthis day as providing “an opportunity for members of different faiths to come together to bond and engage in social actions projects.”

EncountEring


The Chief RabbiEphraim Mirvis

EncountEring

The Faith Communities Council of Victoria (FCCV)

Editor The FCCV is Victoria’s umbrella multifaith body and was created to contribute to the harmony of the Victorian community

by promoting positive relations between people of different faiths.


The FCCV believes that relationships between people ofdifferent faithsmust be grounded in respect and understanding,whichsupporttheuniquenessofeachfaithtraditionandencourageco-operativeaction.

TheFCCVsupportstherightofindividualsinVictoriatopracticetheir religion freely and with integrity provided they abide by the state’s laws and do not incite religious hatred.

Amongitsobjectivesare:• Toprovideapointofreferenceforgovernment,media,or any interested person or group who wish to know more about multifaithinitiativesinVictoria• Todevelopresourcesthathelppromotepositivemultifaith relations• Toconveneforumstodiscussissuesofsharedconcernamong Victoria’sdiversefaithtraditions• TopromoteeducationaboutdiversereligionsinVictorian schools • ToconnectmultifaithnetworksandorganisationsinVictoriato relevant bodies in other states• Toassistmembersandotherorganisationsbyhelpingpromote theirmultifaithinitiatives.

TheFCCV iscurrentlymanagedbyaManagementCommitteecomprised of the following umbrella faith bodies: the Baha’iCommunity of Victoria, Brahma Kumaris Australia, Buddhist Council ofVictoria,HinduCommunityCouncil ofVictoria, IslamicCouncilof Victoria, JewishCommunity Council of Victoria, Sikh InterfaithCouncil, Victorian Council of Churches and the Zoroastrian AssociationCouncilofVictoria.

As well, the FCCV’s members include many religious and spiritualorganisations,localmultifaithnetworksandorganisations,educationalbodiesconcernedwithmultifaithissues,andinterestedindividuals.

Once a year the FCCV runs the Victorian InterfaithNetworksConferencebringing togetherpeople fromvariousmultifaith andinterfaith networks across Victoria with the aim of helping build the capacity and sustainability of existing multifaith/interfaithnetworks,bringpeopleuptodatewithcurrentpertinentmatters,andtoprovidenetworkingopportunities.

Its Common Statement closes by avowing: “It is our right to live in peace and goodwill, without fear or prejudice – and it is our mission to join together as people of many faiths to achieve this for our neighbourhoods, communities, and society.”

The FCCV was established in 2010, the successor of the Leaders of Faith Communities Forum which was founded in 1995. It envisions a Victoria in which religious and spiritual communities are free to practice their faith traditions with integrity, whilst living in harmony with one another and the broader community, and contributing towards building a better society.

encouraging...

Encouraging

Reflections of an Interfaith Relations Practitioner

The Right Rev Philip Huggins The Right Rev Huggins is the Bishop of the North West Region, Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, Australia. He has thirty years worth of

experience as a pratitioner of dialogue, contributing to multi-faith and multi-cultural issues both locally and internationally.

He chairs the Anglican Diocese’s Social Responsibility Committee and the Board of Brotherhood of St Laurence.


AsaChurchleader,Ihavegenerallyhadvery demanding responsibilities; lookingafter large areas and numbers of peoplethrough our parishes, schools and welfare agencies.Accordingly,Iammoreareflectiveactivist than a scholar or academic. At thesametime,Iamconvincedthatthesuccessof bringing religions into dialogue depends critically on broadening the base of thoseinvolved in these efforts. My commitmentto the need for better religious harmonycame when I was a University Chaplain atMonashUniversity,Melbourneinthe1980s.Through the inspiration of the university’sfounders and various benefactors there was an Interreligious Centre, incorporatingseparate prayer rooms and chapels for different religions. There were sufficient‘religious’ wars going on overseas then forus to appreciate how blessed we were to come and go from our Religious Centre in an uncomplicatedway.OnaFriday,IwouldbecelebratingHolyCommunionwhilstMuslimswere preparing for Friday prayers, Jews for the Sabbath. Incense from the Buddhistprayers would be in the air, along with our frankincense in the thurible. We would reflect that, in many parts of the world,such religious harmony would only invite a “bomb”.

I have learned and sought to apply sixprinciples in guiding encounters across faith lines. Thefirst is thatpeopleofotherreligious traditions can always teach ussomething of value, including as regards our own tradition. Accordingly, one shouldwelcome every opportunity to listen and converse with others of good will who strive to live by the highest truth they know. Conferences and informal opportunitiesmake it possible to foster and enjoy friendships with people of other religious traditionsandcultures.Secondly,everything

gains another perspective when there isgenuine friendship. Thirdly, every friend is agift,“aworldinthemselves,”asthepoetssay. As we learn more of each other’s family joys and sorrows, as we relax in each other’s company there is the warmth which makes for new imaginings and fresh projects. Fourthly, common humanity, good will and shared projects then build understanding and harmony as friendships blossom. It ishard to stereotype someone with whom you have shared breakfast. Fifthly, religious co-operationforpeaceandjusticeisnotservedby being muted or unclear about one’s own faith tradition. Whilst we are dealing withthe wonder and mystery of life, ourselves and the nature of the divine, a ChristianshouldbeaChristian,aMuslimshouldbeaMuslim, for example. There is plurality within every religion, but dialogue partners need to be clear with each other about what they believe and why. Lastly, various principles to assistbetterhumanrelationshipshavetheirapplication in this area too. It is absolutelyessential to listen carefully to one another,without interrupting. A Christian therapistonce remarked that very few people feel well-listened to by anyone. Many conflictshavetheirbasis in just inadequate listeningto one another. Conflicts escalate as oneinterruptionfollowsanother.

Interrupted conversations seldomend well; especially in relation to complexand contested matters. It is importantto give the other person space to finishwhat they want to say; accordingly, when

unclear what another thinks or says, ask clarifying and open questions. “Do youmeanbythis?”“Areyousaying?”Itisalwaysimportant to give the other person space to clarify or elaborate their answer. Ensure confidentiality is honoured when this isexpected or requested. When speaking,payattentiontoapparently little things likeour tone of voice. As the writer Dostoevsky reminds us: “You can tell a lot aboutwhatpeople think of you by their tone of voice.” Our tone of voice can itself sometimessurprise us, conveying perhaps an anxiety or hostility in us ofwhichwemay be onlypartially conscious. Certainly, another’stone of voice can communicate welcome, indifferenceorevenhostility.Thesearenotlittlemattersanymorethanareelementsofhospitality likecomfortableseating,respectfor dietary requirements, and appreciationforeachother’sgifts.Allreligioustraditionsand cultures have wonderful rituals and customs for welcoming visitors.

Thought and actionAll the major religions appreciate the

important link between thoughts, words and actions.Wehaveourmethodsofmeditationand contemplation which assist awarenessofhowourinnerconversationfeedsintoourwordsandactions.IhavebeenapractitioneroftheJesusPrayerformorethanthirty-fiveyears.Alongwithtimesofsittingmeditation,in daily life whenever I become aware ofnegativeself-talk,Iplaceinsteadinmymindand repeat over, “Jesus have mercy.” It is

In this article I will to try to capture some learnings from many years work in this area of religious harmony.

There is plurality within every religion, but

dialogue partners need to be clear with each

other about what they believe and why.

Encouraging


calledthePrayeroftheHeartbecausenow,after many years, it occurs in me as soonmuchasIstarttheprayer.Ithasdescendedfrommind to heart. Frommy perspective,there is wonderful power in the Name of Jesus which does deliver me and save me from saying and doing what is not my highesttruth.ItisapracticalanddaytodayexperienceofJesusas“theonewhosaves.”ThereisalsoamysteriousrelationbetweenNameandPresenceinHolySpirit.Jesusdoespromise,“WhentwoorthreearegatheredinmyName,thereamIinthemidst”(Matthew18:20). Christianity is a relational faith.Myrelationshipwith Jesus isnurtured inmanyways,includingthisprayeroftheheart.Iliveawareof“Jesusinourmidst.”

Other traditions have their way ofapplying the same wisdom about how our inner thoughts shape our words which determineouractions.Thus,overtime,dayby week by year, as we make those choices, so ischaractershapedanddestinydetermined.As the Buddha is also remembered saying “Webecomewhatwethink.”Alongtheway,we should be aware that apparently simple gestures on our behalf may have great significanceforothers,bothnowandinthefuture. Ioftenhearstoriesofhowpeople’ssimple acts of kindness have been of unexpected and great significance to otherpeople:perhapsespeciallyforpeoplewhenthey are young, uncertain about themselves and in need of encouragement. Inmattersof the spirit, early influences can be verypowerful: observing the way a parent orgrandparent prays faithfully; the reverencewith which people speak divine names and read religious texts; the care people taketogreettheyoung,helpingthemfindtheirplace in much-loved temples, mosques,churches.Suchpositiveearly influencesaretobecontrastedwithothermoredestructiveinfluences.

When the focus of engagement is improved understanding after timesof misunderstanding and alienation,it is important to follow a three-foldpathway towards reconciliation and betterunderstanding. This applies the reflectiveinsights of peace studies which show that reconciliation involves an inner and outerjourneyrequiring:firstly,atimeestablishingameasureofpeacefulco-existence;secondly,taking some concrete steps which build fresh trust until, thirdly, there is a greater unity

markedbyanormal,healthyrelationshipofpartnership, mutual respect and affection.Timing of each step is crucial. There really aren’t any short-cuts. In the third sectionof this paper, on New Testament texts on the Resurrection of Jesus, I will conveyhow this is modelled by the Risen Jesus with the Apostle Peter in John 21; Beforereflecting on religious sources (texts aboutthe Resurrection of Jesus in the ChristianGospels), Iofferageneralcommentonourcurrent situation, making the distinctionbetween religion as faith-journey ratherthan as ideology.

People of faith and the reimagining of a healthier world

We have endured over ten years of terrorismsince9/11. Innocentpeoplehavebeen murdered with zealous intent. Inresponse, security and surveillance have had to be increased. Daily life, especially travel, has become more complicated. There have been arrests and trials, including in Australia, as alleged plans of terrorism have been discovered. None of us probably know the full extent of what has been averted. Lives have thus been saved, even though people withamurderingintentcanstillfindaway.Increasedsecurityhasnotmadeusfeelsafer.

As we ponder the various “religious”terrorists,an importantdistinctionmustbemade. That is, between religion as a faith-journeyandreligionasanideology.Healthyreligion is a faith-journey which is alwaysopentothefutureandtofresh inspiration,wantingtolearnfromothersandexercisingchoices which create beauty and are both truthful and kind. A true faith-journey ismarked by humility because part of the journey is recognising our own failures and realising our need for other’s forbearance, forgivenessand imagination.Compassion isalsoanessential characteristicof ahealthyfaith-journey, whatever the tradition.Certainly, compassion is a core value of all major world religions.

By contrast, an ideology can try to impose an outcome on the future. It mayseek to accumulate and hold power so as to pre-determine what should happen: aclosed-system, seeingpotential threatsandrivalsinthoseofanotherfaithortradition.

Religious ideologies are particularlydangerous, and can lead, with euphoric ‘religious’fervour,tothemostbrutalthings

being done to innocent people. Chillingly, we remember the lack of remorse and the resilient fervour of religious fanatics whohave killed innocent people. What can people of faith do? Before us lies the careful taskofbuildinganinternationalcommunityof peace and reconciliation. Nothing ismore important to the future of humanity. Whatelsehonours thevictimsof terrorismand offers hope to the young? Life is sucha precious gift on our tiny planet in anincomprehensibly vast universe. Our human family is of common yearnings and colourful diversity.

People everywhere yearn that our young maygrowupsafe,freeandflourishing.Thesame message comes to us from refugees, many who have had to leave their homes because of local terrorism. All people have adogged,unquenchablehopethattheymayone day be safe and free. Such is the human spirit. People can be tortured, terrorised, their humanity denied, but they will stillyearn to be free. Though it seems a long journey to a peaceful and reconciled human family on this one earth, we must keep imaginingthesplendidcreativeenergywhichwill be released as relationships are madehealthier. Healed, reconciled relationshipsreleasewonderfulcreativeenergy.Conflictedrelationships waste energy, dispiriting allinvolved. The role of people of faith, is to re-imagineahealthierworldand then takefresh initiatives in peace-making together.People of faith in Australia and Indonesia,and throughout the world, have a crucial role together to do this. Our shared task is toimagineandtoimplementfreshinitiativesso that religious identity makes a positivecontributiontoourinterconnectedness.

Looking for the divine in those who cross our path

In this section, I would like to conveysome important themes in the texts of Jesus’ Resurrection, as told in the NewTestament (John 20:1-18: Luke 24:13-35).My purpose is to point to what is universal in our understanding of these texts, and to use this one example to illustrate how faith can help foster that critical senseof interconnectedness. On the day of Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his own– to Mary Magdalene in the garden and to folkontheEmmausroad.Inbothinstances,after initial confusion, the Risen Jesus wasrecognised but yet, though they came to

Encouraging


know it was Jesus, He was with them innew ways. A gardener, thought Mary, at first. (John 20:15). The two on the road toEmmausfinallyrecognisedJesus,aftertheirlong walk and talk. When they recognised Him,atlast,Jesusvanishedfromtheirsight.(Luke24:31)Afterthebreakingofthebreadhe vanished.

They, as I understand it, were learningtobeattentivetothedifferentlikenessesinwhich the Risen Jesus would appear. Earlier, in Matthew 25, in Jesus teaching aboutthe Judgement of the Nations, Jesus says,in relation to folkof varioushumanneeds:“Insofarasyouhelptheleastofthosewhoare members of my family, you did it to me.” (Matthew25:40).Thetextisunambiguous.Itmeans,withoutblurring thedistinctivenessof the Risen Jesus and the uniquenessof each person, that we need to look at whoever comes before us, with profound awareness. This awareness changes the way we see each person and each circumstance, eachincidentofdailylife.Thetraditionurgesus to pray for the grace to see the divine image in all people and to love them as well as we try to love God.

By God’s grace and our own efforts atprayerful attentiveness we are encouragedthus to look for the divine image in all who cross our path. However hidden it mayseem, however damaged they may be. With understanding and tenderness we are to ask what new life of beauty, truth, and kindness might emerge if we love them as God loves them and as we seek to love God? In theEaster season, Christians celebrate Jesus,crucifiedandrisinginthisbeautifulandyetbroken world; gifting us with Holy Spirit,given through the energy of the Risen Jesus, coming abundantly from above. Without distinction of rank or race we understandthat God simply seeks hearts with love for God and neighbour.

The teaching is that, because of the

“Resurrection”, speech about God issimultaneously therefore speech about a universal human community. We need divine patience as the human family isrepaired;beyondthefearandhateofracism,to recognitionand lovingembraceofusallas children of God. All made in the divine image. The “Resurrection” says thereforethat the new global community should be a continuing movement of us all towardsGod and towards one another. “Nothing can separate us from the love of God visible in Jesus,” is the affirmation (Romans 8).The Resurrection renews the vision – andgivesthishopeforthefuture:Acontinuingmovement in grace toward God and toward one another. A movement, that is, towards deeper union for the whole human family on ourlittleplanetinthisvastuniverse.

What else makes sense of this gift oflife? Plainly, such good energy, Godly energy, should always foster tolerance, respect for religiousfreedomasamatterofmutualandself-respect. The witness of the Church, atits best, is therefore a generosity of spirit towards all and recognition, that in thedivine providence, seemingly unlikely people will keep emerging as spiritual leaders becauseGodseestheirrelativelypureheartof love for God and neighbour. Meanwhile, within the Church, the extent of such generosity is contested by those with a more exclusivist and competitive edge, by thoseperhaps carrying unreconciled wounds from perceived poor treatment by others.

Currently, in the Australian context, some ofthisplaysoutinissuesrelatingtoAsylum-Seekers and Muslims. For reasons that should be evident from my above reading of theResurrectiontexts,Ihavesoughttoofferleadership as a Bishop both as regards the Asylum-seekerissueandasregardsDialoguewith Muslims. There are those in my Church whoquestionsuchworkand theprincipleson which it is based. Some of the sharpest

voices are those who have been Christianminorities in majority Muslim countries.Theyseepeoplelikemeasweak,co-opted,playing into a Muslim plan for expansion in Western societies via immigration, asylum-seekers and faster population growth;their fear andmistrust of Islam runs deep.Whilst there are various Dialogue Forums inAustralia,whichbringtogetherChristiansand Muslims, these do not tend to include those with more oppositional views fromeither religion.

As we have seen in Western Europe, the Refugee/Asylum-seeker debate inAustralia reveals that there is also therefore certain fragility to Australia’s multi-culturalharmony. Economic strength and politicalstabilityhelpmaintainharmony.Thequalityof intermediary organisations between theindividual and the State is also important for harmony.HencetheroleoftheUniversities,Trade Unions, Churches and other faith-communities is important as is the relativefreedom of media and the role of the Arts in ensuring a variety of people’s stories are told in multi-cultural Australia. The importanceofaseparationofpowersbetweenthelegalandpoliticalsystems isalsoaprotectionofhuman rights, harmony and orderly change. Australia has much strength and has the opportunitytobuildawonderfulcivilisation.The test is whether we can overcome the same things which diminish all human endeavours:hate,fearandgreed.

A proper reading of the Resurrectiontexts (Reconciliation: 1 John 21), as above,should continue to enhance civilised living,inaninclusivemanner.“Loveistheanswer!”Reading and praying these Resurrectiontexts, the key is never forgetting that in allpeople there is the divine image and the scopeforgreaterhumanwarmth.CanIseethe divine face in the other person? Am Iattentive,seekingtoreleaseinbothofusthelove of which we are capable? For disciples,

RelectionsofanInterfaithRelationsPractitionercontinued

Encouraging


our work is to see people, as Jesus sees. This transforming mystical awareness requiresthefullconsecrationofonesbeing.

Another appearance of the Risen Jesus also teaches us something of importance for religious freedom and dialogues through the understanding of religious sources and literature. It is Jesus’ appearance to Peter,on the lake shore, cooking breakfast in early morning light. The story is told in John 21. It isafter thediscipleshavefishedallnightwithoutsuccess.ThefocusisJesus’initiativeinreconciliationwithSimonPeter,wholovedhim yet betrayed him out of fear, under pressure.“Do you love me?”IsJesus’simplebutprofoundquestion,whichechoesdownto us,with all our fears and inadequacies?Peterdoes.This reconciliationmeansPeteris spiritually prepared for Pentecost and thus, his destiny as a foundation leader ofthe early Church, described in the Acts of the Apostles.

Without over-stretching the text thereis much we can learn from this reconciled relationship of Peter and Jesus, aboutthe pathway to reconciliation. Inspired bythe literature on reconciliation I suggestexercisingathree-foldpathwayafterconflictand alienation: (1) A time of peaceful co-existence; (2) Agreed steps towards trust-building;(3)Greaterunityinamorenormal,healthyrelationship.Thefirststageinvolvesa period of peaceful co-existence, givingthe other person space in order to reflectand recuperate. The Risen Jesus didn’t re-approach Peter until after Peter had hadtime to absorb from others the news ofJesus’ Resurrection. Peter had had timedoing familiar, comfortable, things: out onthewater, fishing and thinking in the earlymorning after such intense and confusingdays.Ourparallel,aspeopleofreconciliation,is to also give people space to reflect.Wecan also encourage a discipline around what people communicate.

Nowadays, a particular issue is theuse of emails. Sometimes people writeunhelpfully provocative things and yethave no control over where they may end up. Read out of context by others they can leadtostereotypingandfurtheralienation.If relationships are undeveloped or trust islow,thisprovocation,alongwithgossip,mayamplify conflicts andmake the pathway toreconciliationmorecomplex. Iamawareofpeople who are alienated from each other

but who have barely even spoken to each other. It is things they have read or heardabout each other which have done the damage.

So, a first stage in reconciliation islowering the temperature, giving the other person space, taking real care with communication.“Whenindoubt,cutitout”is the saying. This is a good discipline as regardsthespokenandwrittenword. Ifwehaveadoubtthatourcommunicationwillbereconcilingweshoulddesist.Nomatterhowclever, insightful or justified our thoughtsmight be. The Risen Jesus gives Peter space andthentakestheinitiativeinreconciliation,invitingPetertobreakfast[John21:10]thereispracticalwisdomhere.Itisbestiftheonemostaggrievedandhurttakestheinitiativein reconciliation, offering a trust-buildinginitiative. “Let’s have a coffee or lunch?”When it is not clear who is more aggrieved, whichisoftenthecase,theimportantthingisthatsomeonetakestheinitiative.

Once there is the possibility of renewed communication, towards reconciliation, thekeyistofocusfirstonwhatisheldincommon,not what divides. For example, our common spiritualyearnings;acommoncommitmenttothehealthofourcommunity;thecommondifficulties of balancingwork and family orthe things we love and find recreational.Then, when there is enough relationalwarmthmorecomplexmatterscanbebettermanaged. The key then is to follow those simple rules for healthy conversation asnoted above. On the basis of clearer, warmer communication,withalittleself-deprecatinghumour perhaps, it may be possible to focus on some common tasks together. We can ask, “What is possible together, givencurrentrolesandresponsibilities?”Evenaninitial agreement to pray for one anotherfor a period, and then meet again, is a step in the right direction. Our lives give manyopportunities. It is hard to imagine whatmight have happened to Peter and the early Church,withouttheRisenJesusinitiativeofreconciliation,askingaquestiontheanswertowhichheknew.Aquestionwhichwenttothe strength of the man who had followed him so spontaneously, so lovingly, but had failed to be truthful under pressure, in a way we can all understand.

We need to keep imagining the energy releasedbyhealthier,reconciledrelationshipsin our community. Generally, the more we

understand another person’s story, the easieritistolovethem.Takingtheinitiativeinforgivenessandreconciliationbringsnewhopeandcreativity toaworld riddledwithdivisions. Reconciliation is therefore aboutthe recovery of love. Energy is released as people find communion with each other,releasing each other’s imagination andcreativity. It is a restoration of the divineplan as compared to more de-humanisingforces.Canweimagine,thekindofcreativeenergy that could be released if there was genuinereconciliation,saybetweenpeoplewhoareMuslims,ChristiansandJewsintheMiddle East? What wonderful things might become possible? Meanwhile, keeping this hope before us, it is salutary to remember that the process of genuine reconciliationis costly and requires great persistence.Thereisalwaysthetemptationforvictimstobecomevictimisers, continuing thecycleofviolence.

What we needmore than ever is HolyPeopleofeveryreligioustradition.Holinessoflifeisafocusforallmajorreligions.Holypeoplebringhealingtoourbrokenworld.Inthe grace of God, each of us are encouraged to apply our free-will; seeking full andconscious participation in the perfect anddivinespiritbytheacquisitionofthehighestvirtue.

Exploring religioussources, Ihopebothmy personal reflections and later thoughtson Resurrection texts might be helpful toourcommonyearningforpeacewithjustice.Plainly, our world needs people who are deeply committed, from within their owntradition,toreconciliationandareawareofboth the inner and outer journey involved. As we strive to “stop the violence” andbuild both the culture and infrastructure for peace-making, our quality of dialogueis crucial, as I have tried to convey.Hence,initiatives such as La Trobe’s Centre forDialogue, in partnership with other such entities, are crucial to both reconciliationandabetterlifeforall.

This article is based on Bishop Phillip Huggins’ presentation at the 2012 Australia Indonesia Dialogue, in Indonesia, as an invited speaker of the Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University and through input by its Global Change Peace and Security Journal Editorial Team.


Encouraging

Silence and Dialogue

Rev Dr John R Dupuche Rev Dr Dupuche is Parish Priest, Nazareth Parish, Ricketts Point, Melbourne, a member of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of

the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Senior Lecturer, MCD University of Divinity, Honorary Fellow, Centre for Interreligious Dialogue,

Australian Catholic University, and Chair, Catholic Interfaith Committee.


The command to listenThe ShemaoftheJewishfaithreadsasfollows:“Listen, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and withyour whole soul, and with your whole strength.”(Deut6.4-5)

Thedoctrinalelement,“the Lord our God is one Lord”, is followed by itsethical consequence,“You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart…”buttheprimarycommandis“Listen”(Shema in Hebrew),whichinturncallsforsilence.

The Shema is given by Moses at that liminal moment when the People of God are about to enter into the Land promised to Abraham and his descendants. However,Moses anticipates that the peoplewillnotlistenandwillinfactbeexiledfromtheLandinconsequence.

Likewise,intheChristiantradition,atthatliminalmomentwhenJesus begins to speak about his death the Voice comes from heaven saying “Listen to him” (Mt 9.8). But Christians have too often notlistened to the teaching of their Moses.

Entering into silence: Thecommandtolistenisahardlessontolearn.Itmeansturning

adeafeartothedesiresandambitionsandunresolvedconflictsthatresoundintheheart.Itisamomentofpurification.

Even more, it means becoming vulnerable. Rabbi Yona Metzger, during his visit to Australia some years ago when he was Chief Rabbi ofIsrael,putthequestion:WhyisMosescommanded,inthesceneattheBurningBush(Ex3ff.)toremovehisshoes?Hegavehisanswer:onecanapproachtheDivineGloryonlybyremovingtheprotectivelayersandbecomingsensitive.

However,thisiseasiersaidthandone.Thosewhoexperienceadeep trauma become both hypersensitive and desensitised at thesametime.Theyarefocusedontheirpainandcannotfeelthepainofothers.Theyaredeafened.Iftheyaretoenterintodialogue,theymust be free of the fear and apprehension. This is especially the case if they wish to dialogue with those who have caused the trauma.

The act of listening also involved detachment, of which Abraham istheprimeexample.Heistoldto“Leave your country, your family and your father’s house, for the land I will show you.” (Gen 12.1.)”– thesearethefirstwordsinthe‘historyofsalvation’(Heilsgeschichte)

asdistinctfromtheall-importantmythsofGenesis1-11.Abrahamhehearkens without demur.

The act of listening to the other is an act of courage and confidence.Itmeansabandoningtribalismandxenophobia.Thisispossibleonlyforthosewhoaresoconfidentthattheycan,withoutfear of losing their self-identity, listen to others proclaim theiridentity.Abrahamisthemodelofsuchconfidence.Yetwerecoilfromthis entry into the unknown. We prefer to stay in the comfort zone of thefamiliar,‘ourowncountry’.

Theactof listeningintentlymeansabandoningtheassumptionthattheotheriswronganduninspired.Itinvolvesapresumptionoftruthintheother.AsStIgnatiusofLoyola(1491-1556CE)saysinthe‘Presupposition’ofhisfamousSpiritualExercises

“…let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be moreready to save his neighbour’s proposition than to condemn it. If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it…” 2

Butitisdifficulttolistentoanother’steachingforitimpliesthatone’s own faith, at least one’s own understanding of it, might be inadequate. Thisprovokes fear,which in turn leads to thewish tosilence the other. This silencing has been done in a myriad of ways, most spectacularly by the burning of books and the suppression of free speech,butmoresubtlybymockeryandsatire,bymisrepresentationandfalseportrayal,evenby‘politicalcorrectness’.Thissuppressionof the other is accompanied by evermore exaggerated and intrusive presentationsofone’sownpointofview.Weeffectivelysaytoeachother.“Listenheretome!”

Ipersonally feel thatwehavereachedan impasse indialogue.People seem willing to proclaim their own faith, but block their ears against other points of view. We have become merely polite.

“And yet true dialogue is not mere civility. Interfaith dialogue involves humility and openness to the spiritual depths of otherfaiths. It takes place in confidence, without fear or arrogance,without dominating or glossing over differences, never excludingor patronising, neither assimilating nor ignoring. It requires participants to dialogue with respect, not necessarilyin agreement; it invites them to acknowledge that what is heardmay indeed proceed from the depths of the Divine Mystery. It does not preclude robust debate if this is done with courtesy

The act of being silent is not a proof of ignorance or of having nothing to say, of being ‘dumb’. On the contrary, as this article wishes to explain, it is an essential aspect of dialogue.

“Dialogue involves both having something substantial to say and being willing to listen in depth. The participants want to hear the authentic tradition which has been really experienced and is truly lived.” 1


Encouraging


and without antagonism, but is based on a spirituality of communion and a commitment to a practical concern for every human being.” 3

If one refuses to listen, our supposed dialogue becomes adialogue of the deaf, where everyone is speaking and no-one islistening. In fact, we are busy listening to ourselves andmiss theessentialtruththeotherisspeaking.Weenterastateof“sin”inthesenseoftheGreekwordforsin,hamartia,whichmeans“tomissthemark”. We miss out on the others’ truth which is God’s truth, for all truth is of God.

Intheareaofinterfaith,theactoflisteningisanacknowledgmentthattheothermayhavesomethingrevelatorytosaytous.Itistheadmission that one’s understanding of the divine message needs to be enhanced by what has been divinely revealed to the other. Thus itisamarkofdeeprespect.Anyotherattitudeisjustcivilitywhichintheendisextremelyinsultingbecauseitassertseversosubtlythatthe other has not been touched by the hand of God and has nothing valuable to contribute.

But ifGod is speaking to theother, silence is required, for theonlyattitudethatisproperinthepresenceoftheDivineissilence.Tospeak at that moment would be impudence. Thus, for example, when thegloryofGodisrevealedintheformationofthefirstwoman(Gen2.21), when the covenant is made with Abraham (Gen 15.12), when the smokefills the templeof Solomon (1Kg8.10-13),whenElijahcomes to Mount Horeb (1 Kg 19.13), the protagonists fall asleepor fall silent. This is because the ordinary faculties can no longerfunction.Similarly,inthepresenceoftheotherabouttocontributesomeelementof truth, theonlyattitude is thehushof reverence,knowingthattheotheris,insomesense,prophetic.

ThethemeofsilenceiscentraltotheChristiantradition.Itoccursat the beginning and end of Jesus’ life, for example. Thus, when Mary ofNazarethhearstheherald’scryoftheangel“Rejoice”(Lk1.28)shehearsitwithherentirebeing:notonlywithhermindandheartbut

bodily as well and so she conceives the Word of God, Jesus, whom Christianscall“theChrist”.AttheendofhislifeJesusisreducedtosilence, rejected by everyone, seemingly even by the One who sent him. Christians acknowledge him as both divine and human; theyteach that he knows both the height and the depth, that he is Light andyetentersintotheultimatedarkness,thatheisthe“Holy One of God”(Jn6.69)andyet ismadeintosin(2Cor.5.21):theyteachthat in this moment of paradox, where all the contraries meet, the fullrevelationofGodismade.Itisthefollyofthecross.(ICor1.23)

Bymeansofthis“folly”Christiansaretakenbeyondthesensesand beyond the mind, to a new form of awareness. They move beyond the realmofdiscourseandmove into themysteriumfideiandcomeintotheineffablepresenceofGod.

SilenceisfoundintheCatholicritualalso.AftertheIntroductoryRites of the Mass which purify the soul and prepare the heart, the congregationtaketheirseatandlistentotheSacredText.Onlythesilentheartcanhear.AsStJohnoftheCross,thegreatmysticof16thcenturySpain,says“God… speaks the Word… in eternal silence, and in silence the soul hears it.”4TheclimaxoftheMassisthereceptionof the Consecrated Food, after which there is a time of “sacredsilence”.Allhasbeendone;wecometo rest in thatdivinesilencefrom which all springs.

Silence and the act of listening are essential to the ChristianandJewishtraditions.Silenceof thissortprepares for theworkofinterreligious dialogue.

Earning the right to speak

It goes bothways, of course. Thosewho presuppose a divinetruth in the other earn the right to speak their own truth. Because they are willing to listen, they deserve to be heard.

LastJanuaryIwastravellingwithagroupofyoungpeoplefromRussia,UkraineandLatviawhofollowtheNathatradition,anancienttraditionofIndia.Wewereonourwaytothekumbhamela,aneventwhich occurs every twelve years at the confluence of the Gangesand Jumna rivers at Allahabad, where millions upon millions bathe in the sacred waters. They were an impressive group, dedicated and happy, travelling with their guru, a young Russian, called Yogi Matsyendranath. They knew I was a Catholic priest. I was struckby their commitment and listened to what they had to say. This in turn impressed them. One night, in a small town on the Nepalese border where no foreign tourists ever go, they asked me about the Christianfaith,wantingtoknowwhatIthoughtaboutJesus,aboutthevarietiesoftruth,abouttheChurch,God,theCanonofScripture,eternallife,etc.etc.BecauseIwaswillingtolistentothem,theywerewilling to listen to me.

In the area of interfaith,

the act of listening is an

acknowledgment that the other

may have something revelatory

to say to us.

Our expectant silence allows others to speak their truth. We can perceivethetruthbecauseourmindsandwills,ouractionsandlives,arefreefromthehindranceofinnernoise.Theinterior“static”hasbeen removed and we can hear clearly at last.

This does not imply naivete, as though everything anyone says is to be valued. Discernment is needed, which comes from the perception of one’s own truth. Having earned the right to speak,we exchange our thoughts, and give witness to what has moved us profoundly.Itisthestageofputtingintowordsthatwhichisbeyondwords.

Coming to the heartParadox is at the heart of interreligious dialogue, for the

contrastingtheologiescannotberesolvedbymentalconstructs.Godcannotbeboxedintothecategoriesofourmind,despiteallattemptsto do so. God is beyond control. The systems are irreducible, one to the other.

Far from being an obstacle to faith, the diversity of views in interreligious dialogue enables us to perceive the Divine more truly. It is like having twoears.We canhear a soundwith just one ear,butwithtwoearswecanalsoperceivethedirectionofthesound.Because we have two eyes we can see in depth. Diversity gives greaterperception.

To listen to the other is to be willing to enter into the paradox of irreconcilablediversity.Itistheapophaticmoment,themomentofsilence, when words are powerless to express the fullness of glory

thatisperceived.Perceptionisneeded.Bydivinegraceweareableto see.

Inpropheticliterature,the“comingoftheLord”,themomentousrevelation,isoftenheraldedbysilence,asinApocalypse8.1whichstates:“and when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven, as it were for half an hour.”

Dialogueconsistsfinally,notinexchangingideas,ofwhichthereare a million new ones every day, but in becoming aware of the very heartoftheotherandtherebycomingintotheDivinePresence.Itcreatesspace;itrevelsinanopennessofmindandaneagernesstolisten to the deepest, dearest truths. When the interlocutors do this, there is communion. Then a greater unity is discovered. As Teilhard deChardinsaysagainandagaininhiswritings,“unity brings about diversity(l’uniondifférencie).5 The one God brings about diversity.”

Afterallthesewordsaboutsilenceitistime...tobesilent.

Silence and Dialogue continued

Encouraging


Rev Dr John R Dupuche

1 Promoting Interfaith Relations. Guidelines for the parishes and agencies of the Archdiocese of Melbourne to assist in the promotion of interfaith relations in general and especially in the preparation of interfaith gatherings.Revisededition.ThefirsteditionoftheseGuidelineswasofficiallylaunchedbyArchbishopDenisJ.Hart,21August,2007.ThisrevisededitionwasapprovedbytheArchbishopon12October,2009.2IgnatiusofLoyola.‘Presupposition’inSpiritual Exercises.ElderMullantrans.NewYork:P.J.Kennedy&Sons.1914.3 Promoting Interfaith Relations. 4 Cf. The Collected Works of St John of the Cross,KavanaughandRodriquez,ICSPublications,Washington,1973.p.675.5DonaldP.Gray‘ThePhenomenonofTeilhard’,inTheological StudiesVol.36,no1,March1975.p.33.

Encouraging


What is dialogue?Genuinedialoguecanbeunderstoodasfollows:

Whentwoindividualsarerecognisedandaffirmedwithatleast some degree of mutuality, genuine dialogue is present.So,anyformofgenuinedialoguemustinvolveanattitudeofopenness by both partners to include the other in the sphereof commonality between them.1

Dialogue, then, is aparticular kindof interactionbetween twopartieswhohavewillinglyentered intoarelationship.Eachpersonfostersanunderstandingoftheother,whileatthesametimenotingtheboundaries thatexistbetween the self andother. In interfaithdialogue, such an understanding maintains the integrity of personal faith while also providing affirmation for the distinctiveness ofdifferenttraditions.

In amulti-religious andplural society such asAustralia, there isagreatneedforpeopleofdifferentfaithsandreligioustraditionstocometogether.Anunderstandingofwhatotherreligioustraditionsandfaithgroupsbelieveinandpracticeinthenameoftheirreligionwillhopefullyleadtoareductionofthehostilitythatoftenexiststowardtheother.Itseemstomethatactivitiesaimedatmutualunderstandingmust be an essential part of the sustainability of a community. Inpluralisticsocietieswesimplycannotaffordtothinkaboutpeopleinaghettoisedwaybysituatingtheminimpenetrablecategories.

The reality is that in our workplaces, schools, universities,and hospitals, people of different faiths are constantly comingtogetherandtalkingtoeachother.Inthisway,atleastsomekindof relationship exists in the broader community outside of theconfinesofreligioustraditionsandculturalcommunities.Isuggestthat in much of Melbourne, for example, the majority of people participateinthosekindsofinteractionsonadailybasis.Thisisadefiniteadvantageforusinourquestforinterfaithunderstanding.

Models of dialogueAlthough this inclusive day-to-day reality exists in Australia,

formaliseddialoguebetweenfaithgroupsisstillcriticallyimportant.Conflicts arise, and misunderstanding of the religious other iscommonplace.Itisworth,therefore,lookingintothevariousmodelsof interfaith dialogue.

JaneSmith,awell-knownscholaronMuslim/Christian relations,provides a list of such models.2 Although she studies the American context,hermodelsarebasedonherpracticalinvolvementinMuslim-Christianrelationsanddialogue,andthesecanbeeffectivelyappliedin the Australian context.

One model is called the dialogue of persuasion model. This model privilegespersuasionthroughdebates,disputes,andconfrontation.Forexample,aMuslimmightpresentaMuslimviewonaparticularissue:attemptingtoreject,perhaps,aChristianpositiononthesameissue.Thismodelisconfrontationalinnature,asitseekstodiscreditthe other faith. Smith suggests that this model is not very appropriate for people who want to properly understand each other through dialogue. Nevertheless, this kind of model is widely used, even among people who claim to be engaging in it for the sake of mutual understanding. For our purposes the following models suggested by Smith seem to be more appropriate.

One model is the get to know you model. For some, this is oneof the safest and least confrontingmodels. It involves a basicexchangeofinformationaboutoneanotherandalittlebitaboutthefaithtraditionthateachpersonrepresents,suchasbasicbeliefsorpractices.SmitharguesthatthisisprobablythemostcommonmodelofChristian/MuslimexchangeintheUS;andIwouldaddthatitisalsoone of the most common in Australia. Although this model is perhaps anecessarysteptowardbettermutualunderstanding,asaformofdialogue it remains fairly basic. Thismodel promotes a superficialunderstanding, and doesn’t really delve deep into the important questionsthatperhapsotherformsofdialoguewouldenable.

By comparison, the theological exchange model addresses the more fundamental differences between faiths, and thus canpromote deeper mutual understanding through a more complex form of dialogue. However, many might not see this model asvery practical. In order for it to work effectively, sophisticatedtheologians are needed on both sides of the dialogue. They are requiredtoeloquentlypresent theirowntheologicalpositionsandto understand the rationale and positions presented by the other.Arguably, although these theological exchanges are common within Christianity, equivalent emphasis on theology does not exist inIslam.ThisdifferenceinemphasismaymakeitdifficultforChristianandMuslim scholars to engage in dialogue in theway anticipatedbythisparticularmodel.Nevertheless,variousattemptshavebeenmadetobringtogetherbothChristianandMuslimscholarstolookat important theological questions. So, although this may not beperhaps the most palatable form of dialogue for the average Muslim orChristianinterestedininterfaithactivities,itremainsanimportantarea for scholars and theologians.

The ethical exchange model may be useful in the present context. Society faces many important ethical issues that are of common interest tobothMuslimsandChristians.Thismodelenvisions thatdifferentfaithgroupswillcometogethertolookatsuchethicalissues,problems, and challenges. Theywould discuss how each tradition

Respectful Dialogue:A Muslim Point of View

Professor Abdullah Saeed AMProfessor Saeed is the Director, National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies and Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab & Islamic Studies,

Sydney Myer Asia Centre, at The University of Melbourne. He was awarded the Order of Australia (AM) for contribution to development ofIslamic Studies and interfaith dialogue.

RespectfulDialogue:AMuslimPointofViewcontinued

Encouraging


woulddealwiththeissuewithacollaborativespirit.Asopposedtothe theological exchange model, the ethical exchange potentiallyhas direct relevance to the everyday life of the average Muslim or Christian.Itcanpotentiallyprovideaforumwherepeoplearemorecomfortabletoacknowledgeeachother’sdifferences,whileworkingtogether and discussing an issue of common interest.

Another model is termed dialogue about ritual. This popular modelinvolvessharingeachother’srituals:intermsofhowtheyareperformed,theirdifferentfunctions,andwhattheymean.Althoughthisformofdialogueisagoodwayofgettingtoknowoneanother,itremains limited in terms of interfaith dialogue.

Finally, the cooperative model can be used for addressing pragmaticconcerns.Thisisclosetothemodelthatfocusesonethicalissues,butitisaimedmoreatapracticallevel,focussingonparticularissues(certainsocialproblemsandsoforth)withparticulargoalsinmind.

How should Muslims approach the issue of dialogue?Forme,acentralissueisidentifyinghowtoapproachinterfaith

dialogue in the most respectful manner. I suspect that the mosteffective approachwill resemble amixtureof the aforementionedmodels.

Respectful dialogue requires that both parties hold a highdegree of genuineness about the need to properly understand the other. Dialogue is not used to criticise or denigrate, but rather tofacilitatemutualunderstanding.This requires fosteringacceptanceof difference as natural, aswell as developing charitable attitudestowardthisdifference.

A crucial element is the acknowledgment thatmost traditionshave had episodes of hostility, confrontation, and denigrationtowards the other. Usually, these events have occurred in specifichistorical periods, for reasons that are no longer relevant in the contemporaryperiod.Thetwopartiessimplyneedtoacknowledgethat these things have happened, and that they are not here to recreate them.

Ofcourse,participants shouldavoid framingdialogue inawaythat encourages confrontation. For example, one-sided questionslike“is thebible the truewordofGod”or“is theQur’an the truewordofGod”do littletopromoteeffectivediscussion.Atopic likethis only invites each side to use their scriptures to denigrate the other as the point is debated. This kind of dialogue – depending onwho is organising it – can result in a dynamicwhere an entirelecture theatre isfilledwithpeopleof thesupporting faith,withasingletokenisticfigurerepresentingtheother.Giventhesetting,theoutcomeisessentiallypredetermined.Whenactualvotingonissues

isencouragedinthiscontext,aproblematicdynamicarises:therearewinnersandlosers,andpleasureistakenindefeatingtheotherandforciblyvalorisingaspecificviewpoint.

How then, should Muslims approach the issue of dialogue? I suggest turning to the Qur’an, because it has a number of

interestingthingstosayabouthowtoengageininterfaithdialogue,and about dialogue in general.

The Qur’an explicitly encourages Muslims to work throughdisagreement using dialogue, the recognition of the other, andeventual mutual understanding.3

TheQur’anicoutlookwithrespectGodandpeople is inclusive.Forexample,Goddoesnotbelongtoanyparticulartribeorgroup:GodistheGodofeverythingintheuniverse.Inthisway,differenceand plurality is a recognised by and essential to the Qur’anicunderstanding of humanity.

However,beyondthisdifference,theQur’anconceiveshumanityasonecommunity,boundtogetherbyoneGod.IntheQur’anicverse2:213,humanityisexplicitlydefinedasoriginallyandfundamentallystemming from a whole community, one that included all the People oftheBookandtheirrespectiveprophets:

Allhumankindwereonceonesinglecommunity;[thentheybegantodiffer–]whereuponGodraiseduptheprophetsasheraldsofgladtidingsandaswarners,andthroughthembestowedrevelationfromonhigh,settingforththetruth,so that it might decide between people with regard to all onwhich they had come to hold divergent views.4

This verse shows that interreligious understanding is not just possible; it is necessary.Well known scholar Abdulaziz Sachedinaputsitinthisway:“The need to recognise the oneness of humanity in creation and to work toward better understanding among peoples of faith”.5

TheQur’analsoinsistsonrespecttowardstheprophetsofotherreligions. This respect originates from the recognition that thereweremanyprophets beforeProphetMuhammad. The recognitionof a fundamental interconnectedness between the prophets is made explicitinQur’an4:163-5:

Behold,Wehaveinspiredthee[OProphet]justasWeinspiredNoahandalltheprophetsafterhim–asWeinspiredAbraham,andIshmael,andIsaac,andJacob,andtheirdescendants,includingJesus,andJob,andJonah,andAaron,andSolomon;andasWevouchsafeduntoDavidabookofdivinewisdom;andas[Weinspiredother]apostleswhomWehavementionedtotheeerethis,aswellasapostleswhomWehavenotmentionedtothee;andasGodspokeHisworduntoMoses:[Wesentall

The Qur’an explicitly encourages Muslims to work through

disagreement using dialogue, the recognition of the other, and

eventual mutual understanding.iv

Encouraging


these]apostlesasheraldsofgladtidingsandaswarners,sothatmenmighthavenoexcusebeforeGodafter[thecomingof]theseapostles:andGodisindeedalmighty,wise.

Similarly,theQur’an’scalltoMuslimstorecogniseofthevalidityofallprophetsismadeclearinQur’an4:150–2:Verily,thosewhodenyGodandHisapostlesbyendeavouringtomakeadistinctionbetween [belief in] God and [belief in] His apostles, and whosay,“Webelieveintheonebutwedenytheother,”andwanttopursueapathin-between–itisthey,theywhoaretrulydenyingthe truth: and for thosewhodeny the truthWehave readiedshamefulsuffering.ButasforthosewhobelieveinGodandHisapostlesandmakenodistinctionbetweenanyof them–untothem, intime,willHegrant their rewards [in full].AndGod isindeedmuch-forgiving,adispenserofgrace.6

Another importantQur’anic position for dialogue is its call forrecognition of the religious scriptures of other traditions. In thecase of Christians and Jews, scriptures are regarded essentially asgivenbyGod.TheQur’anisnotjustpreachingtolerance;itexplicitlyrecognises the legitimacyofotherrevealedreligionsastiedtotheoneGod.InQuran5:48weseethisclearly:

Anduntothee[OProphet]haveWevouchsafedthisdivinewrit,setting forth the truth, confirming the truth ofwhatever there stillremainsofearlier revelationsanddeterminingwhat is true therein.Judge,then,betweenthefollowersofearlierrevelationinaccordancewith what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every oneofyouhaveWeappointeda[different]lawandwayoflife.AndifGodhad sowilled,He could surelyhavemadeyouall one singlecommunity:but[Hewilleditotherwise]inordertotestyoubymeansofwhatHehasvouchsafeduntoyou.Vie,then,withoneanotherindoing goodworks!UntoGod youallmust return; and thenHewillmakeyoutrulyunderstandallthatonwhichyouwerewonttodiffer.

Another contribution of the Qur’an that relates to interfaithdialogue is the understanding that all human beings were created by the same creator and are from the same father and mother. The differences among human beings (in terms of the way they look,speak, and view the world) are part of God’s plan to create a human community that is diverse and divided into tribes, clans, and groups. ThisactbyGodhadadefinitepurpose:toallowhumanstoknowandunderstandoneselfandtheotherthroughdifference.Forexample,verse49:13oftheQur’ansays:

Ohumankind!Behold,Wehavecreatedyoualloutofamaleandafemale,andhavemadeyouintonationsandtribes,sothatyou

might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in thesightofGodistheonewhoismostdeeplyconsciousofHim.Behold,Godisall-knowing,all-aware.7

Ifallofuswerethesamewewouldbeveryun-reflectivebeings.Weneeddifferencetounderstandourpositionintheworldandtoidentifyhowthatrelatestotheothersaroundus.

The Qur’an thus teaches Muslims a number of importantapproaches to dialogue. For instance, it asserts that Muslims should notdenigratetheimportantsymbolsofothertraditions,suchasthegodsorscripturesofotherfaiths.Thisismadeclearinverse6:108,whichstates:

But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke insteadofGod, lest they revileGodoutof spite, and in ignorance: forgoodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto everycommunity. Intime, [however,]untotheirSustainer theymustreturn:andthenHewillmakethem[truly]understandallthat they were doing. 8.

EvenwhentheArabpaganswereworshippingmultiplegods,theQur’an requiredMuslims to avoidmakingpejorative references tothese gods.

TheQur’analsoinstructsthatalldiscussionswithPeopleoftheBook(thatis,JewsandChristians)mustberespectfulandenactedinthe best manner possible. Accordingly, each party is encouraged to putforwardwhattheyseeasthetruthoftheirrespectivereligionssootherscanlearnfromtheirdifferences.ThisisexemplifiedintheQur’anicverse29:46:

And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelationotherwise than in a most kindly manner – unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing – and say: “We believe in thatwhich has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that whichhasbeenbestoweduponyou:forourGodandyourGodisoneandthesame,andit isuntoHimthatWe[all]surrenderourselves.”

ThusanimportantpointofQur’anicinstructionforustodayisthatoneshouldalwaysmaintainone’sdistinctiveness;andinparticular,Muslimsshouldmaintainthedistinctnatureoftheirreligion.Muslimscanbecomfortableintheiridentityasfollowersoftheirreligionandthe distinctive characteristics of their faith, beliefs, and practices.Thereisnopointinblurringthosedistinctionsinanefforttocometoacommonunderstanding.Differencedoesnotnecessarilygeneratemutualhostility.Indeed,allofuslivewithdifferenceeveryday.Weseepeoplewhoarefromdifferentbackgrounds,whoholddifferent

...the Qur’an conceives humanity as one community,

bound together by one God.

...interreligious understanding is not just possible; it is necessary.

RespectfulDialogue:AMuslimPointofViewcontinued

Encouraging


religious,socialandpoliticalperspectives,butcanstillrelatetothem.We don’t want to be subsumed into their way of being, nor should weexpectotherstobesubsumedintoours.TheQur’anrecognisedthis when, in the very early Meccan period of Prophet Muhammad’s teaching, it declared to the people of Mecca who were opposed to him:9

Say:“Oyouwhodenythetruth!.” Idonotworshipthatwhichyouworship,andneitherdoyouworshipthatwhichIworship.“AndIwillnotworshipthatwhichyouhave[ever]worshipped,andneitherwillyou [ever]worship thatwhich Iworship.Untoyou,yourmorallaw,anduntome,mine!”

In conclusionIshouldalsohighlightinthiscontextthatrespectfuldialogueis

not just an abstract idea. There are plenty of examples in Muslim history that exhibit the kind of mutual respect and engagement the Qur’aninsistson.Forinstance,itisreportedthatwhenMuslimarmiesmovedfromArabiaintoSyriaintheearlypartofthe7thcenturyCE,and the Muslim army took over Damascus, they needed to pray the Friday prayer. The Muslims could have prayed in an open space but insteadtheychosetoprayatthechurchofStJohntheBaptist.TheysoughtpermissionfromtheChristians,andsubsequentlyheldtheirFridayprayersinthechurch,andChristianscontinuedtopraytherealso.

The Prophet Muhammad himself also allowed a number of Christians to perform their prayers in his ownmosque. Themostfamous example of this occurred when the people of Nairan –whowere primarily Christian – came to visit the Prophet and his

companionsinMedina.AfterworshippingintheProphet’smosque,they are said to have also specifically discussed the differencesbetween the Prophet’s teachings and their faith. Rather than ending thedialoguewithatraditionalinvocationofa“curse”toseewhichreligion was the true one, a peace treaty was signed instead.10

In the 8th to the 10th centuries CE, Islamic Spain, Andalusia,saw incredible interfaith cooperation and understanding betweenMuslims, Jews, and Christians. This was enacted through sharedcultural production. For example, three different literary traditionsnot only coexisted but developed together: “Muslim philosophersand scientists developed knowledge in medicine, optics, algebra,chemistry, and other sciences. Jewish scholars gave shape to the Talmudic tradition, and Christian Europe sent its theologians tostudy philosophy and sciences under Muslim and Jewish scholars in Andalusia”. The Qur’anic instructions, the Prophet’s example aswell as historical experiences could be used today to develop an understandingofdialoguethatisrespectful,genuineandenriching.

Professor Abdullah Saeed AM

1 MarionLarsonandSaraShady,‘InterfaithDialogueinaPluralisticWorld:InsightsfromMartinBuberandMiroslavVolf’,Journal of College and Character, vol. x, no. 3, 2009, p. 3. 2 ThefollowingmodelsarebasedonJaneISmith,Muslims,Christians,andtheChallengeofInterfaithDialogue,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2007,pp.63-823 SeeQur’an58:1forexample.4 Qur’an2:2135 Qur’an2:213inAbdulazizSachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2001,p.22.6 SeeMuhammadLegenhausen,‘AMuslim’sNon-ReductiveReligiousPluralism’,inIslam and Global Dialogue: Religious Pluralism and the Pursuit of Peace, Roger Boase (ed.), Aldershot:Ashgate,2005,p.66.7 Qur’an6:108inMuhammadShafiqandMohammedAbu-Nimer,Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims,Herndon,USA:TheInternationalInstituteofIslamicThought,2007,p.60.8 Qur’an109:1-69 MuhammadShafiqandMohammedAbu-Nimer,Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims,Herndon,USA:TheInternationalInstituteofIslamicThought,2007,p.70.10MuhammadShafiqandMohammedAbu-Nimer, Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims,Herndon,USA:TheInternationalInstituteofIslamicThought,2007,p.74.

Encouraging


WhileJudaismistheparticularreligiouswayoflifeofaparticularpeoplebornoutofparticularhistoricalexperiences,itspurposeandaspiration is universal. Abraham himself is told to “be a blessing”(Genesis12:2)andthatthroughhimandhisseed,allthenationsofthe earth shall be blessed.

The Covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and theirdescendantsisratifiedatSinaiwherethechildrenofIsraelarecalledto be a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation (Exodus19:6). Theultimategoal forthisworldthattheJewishpeople istohelpbringabout accordingly, is a society in which all men and women live in keepingwiththeDivineWill,injustice,righteousnessandpeace.

Indeed Judaism teaches that all humankind is “called”,“commanded”, fromtheoutset,to livesuchrighteous lives. Jewishtradition understands all Humankind as “covenanted” with Godthrough the Covenant with the Children of Noah made after theflood.(Genesis9:9)TheTraditionunderstandsthedemandsofthiscovenant to consist of seven commandments – the quintessenceof universal morality. These are the prohibitions against murder,idolatry,theft,incest,blasphemy,dismemberingofanylivinganimalandthecommandtoestablishcourtsofjustice.

One who lives in accordance with the demands of the Noahide Covenantisnotonlyperceivedasarighteousgentile(whomeritstheWorld to Come) but under the rule of Jewish Law enjoys status of ger toshav,theresidentgentilewhoisentitledtoallcivilrightsaswellasobligationsofthesociety.

NeverthelessforthefirstmillenniumandhalfofJewishhistory,gentileacceptanceofNoahidestandardswasseenasexceptionalandindividual. Society at large in the world was perceived as idolatrous andcorrupt,pagananddegenerate.TheestablishmentoftheHolyRomanEmpire,withitshostilitytowardstheJewishpeople,enabledJudaismtoviewearlyChristianityas justanotherversionofpaganpower.Eventheacknowledgementoffundamentalpositiveaspectsin Christianity and Islam (as by Yehuda Halevi and Maimonides)in spreading knowledge of the One God and HismoralWays andCommandments,pavingthewayforuniversalmessianicredemption,didnotmitigatethatbasicperception.

Judaism viewed Islam more positively (eg. Maimonides Resp.448) as “uncompromised” by what were seen as problematicdoctrinessuchastheincarnationandthetrinity;aswellastheuseofeffigies,etc.HoweveritwaspreciselyintheencounterwithIslamthatJewishthinkersencounteredcollectives,nations,whoseethoswasareligious ethical one. This in turn impacted on the way some began

toviewChristianity.WhileRabbiMenachemHaMeiriofPerpignan(13-14thcenturies)taughtthatbothChristiansandMuslimsshouldbeviewedinthecategoryof“nationsboundbythewaysofreligion”,the predominant perception of Christianity was one of “flawedmonotheism”atbest.Thiswasdefinedinthetermshittuf, literally, “partnership”, or “association” of an additional power with GodHimself.However,thepragmaticpositionemergedthatwhileshittuf would compromise Mosaic monotheism and was thus prohibited to JewsitwasnotincompatiblewiththeNoahideprohibitionsandthusChristianswerenotidolaters.

This positive attitude frequently found its echo amongstAshkenaziluminarieswellbeforetheeffectsofEmancipationandtheEnlightenment.

Instructive in this regardare thewordsofRabbiMosheRivkes(ShulchanAruch,ChoshenMishpat,sect.425):

“The peoples in whose shade we, the people of Israel, take refuge and amongst whom we are dispersed, do believe in the Creation and the Exodus and in the main principles of religion and their whole intent is to serve the Maker of Heaven and Earth.”

RabbiRivkes’referencetoChristianssharingwithJewsnotonlybeliefintheGodofCreationbutalsobeliefinthesameGodasGodoftheExodus,impliesafactoremphasisedbyotherssubsequently;namely, shared religious history and Scriptures. What is recognised here accordingly is the special relationship and metier betweenthosewhosharetheHebrewBibleanditshistory.

On the basis of the position recognising both Muslims andChristians as monotheistic believers bound by the minimal moralcode, the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi in Israel, Rabbi AvrahamYitzchakHaCohenKook ruled thatMuslimsandChristians living ina predominant Jewish society must be treated as gerim toshavim, ie.,withfullcivilliberties,justasJews.(Similarly,thefirstAshkenazicChiefRabbioftheStateofIsrael,RabbiI.H.Herzog–“TheRightsofMinoritiesaccordingtoHalacha”).

YetitwouldbedisingenuoustodescribesuchpositiveattitudestowardsChristianityasadvocatingdialogue.

Moses Mendelsohn, usually seen as the pioneer of enlightenment Jewishthinking,wentastepfurther.Heattemptedtofindwaystobridge thegapsbetweenthemutualperceptionsof the two faithsand declared his readiness to acknowledge the innocence and goodnessofJesuswiththecaveatsthat:(a)henevermeanttoregardhimselfasequalwith“theFather”;(b)heneverproclaimedhimselfas a person of divinity; (c) he never presumptuously claimed the

Jewish Approaches to Dialogue

Rabbi David RosenRabbi Rosen KCSG is the Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department for Interreligious Affairs.

He is an Honorary President of the International Council of Christians & Jews and a founder of the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel.

Editor: this is an edited extract of a paper delivered at a meeting of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations and the World Council of Churches meeting, London, October 14-16 2012

Jewish Approaches to Dialogue continued

Encouraging


honourofworship;and (d)hedidnot intend to subvert the faithofhis fathers.He complained thatquarrelsbetween JudaismandChristianitymerely lead to the general weakening of religion – athemethatwastore-emergeaftertheSecondWorldWar.ToquoteMendelssohn’snoblewords:

“It is unbecoming for one of us to openly defy the other and thereby furnish diversion to the idle, scandal to the simple and malicious exultation to the revilers of truth and virtue. Were we to analyse our aggregate stock of knowledge, we certainly shall concur in so many important truths that I venture to say few individuals of one and the same religious persuasion would more harmonise in thinking… What a world of bliss we would live in did all men adopt the true principles which the best among the Christians and the best among the Jews have in common.”Itwouldstillbealongtimebefore his vision would gain wide acceptance.

Subsequent German Jewish enlightenment thinkers in thenineteenth century, such as Solomon Formstecher and Solomon Steinheim,andeventheneo-OrthodoxleaderSamuelRafaelHirsch,were willing to allot an honoured place to Christianity, albeit aninferior one to that of Judaism.

Inparticular,theysingledoutandattachedwhattheydiscernedas paganelements in Christianity, amongstwhich theynumberedtransubstantiation, the cult of relics, the institution of sainthood,and the doctrine of the Trinity. Under the circumstances, the polemics were inevitable. Nevertheless a more polished approach of theessentialHalevian/Maimonideanapproachbegantoholdsway.

The influential early twentieth century philosopher, HermannCohen, wrote extensive critiques of Christianity, but neverthelesssensedadeeprelationbetweenJudaismandChristianity,especiallyin its Protestant manifestations, with their emphasis on thebelieving individual. Cohen saw the connection between JudaismandChristianityinalifeofreason,whichhesawJudaismashavingattainedingreatermeasure.

TheseminalfiguresintheevolutionofmodernJewishattitudesto Christianity leading to the dialogue were Franz RosenzweigandMartinBuber. Ithasbeensaid thatRosenzweigwas thefirstJewish theologian to view Christianity as equally legitimate asJudaism,bothhavingtheiroriginintheDivine.Heaffirms,thatthevocationofChristianityistobringthenationsoftheworldtothecovenant,andonthisbasis,JudaismandChristianitycanrecognisethe integrity of the other. Accordingly they should strive for mutual understanding, not change. Rosenzweig sees them as united at the endoftime,butmeanwhileneitherreligionmustattempttoadoptthepathoftheother.Christianity,forhim,isonitswaytoitsgoal;butJudaismhasarrived.ForaChristianhastobecomeaChristian–heisbornaheathen;butaJewisborn(intotheCovenantas)aJew.

Buber, like Rosenzweig, felt that we can acknowledge as a mystery that which someone else confesses as the reality of his faith, even though it opposes our own knowledge. This means recognising Christianity as a path to God and demanding thatChristianity recognise Judaism as a path to God. It also involvesrejection of the Christian claim to a monopoly of the path tosalvation.

Buber distinguished between two types of faith: emuna, thebiblicalpattern,whichwasthefaithofJesus;andtheGreekpistis,embodied in Paul. The faith of Jesus was broad, dealing with the

problemsof all people; thatofPaulwas chiefly interested in theindividual and in human salvation through Jesus. Buber felt thatChristianity required a change of emphasis back from pistis toemuna. “We Jews”, he wrote, “do not perceive any caesura in history, no midpoint, but only a goal – the goal of the way to God, and do not pause on our way.”

At the same time he allows for the possibility that Godmayhave revealed himself to Jesus but cannot ascribe finality to anyof his revelations nor to anyone the idea of the incarnation. ToBuber itwas justification by faithwhich separated Judaism fromChristianity.NeverthelesshelookedforwardtothetimewhentheJewswould recognise Jesusasagreat religiousfigure, calls Jesus“mybrother”,andinsiststhatthegatesofGodareopentoall.Justas the Christian need not go through Judaism, the Jewdoes notneed to go throughChristianity to come toGod.No-oneoutsideIsraelcanunderstandthemysteryofIsrael,hedeclares,andno-oneoutside Christianity can understand themystery of Christendom.Inresponsetothequestion“Howcanthemysteriesstandsidebyside?”heanswersthat“thatitselfisGod’smystery.”

Similartotheneo-OrthodoxJewishleaderRabbiSamsonRafaelHirsch,Buberalsohighlights the centralityof JewishpeoplehoodinJudaismasoneofthemainandnecessarypointsofdistinctionbetween Judaism and Christianity. Indeed Hirsch points out thattheessentialparticularityof Jewry’scharacteranddestinyare itslimitations;andinorderforChristianitytofulfilitsglobaldestiny,ithad to break away from the people that gave birth to it.

Inevitably emancipation led to an eventual greater mutualfamiliarity and appreciation between Jews and Christians; andtherefore the encounter and the value of the encounter was experienced and promoted in themoremodern communities bythe more liberal strands of Judaism.

ThuswhathaditsoriginssubstantiallyintheGermanspeakingworld develops overwhelmingly in the English speaking world and intheUnitedStatesofAmericainparticular.

All proponents of dialogue referred to its necessity to engender mutual respect, combat bigotry and misrepresentation. In thewake of the Shoah, towhich I refer below, this became an evengreaterimperative.Howevertherewerethosewhohopedformoretheologically.

Martin Buber had called for Jews and Christians “to show a religious respect for the true faith of the other. This is not what is called tolerance; our task is not to tolerate each other’s waywardness, but to acknowledge the real relationship in which both stand to the truth.”

However, Buber affirms that Jews and Christians have incommon“a book and an expectation” and that this commonality challengesus inourrelationship. “To you the book is a forecourt; to us it is the sanctuary. But in this place we can dwell together and together listen to the voice that speaks here... Your expectation is directed toward a second coming; ours to a coming which has not been anticipated by a first. To you the phrasing of world history is determined by one absolute midpoint, the year nought. To us, it is an unbroken flow of tones following each other without a pause from their origin to their consummation. But we can wait for the advent of the One together, and there are moments when we may prepare the way before him together.”

Encouraging


“Preparing the way” in the sense of religious and ethicalcollaborationispreciselythepurposeofJewish-Christianengagementaccording to the Conservative Jewish theologian Abraham JoshuaHeschel.

“It is neither to flatter nor to refute one another, but to help one another; to share insight and learning, to cooperate in academic venture on the highest scholarly level; and what is even more important, to search in the wilderness for wellsprings of devotion, for treasures of stillness, for the power of love and care for man. What is urgently needed are ways of helping one another in the terrible predicament of here and now by the courage to believe that the word of the Lord endures forever as well as here and now.”

The US Reform theologian Eugene Borowitz is perhaps blunter about the common challenge that Jews and Christians face. “A secularism unguided by Christianity and paying no attention to its handful of believing Jews, would become a new paganism, one far more dangerous than anything the prophets and rabbis fought against – Judaism has far more in common with Christianity than with a secularism gone pagan.”

As indicated, views such as those articulated by Heschel andBorowitz reflect the significant degree of self-confidence thatmodernJewishcommunitieshadfoundinanewworld.

However, undeniably one of the major factors in the historyof, and the transformation in, Christian-Jewish relations was theShoah.AsChristianscholarslikeFlanneryandEdwardshavepointedout;evenifitwastheproductofapaganideology,ittookplaceinostensiblyChristian landsperpetratedoverwhelminglybybaptisedChristians;anditwaswouldnothavebeenabletohavesucceededtotheextentthatitdidwithoutthefertilisationofcenturiesofChristianteachingofcontempttowardstheJewsrenderingthelatterliterallydemonised and dehumanised.

This proved to be a profound impetus for many Christians topurify their communities of this poison; and a major impulse forJewstoprotecttheircommunitiesfromsuchtragicconsequencesofbigotry and prejudice.

Indeed formany itbecame themainpurposeof thedialogue.The philosopher Emil Fackenheim was ordained as a German Reform rabbi.HewasinternedbytheNazisinSachsenhausenconcentrationcamp, but escaped to Britain from where he was sent for internment inacampinCanadawherehespentmostofhislifebeforeretiringto Jerusalem.

ForhimtheprimarymoralimperativeforJewsthatflowsfromthetragedyoftheShoahistheobligationtosurviveandtodenyHitlera“posthumousvictory”;andaccordingly,thefundamentalobligationthat theShoahdemandsofChristians, is to recogniseandsupporttheintegrityandvitalityoftheJewishPeople. Indeed,heseesthisas essential for the salvation of Christianity itself. Jewish-Christian

engagement therefore is necessary to ensure the future of Jewry in whichChristianityhasafundamentalstake(whichithasdeniedformostofitshistory.)ThispositionofcourserelatesinextricablytotheStateofIsrael.

However the Shoah also served to reinforce some of thoseopposing dialogue with Christians, especially within the OrthodoxJewish world which by definition had been less open to andinfluencedbythewindsofmodernity.

Notable in this regard was Rabbi Eliezer Berkowitz, also a refugee fromNazism.Hedescribes theworldafter theShoahasapost-Christian world and sees Christian ecumenism as reflectingChristendom’s lossofpower.Christiansareonlynow interested inthe freedom of religion, he declares, because they are interested inthefreedomofChristians.HeperceivesChristiancivilisationandChristianityasmorallybankruptespeciallyaftertheShoah;andJewishengagementwithChristianityasaccordingly lacking inself-respect.The Christian world needs to demonstrate far more consistentlyand thoroughlyovergenerations that ithas repentedandpurifieditself of its sins against Jewry before any such engagement can be contemplated.

While Berkowitz’s view is articulated rather harshly, it is noteccentric in Orthodox Jewish circles and is probably normativewithinharediultra-Orthodoxy.Howeverinthemain,thedisinterestindialoguewithinharedisociety(andtoadegreewithinnon-harediOrthodoxy aswell) is bornmore out of a “fundamentalist” linearviewof truth (“mine is the truepath andas it is not yours, yoursisnottrue”)aswellasaresidualmediaevalviewofChristianityasquasi-idolatrous.Aboveall,theharediworldoutlookisareactionarywithdrawalfromthemodernworldandthusisolationistbydefinition.

NeverthelessModernOrthodox leadership inpost-warEurope,such as Chief Rabbis Hertz in Britain and Kaplan of France, wereprominent in thenascentChristian-Jewishdialogue. In theUS, thepersonality who assumed predominance in modern Orthodox circles (andstilldoessoevenafterhisdeath)wasRabbi J.B.Soloveitchik.Heforgedsomethingofamiddlegroundpositioninafamousarticlewrittenintheearly1960s(seeTradition Vol.6 No.2).

While advocating cooperation with Christians on matters ofsharedsocialandethicalconcernandadvocacy,hedeclaresineffectthatthereisnopointintheologicaldialoguethatrelatestothe“innerlife” of faith affirmation. Accordingly the Jewish community mustalwaysbemindfulofthemysteryoftheuniquenessofitsbeingandmust not expose the inner life of its faith to interreligious dialogue.

There has beenmuch debate, commentary and critique (evenwithin Orthodox Jewish circles), on Soloveitchik’s position andhismotives; especially as he himself apparently did participate intheologicaldiscussionswithChristians.

Nevertheless,thepositionofmaintainingadistinctionbetweentheological dialogue (tobe avoided) and shared consultations andcollaborationonsocialandethicalmatters(asdesirable),hasbeenmaintained by mainstream Orthodox Jewry in the US and has had some impact further abroad as well. In order to incorporateAmericanJewishOrthodoxyinIJCIC,thelatterofficiallyabidesbythisdistinctionasitscollectivepolicy.

As indicated,thesignificanceoftheStateof IsraelforJewryasawhole takesonevengreater significanceand implications in thewakeoftheShoah.However,ofcourseanybasicunderstandingof

...undeniably one of the major

factors in the history of, and the

transformation in, Christian-

Jewish relations was the Shoah.

Rabbi David Rosen

Judaism appreciates the fundamental relationship between theJewishPeopleandtheLandofIsrael,asintrinsictoJewry’soriginalandongoingidentity.

Accordingly the previous British Chief Rabbi, Lord ImmanuelJakobovits stated that “In the self-definition of Judaism, a major impact is bound to be made by the restoration of Jewish sovereignty. Any redefinition, of Church attitudes to the Jewish People which leaves this fundamental change out of account, is incomplete. Quite irrelevant are differences of opinion over particular Israeli governmental policies.”

The recognition of Israel’s legitimacy and its right to a secureexistence,isthusineffect,theexpressionoftruerespectforJewishhistoricalandcontemporaryidentity.

Oneof the outstanding hurdles for Christian-Jewish relation isthesubjectofmission,witnessand/orproselytisation.

For very many Jews the very idea that one is perceived as incompleteandinneedofChristianwitnessisoffensiveandrendersdialogue impossible. Accordingly some Jews will only enter into dialogue with those who have clearly rejected such a theology and accepted the full integrity of their Jewish interlocutors.

This presentation on Jewish approaches to dialogue withChristianswouldnotbecompletewithoutreferencetotwomoderndeclarations.

Thefirstwasthe1993InternationalCouncilofChristiansandJews(ICCJ)theologicalstatemententitled:Jews and Christians in Search of a Common Religious Basis for Contributing Towards a Better World. This was divided into sections on Christian perspectives, Jewishperspectivesandjointperspectives.

TheJewishsectionprovidedfourreasonsforJewstoengageindialoguewithChristians:1. The need to take a common stand against ignorance, prejudice,

bigotryandtheirviolentmanifestationsonthebasisoftheaffirmation–sharedwithChristiansandotherpeopleoffaith–oftheDivinePresenceinourworld;

2. The existence of a common agenda indicated by those tenets and values (e.g. the belief in God as Creator, the commitment to the Noahide commandments, the Decalogue, as well as the expectationofGod’sruleoverthewholeearth)whichJewsandChristiansholdincommonduetotheirsharedbiblicalandhistoricalroots;

3. ThesanctificationofGod’snameincooperationwithallpeoplewholiveinaccordancewithGod’sways;andthepossibilityofpartnershipwithChristiansinsanctifyingGod’sNamebeforesociety at large.

4. The opportunity to know and love God more deeply by seeking God in every place, especially where the knowledge of God is experienced in the lives and spirituality of people of other faiths.Inreligiousencounterswiththerighteousfromamongthenations,JewsareexposedtootherperspectivesoftheOmnipresentthatarenotencapsulatedtotallyinoneTradition;thus they gain a deeper experience of the Divine.

IncontrasttothisstatementwhichwasnotwidelypublicisedandbasicallywasknownonlytothoseinvolvedwiththeworkoftheICCJ;intheyear2000astatementappearedasafullpageadvertisementin the New York Times, sponsored by the Baltimore Institute forChristianandJewishStudiesandsignedbyhundredsofrabbisfromthe different Jewish denominations. It thus enjoyed widespreadexposureandoverwhelminglypositivereception,eventhoughitwasnotwithout its critics.ThestatemententitledDabru Emet (“SpeaktheTruth”)wasformulatedbyfourConservativeandReformJewishscholars.Itsbasicpointswerethat:1. JewsandChristiansworshipthesameGod(eventhough

ChristianworshipisnotaviablereligiouschoiceforJews.Nevertheless,throughChristianity,hundredsofmillionsofpeoplehaveenteredintorelationshipwiththeGodofIsrael)

2. JewsandChristiansseekauthorityfromthesamebook–theBible (what Jews call TanachandChristianscallthe“OldTestament”).

3. ChristianscanrespecttheclaimoftheJewishpeopleuponthelandofIsrael(whilethedeclarationalsoaffirmsthatJewishtraditionmandatesjusticeforallnon-JewswhoresideinaJewish state.)

4. JewsandChristiansacceptthemoralprinciplesofTorah(whichshould be the basis of a powerful witness to all humanity for improving the lives of our fellow human beings and for standing againsttheimmoralitiesandidolatriesthatharmanddegradeus–awitnessthatisespeciallyneededaftertheunprecedentedhorrors of the past century.)

5. NazismwasnotaChristianphenomenon–evenifthelonghistoryofChristiananti-JudaismandChristianviolenceagainstJewsenabledNaziideologyandatrocities.)

6. ThehumanlyirreconcilabledifferencebetweenJewsandChristianswillnotbesettleduntilGodredeemstheentireworldas promised in Scripture.

7. AnewrelationshipbetweenJewsandChristianswillnotweakenJewishpractice.

8. JewsandChristiansmustworktogetherforjusticeandpeace.

Jewish Approaches to Dialogue continued

Encouraging


Encouraging


Faith: the highest and the most humbleThe most fundamental recurring fact of humanity and history is

faith:thesenseofahigherpurposeandanencompassingmeaning.What this means is that the highest faculty of the human, the most human in the human is the soul. When the human being was fashionedbyG-d,itwassaid,“Let us make the person in our [G-d’s] likeness.”Thatreferstothehumansoul,themirrorofG-d,whichisthe highest faculty of the person, the seat of conscience, meaning andresponsibility.Thatiswhatthepersonultimatelyis.Itistruethatthe person is also body and mind, but the rider over both of these is the human soul. They are the vehicles of the soul.

Therefore it is not at all strange that the single most salient feature of human history should be religion, for religious is the expression of the human soul. Perhaps the greatest of all sociologists, Max Weber saw that religion was the clue to understanding social processes for it is the master template of human purpose sought out by the soul:thecontrolboard,inaccordancewithwhichhumanactivityisguided and directed. Even the modern phenomenon which Weber focusseduponmostextensively,the“disenchantment”oftheworld,theprocessofsecularisationand“rationalisation”oftheworld,hadbeenset inmotionbyaparticularreligiousethic,anethicofgoodworks, though this had swung back against its original religious fount anddesacralisedtheanimuswhichsetitinmotion.

Thecitadelsofwesternsociety–theuniversities,theprofessions,themediaandthebureaucraticelites–aretodaylargelyinthegripof thatspiritofsecularisation,withanewdeeplymaterialisticandhedonistictwist.Thegrassroots,however,arenotso; inthemthehuman spirit is far more resilient. The reason for that has to do with humility. Humility is the beginning of religious experience,the knowledge that there is something greater than oneself and a higherpurposetowhichonemusttieoneself.Humilityisarigorousrequirement.Peopleofintellectandpowerareeasystickingpointsfor hubris and arrogance. Simple people on the other hand more easily see something greater than themselves. This does not mean thathumilityandreligiousexperienceismeresimplicity;muchrather,simplicityisaqualitywhichhelpsusto“grasp”G-d,Whoisabsolutely“simple”inthesenseofbeingbeyondalldescription.Humilityisnotin contradiction to intellect. To the contrary,one cannotdobetterthan to marry humility with intellect. But this means opening up the spiritualfaculty,whichcanthenproperlyreceivefromthetraditionand guide, rather than being occluded by, intellect with intellect’s owndangerouspropensitytovanityandmaterialisation.

The materialistic hedonism which has captured the highplaces of our society as a world view could be termed an idolatry of thematerial; indeed, it has even sunk beneath the intellectual

promethean atheism of Marx to a purely physicalist materialism of Darwin and Freud.

Interfaith: the common coreTherearetwomodelsofinterfaith:anolderone,aboutwhichIam

sceptical,andonewhichIwanttopresentasthenewandthemorecogent. The old model was built on a premise of understanding of differencesandthehopethatthismutualrecognitionofindividualitiesoffaithwouldrelativiseasenseofsuperiorityorparticularismandsobreed tolerance and harmony. The problem with this model is that itsrelativisticapproachcouldultimatelydampenpersonalreligiousconviction.Orthodoxy–whichbelievesinaG-dandinG-d’steaching-isnotgoingtoaccepttherelativityofstandpointswhichliberalfaithpositions,withtheirgreateremphasison“humanism”and“change.”Itisinterestingtonotethecommentofagreatmodernthinkerandpsychologist, Viktor Frankl on the concept of tolerance. Frankl said thattoleranceshouldbebornnotoutofarelativism–whichreasons–“whosaysI’mright?Maybes/he’sright?”Thetruthisnotrelative.Rather tolerance should stem from a spirit of love and respect for the other.Thetruthisthetruth,andeveniftheotherisnotquitewiththetruth,stillasafellowhumanbeingImustfeelaloveandrespectforthisother.Moralrelativismisfalseanditsapsthespirit.

TheapproachtointerfaithwhichIembraceisthusnotrelativistic.Itlooksforthecommon,authenticcore,whichwecanallendorse.This isnothardtofind. It isahistoricalandspiritual reality.Theseare the faith and laws by which Noah, the ancestor of all humanity aftertheflood,and laterAbraham,thefatherofahostofpeoplesandfaiths–Judaism,Christianity,IslamandbyacircuitousroutealsoHinduismandBuddhism(viathesonswhichhesenttotheEast)–in all, 75%of humanity. These laws canbedocumented and theirresonance tested. My study of these laws, called the Noahide laws, goesbacknowmanyyears. I havewrittenonebookon theworldview of the Noahide laws called Perspectives on the Noahide laws – Universal Ethics,and Ihaveresearchedthedetailof thepracticeof the Noahide laws. From our own tradition I knew these to betheuniversallawofhumanity.However,recentlyIputittothetestbefore the great world religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.IreceivedagrantfromtheFederalAttorneyGeneral in itsBuildingCommunity Resilience Program to produce a “Manual of shared values of the world religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”IheldseminarswithdistinguishedreligiousscholarsfromtheChristianandIslamicfaithstotesttheresonanceofasetofrootvalues.Myspecialcollaborators were Professor Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul IIInstituteforMarriageandtheFamilyandProfessorIsmailAlbayrak,ProfessorofIslamattheAustralianCatholicUniversity.Theresultant

The Heart of Interfaith

Rabbi Dr Shimon CowenRabbi Cowen, son of a former Governor General of Australia, Sir Zelman Cowen OBM, is the founding Director of the Institute

for Judaism and Civilisation. He has been a Senior Research Fellow at Monash University and Program Director of a postgraduate Rabbinic Institute, the Kollel Menachem Lubavitch in Melbourne.

TheHeartofInterfaithcontinued

Encouraging


manual“An education in a shared ethic”whichwasratifiedbyeachof us corresponds to the Noahide laws, the fundamental code set outintheBibleandelucidatedbythetraditionofcommentaryfromSinai. Another,more familiar term for these ethicsmightwell be:“Abrahamicethics.” This is the truepath forward in interfaith, theaffirmationofourgenuinelysharedcommonbelief.Italsohas–likeallby-productsofthetruth–othergoodthings,ofwhichasenseoffraternity of humanity is one.

...and of all (including “non-religious”) humanityHavingquotedViktorFranklonthetruemeaningof tolerance,

Iwouldalsoliketoquotehimonhumanself-transcendence.Franklhasmade theextremely importantobservation, thateveryperson– including the supposed atheist or agnostic – once called uponto transcend his or her “psychophysical” existence in fact unlockstheir innate (and often hitherto suppressed) spiritual potential.The meaning of self transcendence is linked to what we called at theoutset the essential ingredient of humility. Self transcendencemeans taking a higher perspective than that of the plane of ourpsychophysicalbeing. Itmeansaskingwhat it is towhichwehavebeencalled,whatthemeaningofoursuffering,ourcircumstances,life -oras the consciously religiousperson says,G-d,wantsofus.When a person humbly transcends his or her own psychophysical beinginthisway,saysFrankl,heorsheisinfactonroutetoG-d,theterminus to which the religious person is fortunate already to have been brought.

I therefore feel much confidence that these universal laws orethics will resonate not only with those whose faith stems consciously fromtheAbrahamictradition,butalsowiththosewhoarewillingtoembarkuponanhonestandintegralself-transcendence.Formoreinformation aboutNoahide or Abrahamic ethics seeAn Education in Shared Ethic and Perspectives on the Noahide Laws – Universal Ethics, which can be accessed via thewebsite of the Institute forJudaismandCivilisation:www.ijc.com.au

Rabbi Cowen has just launched a new website dedicated to the shared root values of the world religious (www.universal-ethics.org). He has also recently published a new work entitledThePracticeofUniversal Ethics (which may be purchased through the site).

Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen

challenging...


challEnging

Is the Dream of Interfaith Dialogue Dead?

Edward KesslerDr Kessler MBE is a leading thinker in interfaith relations, primarily contemporary Judaism, Jewish- Christian and Jewish-Muslim

relations. He is founder and Executive Director of the Woolf Institute and Fellow of St Edmund’s College, Cambridge. Kessler was

awarded the Sternberg Interfaith Award in recognition of outstanding service in furthering relations between faiths and The Times Higher

Education Supplement described him as “probably the most prolific interfaith figure in British academia”.


PART ONE: Theology and the Search for Common Ground

(a) Jesus the JewToday, we take for granted that one of the certain facts about Jesus is that he was a Jew.

HewasachildofJewishparents,broughtupinaJewishhomeandraisedinaccordancewithJewishtradition;thatthroughouthislife,JesuslivedamongJewsandhisfollowerswereJews.

Yet,becauseJesushasmostlybeenthefocusofdisunitybetweenJewsandChristians,hisJewishnesswaseitherignoredordenied.Withinafewyearsafterhisdeath,thefaithhisearly followersplaced inhim led themtoespousea ratherdifferentkindof religion fromthatfollowedbymostJews.Judaism, like Islamafter it, isstronglyrootedinreligious law;Christianityceasedtobeso.Judaism,alsolikeIslam,hasastrongbeliefintheunityofGod;ChristianitycametoplacesuchgreatstoreinJesusandsubsequentlyinthedoctrineoftheTrinitythat ithasseemedtomanyothermonotheiststobe, inessence,arefinedformofpolytheism.Gradually,Christianreligioncametolooklesslikeanauthentic,evenifeccentric,formofJudaism,andmorelikeacompletelydifferentreligion.

Historicaleventscreatedandaccentuatedthesereligiousdifferences.EarlyChristianitydifferedfromotherJewishinterpretationsinopeninguptogentiles,whosoonbecamethemajorityofChristians.TheapostlePaulstruggledtoholdtogetherJewsandgentileswithinone faith but did not succeed and Christianity eventually became separate, mostly non-Jewish.This“parting(s)oftheways”tookplaceovermanydecadesandevencenturies.

Intime,especiallyonceChristianitybecamethestatereligion,itsincapacitytounderstandwhy Jews failed to see JesusasMessiahmadepossibleanti-Jewishpolemicandviolence.These grew especially strong during the Crusades from the end of the 11th to the 15th centuries. A strong religious reason was the belief that Jews had been guilty of deicide in killingJesus;achargethatgoesbackatleastasfarasMelitoofSardis.Ofcourse,economicandotherfactorswereoftenofprimaryimportanceforactionstakenagainstJews,butthesecouldbejustifiedbyanappealtocenturies-oldclaimsaboutJewishfailings.

Thisstateofplaycontinued,withoccasionaloutbreaksoftolerance,untilashiftbeganto occur at the start of the 20th century,witnessed by thewritings of Christian scholarssuch as George FootMoore and Travers Herford,who began to remind fellow ChristiansoftheJewishnessofJesus. Indeed,as lateasthe1970s, itwascommonforGermanNewTestamentscholarstoportrayJesusasakindofprototypeexponentofidealism,separatinghim altogether from his Jewish context. Judaism at the time of Jesuswas depicted “lateJudaism”(Spätjudentum), as if the Jewish religion had endedwith the destruction of theTemplein70CE,orshouldhave.Thispositionwasbasedontheconvictionthatpost-exilicJudaismhadossifiedandbetrayed theprophetic faithof Israel; that Jesus standsoutsidesuchahardened,legalisticreligion,astrangertoit,condemningthePharisees(thefathersofRabbinicJudaism)whoweredepictedashavingmisledmodernJudaismintoperpetuatingthissterile,legalisticreligion.

TheNazistookadvantageofChristiananti-JudaismtojustifyandcarryouttheHolocaustBuilding on the writings of Herford and Foot Moore a new generation of scholars,

beginning with Geza Vermes’ Jesus the Jew(1973)drewwideattentionamongChristianstoJesus’ Jewish origins, which has now become widespread and crucial within New Testament studies,andhaspermeated into Jewish-Christiandialogue.EPSandersandhis Jesus and Judaism (1985) is another deeply influential scholarwho showed that far from being an

This article will consider whether the dream of interfaith dialogue is dead by tracing developments in the last 100 years. I will identify three themes:1. Theology and the search for common ground2. Organisations and institutional statements3. Responses to conflict

Each theme has contributed significantly to the growth and popularisation of interfaith dialogue but today, on their own, none is sufficient for it to flourish or perhaps even to survive.


challEnging


alien intruder in 1st century Palestine, Jesus was a reformer ofJewishbeliefs,notanindiscriminatefaultfinderofthem.Bothhaveleftanindeliblemark.TheirworkontheNewTestamentandearlyChristianityepitomisesthedesireamongtheexponentsofinterfaithdialogue to search for common ground.

(b) Shared Scripture; exegetical encounters; Bible Study (Scriptural reasoning)

Another example of the search for common ground is found in the Bible and especially biblical interpretation because Jews andChristianslived(andcontinuetolive)abiblicallyorientatedculture.Of course, whilst they shared many of the same Scriptures they read them in dramatically differentways. Traditionally, ChristianwriterswereastonishedatwhattheyconsideredtobeJewish“blindness”:their failure to comprehend the truth proclaimed in their own sacred texts.JewishwriterswereperturbedbyChristianinterpretationsnotrooted in the original Hebrew or that abandoned completely thesimplemeaningofthewordsinfavourofothersignificance.

Although there existed an abundance of texts, which were primarily polemical or even vituperative, one result which wasparticularlyimportantforthedevelopmentofinterfaithdialoguehasbeentotellanaltogethermorepositivestory–thatofaconstructiveandmutuallybeneficialtwo-wayexegeticalencounter.

Similarlyofcourse,Muslimsalsoliveinascripturally-orientatedculture.Liketherabbinichermeneuticalprinciple,“ScriptureexplainsScripture”, for Muslim commentators, the ways in which one verse (ayat)clarifiesanotherisregardedasthemostsignificant.Anotherform of Qur’anic commentary is how the Prophet interpretedthe Qur’an, as recorded in the hadith. The word tafsir means “explanation”or“interpretation”andissimilartomidrash,aHebrewtermforasking,explainingandinterpretingasacredtext.

OfcoursetherearemajordifferencesbetweenJewish,Christianand Muslim approaches to Scripture. Simply put, interpretationsof the same biblical text albeit in different translations, (or in thedialogue with Muslims, a similar biblical story), has led to Scriptural Reasoning enthusiasts (and Bible Study groups) to discover common groundintheinterpretationsoftheAbrahamiccommentators.

(c) Encounters with Islam (A Common Word, A Call to Dialogue)

Thus far I have focused mainly on Jewish-Christian dialogue,sincethathasbeenthefoundationofmoderninterfaithdialogueinthe West. Yet, that focus has widened to the dialogue with Muslims (andotherfaithcommunities),andthereismuchtodiscuss.

FollowingthepatternIhavedescribedabove,interfaithdialogue

withMuslimsbegun(andcontinues)withanemphasisonidentifyingcommonground.Forexample,the2008MuslimLettertotheJewishCommunity (Call to Dialogue) initiated by Muslim scholars (hereat theWoolf Institute) attempts to demonstrate the commonalitybetween these two faiths, since both stress religious law and the centrality of monotheism, and have no priesthood.

Therearealso important initiativesto“buildbridges”betweenIslamandChristianitysincebothhaveastrongsenseofmissiontopeople of other religions. Jesus is revered by Muslims as a prophet andthe2007letterfromMuslimscholarstotheChristianworld(ACommonWord)outlinesthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwofaiths.

Tensions, of course, also exist sometimes arising out ofIslamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Christian prejudice, aroundZionism and the State of Israel, all ofwhich I shall discuss below,aswellasoutburstsofviolencebetweenMuslimsandChristiansindifferentpartsoftheworld.

Theologically, there are controversies which have yet to be explored satisfactorily such as themes of mission andsupersessionism.BothChristianityandIslamaremissionaryreligionsandbothhavebeenviewed,traditionally,asthereplacementofthepreviousfaith(s).(Asanaside,onepositiveconsequenceofIslamicsupersessionismisthatitprovidesChristianswithaninsightintothedifficultiesraisedbyChristiansupersessionismofJudaism(andwhatis called replacement theology).

(d) Dialogue Theologians: Martin Buber and Wilfred Cantwell Smith

The search for common ground pervades the theological writings of the pioneers of interfaith dialogue who called forthe reciprocal exposing of the full religious consciousness of the onewith the “Other”. ForBuber andCantwell Smith andothers,dialogue speaks to the Other with a full respect of what the Other is and has to say.

Suchaquest isnevereasybecause it isnotmerelyabouttheOther, nor where the Other differs from us. The experience ofdialoguewasexpressedinthewritingsofFranzRosenzweig(1886-1929)whichemphasisenot thesubjectmatter thatconnects thespeakerwiththelistenerbutthe“I”confrontingtheThou.

Rosenzweig became one of the main sources out of which MartinBuber(1878-1965)developedhis“IandThou”relationship.Hemaintainedthatapersonal relationshipwithGod isonly trulypersonal when there is not only awe and respect on the human side but when we are not overcome and overwhelmed in our relationshipwithGod.Theworldof“faith”istreatedasvalidandgenuine;notan‘it’tobecarelesslysetasidebutadistinctivevalue


challEnging


ofbelief.AnI-Thourelationshipisameetingnotofreligionsbutofreligious people.

It is all too easy to solely seek common ground or approachinterfaith relations simply as a field of study. This iswhat Buberwould have called a “fictitious” dialogue and not a “genuinereligiousconversation”.

Similarly, for Wilfred Cantwell Smith religion should not be treated as a system, an “ism,” a simplistic and sterile, overlyconceptualised,staticentitywhichhaslittletodowiththepersonalandhistoricalrealitythatwelabel“religion.”Understandingreligiondoesnot lie in religious systems,heargues,but inpersons. “Ask not what religion a person belongs to but ask rather what religion belongs to that person”, he famously wrote.

To know another, contends Smith, we must be able to stand in thathumansituationrealisingthatthereisnopersononearthwecan fully understand, and yet, no person that we cannot understand at least somewhat.

Smith is not saying that those of us who teach religion should notberationalor rigorousoranyof thosequalitiesweassociatewith the pursuit of knowledge, but that such a posture jeopardises not only the kind of learning that ought to take place in the academy, but the very nature of understanding religion.

(e) Responses to the Shoah – antisemitism and the adversus iudaeos tradition; theodicy; violent scripture

AsafinalexampleofthesearchforcommongroundIwillturntotheshiftinChristianityfromwhatwas,forthemostpart,aninherentneed to condemn Judaism to one of a condemnation of Christiananti-Judaism.ThisprocesshasnotledtoaseparationfromallthingsJewishbut,infact,toacloserrelationshipwith“theelderbrother.”A monologue is replaced by dialogue.

Initially, condemning antisemitism was much easier thangrapplingwith theHolocaust, possibly because few leaders of theChristianchurchesdidmuchtohelpJews.EugenioPacelli,PopePiusXIIfrom1939to1958,was(andremains)acontroversialfigure,withsome claiming that he knew much and did nothing of importance to help Jews whereas others retort that he did what he could and encouragedotherstodomore.Yet,itisessentialtorememberthatinNazi-occupiedEurope,thechurcheswereoftentargetedthemselves,andwerethuspreoccupiedwithprotectingtheirownflocksratherthan by the fate of Jews.

However,individualChristianleadersdidextendtheirsupporttoJews and one of the most honorable examples was Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli who, as Papal Nuncio for Turkey and Greece, made available baptismal certificates to thousands of Hungarian Jews. He laterbecamePopeJohnXXIIIandinitiatedVaticanII.

ThereremainsaspecialEuropeanandaspecialChristianangletodealingwiththeShoah.Ithappenedinthemidstofasupposedlyliberal,democraticandwell-developedcivilisation.Thevastmajorityof Europeans looked on while their Jewish neighbours were being takenawayandmurdered.As farasChristianity isconcerned,andmostEuropeanswereof course,at leastnominally,Christians, theproblem isevenmoreserious: somenineteenhundredyearsafterthe life of Jesus the Jew, his people were murdered by baptisedpaganswho,bytheiractionandinaction,deniedtheirbaptism,whilemostotherChristians,fromthehighesttothelowest,lookedaside.

In thewords ofGerman theologian JohannesMetz, “Christian theology after Auschwitz must stress anew the Jewish dimension of Christian beliefs and must overcome the forced blocking-out of the Jewish heritage within Christianity”

The Shoah, has now become common ground in the Jewish-ChristiandialogueandnotonlyhasitcausedChristianitytoreassessitsrelationshipwithJudaismbutalsostirredgreaterJewishinterestinChristianity. JonathanSacks forexamplehas stated that, “today we meet and talk together because we must; because we have considered the alternative and seen where it ends and we are shocked to the core by what we have seen.”

TheneedtodiscussandtotackletheShoahinJewish-ChristianDialogue is self evident but it must be conducted in perspective.Fackenheim has famously stated that the Shoah resulted in a new commandment, the 614th, which stressed that it was incumbent uponJewstosurviveasJewsaftertheShoah.OneremainedaJewsoasnottoprovideHitleraposthumousvictory.Consequently,JewishidentityandJewish-ChristiandialoguehavebecomeShoah-centred.

As a result of the emphasis on the Shoah and antisemitism,Jewish-Christian dialogue sometimes appears to consist of anattempttoeducateChristiansaboutJudaisminordertopreventthepossibilityofantisemitismfrombreakingoutinchurchesinthefuture.Thishas implications for interfaithdialoguemorewidely.AlthoughJewish-Christiandialoguehasproceededatmanylevels,oneshouldrealise that whilst reaction to the Shoah is an important drivingforcedialoguecannotbebuilt solelyonresponsestoantisemitismand Christian feelings of guilt. Indeed, no healthy and enduringrelationshipbetweenpeopleisbuiltonguilt.IfrecentChristiansoul-searching in the aftermath of the destruction of European Jewryleads to a new approach and a revision of traditional anti-Jewishteachingsomuchthebetter.However,thefuturerelationshipcannotbebuilton the foundationsofguilt.Thesenseofguilt is transientanddoesnotpasstothenextgeneration;moreover, it isunstable,inherentlypronetosuddenanddrasticreversal.

PART TWO: Organisations and official statementsAlongside the theological search for common ground, interfaith

dialogue expanded significantly as a result of the increase in thenumberoforganisationsandtheissuingofstatementsthatfocussedoninterfaithdialogue.Iwillbrieflyidentitythemajorstatementsandinterfaithorganisations.

(a) 1927 London Society of Jews and Christians, National Conference of Christians and Jews (USA)

TheLondonSocietyofJewsandChristiansistheoldestinterfaithdialogueorganisationintheUK;jointlyfoundedin1927byleadersoftheLJSandWestminsterAbbey.Ageingprofile;smallnumbers.

NationalConferenceofChristiansandJews(NCCJ)wasfoundedin thesameyear in response toanti-Catholic sentimentexpressedduring Al Smith’s run for the Democratic nomination (1928). TheNCCJexpandeditswork inJewish-ChristianDialogue(cf.HolocausteducationinUS)toinfluencepublicpolicyincludingissuesofsocialjustice(race,class,genderequity,sexualorientation).Inthe1990’s,its name changed to theNational Conference for Community andJusticetoreflecttheincreasingbreadthofitsmissionanddesiretobe more inclusive.

IstheDreamofInterfaithDialogueDead?continued


challEnging


(b) 1942 Council of Christians and JewsTheCCJwasfoundedbyChiefRabbiJosephHertzandArchbishop

William Temple and now has 30+ branches around the UK (varying degreesofactivity).

(c) 1947 Ten Points of Seelisberg: An Address to the Churches and the formation of the International Council of Christians and Jews

The ICCJ (founded 1946),met in the Swiss town of SeelisbergandtheChristianparticipantsdeclared,Ten Points of Seelisberg: An Address to the Churches.TheydrewattentiontotheJewishnessofJesusandremindedthatJewsandChristiansareboundbyacommoncommandment to love God and one’s neighbour. It proceededto indicatewhatshouldbeavoided in thepresentationof JewsbyChristians, including themisrepresentation of Jews as enemies ofJesus.The“Ten Points”anticipatedmanylaterChurchstatements.

(d) 1948 World Council of Churches (Guidelines, ’79 Ecumenical Considerations, ‘82)

Established in Amsterdam, the World Council of Churches (WCC) consists of approximately 350 mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches. At its firstAssembly, theWCCaddressed theHolocaust,stating: “We call upon all the churches we represent to denounce anti-Semitism, no matter what its origin, as absolutely irreconcilable with the profession and practice of the Christian faith. Antisemitism is sin against God and man.”Theselfsame1948reportalsocalledfor a redoubling of efforts to convert Jews, recommending thatthechurchesshould“seek to recover the universality of our Lord’s commission by including the Jewish people in their evangelistic work … and because of the unique inheritance of the Jewish people, the churches should make provisions for the education of ministers specially fitted to this task.”

Two factors later caused a profound change of heart. First, Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) insisted against the weight ofprevious tradition that the Jewswere verus Israel, the true Israel,andthatitwasappropriatetospeakof“theChurchandIsrael”.Thenin1965theSecondVaticanCouncilissuedNostra Aetate (see below).

In1971theWCCestablishedaSub-unitforDialoguewithPeopleofLivingFaithsandIdeologies,whichalsoprovidedadeskforJewish–Christiandialogue.In1979,theDFIissuedthe Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, which (influenced byCantwell Smith) sets out four principles of dialogue: (1) “dialogueshould proceed in terms of people of other faith, rather than of theoreticalimpersonalsystems”;(2)“dialoguecanbewelcomedasawelcomewayofobediencetothecommandmentoftheDecalogue:“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour”; (3)“dialogue… is a fundamental part of Christian service withincommunity”;(4)“therelationshipofdialoguegivesopportunityforauthenticwitness… [W]e feel ablewith integrity to commend theway of dialogue as one in which Jesus Christ can be confessed in our worldtoday”and“toassureourpartnersindialoguethatwecomenotasmanipulatorsbutasgenuinefellow-pilgrims”.

In1982Ecumenical Considerations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue waspublishedwhichcalledonChristianstounderstandJews“on their own terms”, yet mission to the Jewish people was not repudiated as thedocument tried to reflect themanydifferent viewsheldby

WCC member churches. More recently, the WCC has extended its dialogue initiativesbeyond theAbrahamic faiths,partlyasa resultofgreaterinterestinmulti-faithdialogueandpartlytoavoidinternal(ecumenical)tensions,resultingfromcontroversiesinrelationswithMuslimsandJews(cf.Israel-Palestine).

(e) 1962-5 Vatican II and Nostra Aetate TheSecondVaticanCouncil,convenedbyPopeJohnXXIIIforthe

purposeof aggiornamento, “updating”,was thedefiningevent forCatholicism in the 20th century and also marked a turning point in the history of interfaith dialogue, especially Jewish-Christian dialogue,withthepromulgationofNostra Aetate(October28th1965).

Nostra Aetate rejected anti-Jewish theological polemics andcondemnedantisemitism,andreplacedthemwiththefoundationsforarenewedvisionofthecontinuingroleoftheJewishpeopleinGod’splanofsalvationforallhumanity.TheCouncilemphasisedtheJewish origins of Christianity and that the Church draws (presenttense)spiritual“sustenance”fromthepeopleofGodofthe“AncientCovenant”.

The statement on Jews was one of the earliest on the Council’s agendaandamongthelasttobepromulgated.ItfoundoppositionfromconservativesontheonehandandfrombishopsrepresentingminorityChristiancommunitiesintheMuslimworldandAsiaontheother.

Nostra Aetate has been followed by a series of Pontificaldocuments, notably...

(f) 1975 Guidelines to Nostra AetateTaking seriously Nostra Aetate’s call to dialogue, the Roman

Catholic Church delineated theological, pastoral and ethical directives indocuments issuedthroughtheHolySee’sCommissionforReligiousRelationswiththeJews:GuidelinesandSuggestionsforImplementingNostra Aetate,§4(1975);Notes on the Correct Way to Represent Jews and Judaism(1985);We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah(1998)

The Guidelines in particular states “Christians must therefore strive…to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.”

ThiscanbesummarilystatedastheattempttounderstandtheOtherasitunderstandsitself.Thisisnoeasymatteranditisfairtosaythat,asfarasthisaspirationisconcerned,thegrasphasbeenfargreater than the reach.

(g) 1988 Anglican Communion Jews, Christians and Muslims: the Way of Dialogue (2002, Building Bridges, 2008, Lambeth-Jewish Forum)

The first time the Anglican Communion explored relationswith Jews andMuslims was 1988 when it issued Jews, Christians and Muslims: the Way of Dialogue consistingof threeparts: “TheWay of Understanding”, “The Way of Affirmation” and “TheWay of Sharing”. It is the first statement to proclaim “commonmission”between the three Abrahamic Faiths. The most contested sectionsdiscussChristianmissionandwhilstproselytismisrejected,arangeofpositionsisrecognised.AnglicansstilldisagreeaboutwhatconstitutesappropriateandinappropriatesharingoftheirfaithwithJews and Muslims.


challEnging


In January 2002, thefirst BuildingBridges Seminar forMuslimandChristianscholarswashostedatLambethPalacebyArchbishopGeorge Carey. One of the first overseas visitsmade by Dr RowanWilliams, when he succeeded in 2003, was to chair the second Building Bridges seminar in Qatar. Dr Williams made a priorityof continuing this initiative before handing over the Seminar toGeorgetownUniversityshortlybeforeheretiredin2012.

The Lambeth Jewish Forum is a joint initiativeof theOfficeoftheArchbishopofCanterburyandtheWoolfInstitute,establishedin2006,andmeets3-4timesayear.

(h) 1990s – Interfaith Network (1987) 3FF (1997) Woolf Institute (1998)

In1987theInterFaithNetworkwasfounded.Itbringstogether60 organisations: national faith community representative bodies;national interfaith organisations; local interfaith bodies; andeducationalandacademicbodieswithaninterestinmulti-faithandinterfaithissues.Beforeitsformationtherewasnoformalframeworkin place enabling the representative bodies of the faiths to cometogetherandtodiscussmattersofmutualconcern.

The first Abrahamic dialogue initiative started 10 years laterwith the establishment of the Three Faiths Forum (3FF) founded by SiggySternberg,ZakiBadawiandMarcusBraybrooke.Itwasthefirstforum for leaders from the three faiths to address issues together;nowknownas“3FF”,theorganisationworksprimarilyinschoolsandinpoliticswithallfaithcommunities

Thefinalmajororganisationestablishedinthe1990sistheWoolfInstitute,whichsitsintheacademystudyingthecurrentandhistoricalrelationships between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with specialreferencetoEuropeandtheMiddleEast.The Institute,throughthepursuitandapplicationofuniversityresearchcombinestheologywiththesocialsciencesandthehumanities,examiningcommonpurposebut alsopointsofdifferencebetween Jews,ChristiansandMuslimsfromamultidisciplinaryperspective.

As will be shown in the next section, these organisations havebeguntohaveaninfluenceonpublicpolicyandintheexpansionandapplicationofinterfaithdialogueonthepublicsectoraswellasinthepoliticalarena.(Cf.WoolfandtheFCO)

(i) 2000 Dabru Emet“Speak truth”,aJewishstatementonChristiansandChristianity

issued in 2000 is the first detailed modern cross-denominationalstatement.ItssignificanceishighlightedbythelackofofficialJewishstatementsabout the JewishunderstandingofChristianityawellasamajor imbalancebetweenthenumberofwritings,whichconsiderChristianviewsofJudaismandthose,whichconsiderJewishviewsofChristianity.

ItspositiveaffirmationofChristianityhasbeenwellreceivedbytheChurches although some of its eight points have caused controversy within the Jewish community. However in general, Jews havewelcomed dabru emetasaresponsetothemoderntransformationinChristianunderstandingofJewsandJudaism.

PART THREE: Responses to conflictThis section explores responses to conflict and a growing

awarenessofthepotentialcontributionofinterfaithdialogueaswellasafrustrationaboutitslimitationsandfailings,epitomisedperhapsbythemostdivisiveandcontroversialofconflicts–Israel-Palestine

(a) Zionism and the state of Israel – Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Abrahamic controversies

Nowhere is the subject of peace and understanding, or perhaps morerealistically,conflictandmisunderstanding,moreevidentthanin interfaithdialoguebetweenJews,ChristiansandMuslimsaboutIsrael and Palestine,whether they take place in the tea rooms ofCambridge or in the coffee parlors of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.Blinkered views prevail and interfaith dialogue faces some of its majorsignificantchallengesandcriticismsasaresult.

Political factors alone do not fully explainwhy Israel is such acontroversialtopic.WhilstforJewsitismoreobvious:thecentralityof the landof theBible, national liberation followingnearly 2,000years of homelessness as well as the survival of over a third of world Jewry,areatstake.Christians,fortheirpart,notonlydisagreeastotheplaceofIsraelinChristiantheology,butfeelparticularconcernforChristianswholiveintheHolyLandaswellasPalestinians.MostMuslimstermthecreationofthestateofIsraelas“TheDisaster,”atimewhenanIslamicsocietywasuprootedandbecameaminorityina land that was once dar al-Islam.

ThereofcoursearealsomanyJews,ChristiansandMuslimswhoaredeeplyconcernedaboutthe“Other”,makingthisacomplicatedpicture to understand and there are numerous examples of dialogue groups collapsing, being damaged or overshadowed by a failure to successfully meet and converse around the topic.

Inmyview,becauseinterfaithdialoguehasfocusedsomuchonsearching for common ground (or issuing statements) it has been unprepared for conflicting views. The practitioners of interfaithdialogue – and I would includemyself as one – have not heededBuber because a genuine interfaith encounter must allow for sharp differences.

The Churches are deeply divided on Zionism. While at one end there are some who conclude, like Naim Ateek, that Zionism representsaprofanecorruptionofJudaism’struepropheticmission;at the other, Evangelicals (some called Christian Zionists) aregenerallystrongsupportersofthestateofIsrael,interpretingbiblicalprophesiessuchasZechariah14:16thatthemodernstateofIsraelisintrinsicallyrelatedtothebiblicalIsraelanditsdirectfulfillment.Intheirview,IsraeliscriticaltotheSecondComingofJesus.

Jews are also divided, although more by the practice thanthe principle of Zionism. What happened a hundred years ago to Jews outside of Israel is considered by some as historicallyremote compared to biblical events, which are viewed as almost contemporary. The fundamentalist Jew interprets the ownership of theLandofIsraelintermsofadivinegift.Thiscreatesadangerofbestowingdivine importanceto Israelandthevocationof theJewbecomes a dedication to the existence and the restoration of thecosmic state.Thus, theLand isa fulfillmentof thedivinepromise.However,thebiblicalpromisesdonotdefinethesamebordersandby choosing the widest ones the fundamentalist abuses the idea of the promise, which is related to the Land.



challEnging


(b) Rushdie Affair (1988)In 1988 Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was published

andwasquickly followedbyAyatollahKhomeini’s fatwacalling forhis execution. Looking back on the Rushdie Affair, it is clear thatthis was less a theological than a political and societal dispute.OneconsequencewasthatMuslims,contratotheirmyriadvarietyand differences, morphed and were depicted as a unitary socio-economic-culturalblock.TheSatanicVersesaffairbecamethefirsttestcaseinBritainof“Muslimness”.

For theirpart,Muslimssawthemselvesdepictedas littlemorethananangrycommunityofbook-burnersatthesametimeasmanywere experiencing racism and discrimination. Just as a mentalityexists in the Jewish world that Jews are a small minority and surroundedbypotentially hostilenon-Jews, soMuslims tended toview theoutsideworldas a threat,which led toapre-occupationwithamemoryofsuffering.

Akbar Ahmed’s studies of the views of Muslims in Islamiccountries and in the USA (Journey into Islam, 2007, Journey into America,2010)listsnumerousexamplesofMuslimsfeeling“underattackbytheWestandmodernity”,whichareviewedasa“Judeo-Christian” creation. Whilst carrying out research, Ahmed askedMuslimsacrosstheIslamicworld:“whatdoyouthinkisthenumberoneproblemintheworldtoday?”Heexpectedtheanswer: Israel,IraqandAfghanistan.However,toMuslimsinDamascus,inKarachi,andLondonthenumberoneproblemwastheperceptionthatIslamwasdeliberatelybeingdistortedintheWest;that Islamwasunderattack.

This sense of being under attack can be traced back in theUK to the Rushdie affair, and one of its consequences, from1989onwards, is that the UK Government took a greater interest in faith communitiesandinterfaithissues.

(c) Northern RiotsThe reports on the Riots in the Northern towns in England in 2001

(the Community Cohesion Review) led to significant Governmentinvestment in interfaith relations and greater interest in interfaithdialogue.

Ted Cantle, review team leader, proposed and received support for a range of “cohesion programs” based upon “contact theory”,which aimed to promote understanding and respect between majorityandminoritycommunitiesandwithinthem.Contacttheorychallengesthenotionof“peoplelikeus”;thenotionthatweidentifywith,orevenprefer,“people likeus”appears inarangeofdiverseopinion, from the extreme right wing to liberal commentators.

The aim of community cohesion investment was to tackle the “fearofdifference”,notaroundasmallnumberofethnicminorityandwhitemajorityidentities,buttoawiderconceptionofmultipleidentities–inotherwords,aimedat“diasporacommunities”thatsatalongsidenationalidentities.

Cantle’s conclusion represents a re-discovery of multipleidentities,whichwasalreadyfamiliartoMuslims,ChristiansandJewswhohad traditionally defined themselves in termsof their sharedlaws,values,andbeliefs.Ifandwhentheyhadtomove,theywouldtake their laws,values,andbeliefswith them. Itwasnot somuchterritorythatdefinedtheiridentitybutvaluesandawayoflife,aroleoftenplayedbytheirreligion.

Their identities cut across various geographical and linguisticboundaries and so it was common to move freely between one territory and another alternating between languages withoutsignificantlylosinganysenseofbelongingtothesamecommunity.

A common national identity, Cantle suggested, should notcontradictmultiple sources of identity. People belong to differentreligious,ethnic,cultural,andlinguisticgroupsandhybrid-identitiesare a fundamental feature of today’s UK society. There is no reason whyapersoncannotbeScottishandMuslim,orJewishandEnglish.Thisisnottosaythatconflictsbetweentheseidentitiesdonotarise,theydo.Butusuallytheyemergewhenone’sidentityisdefinedsotightlyastoexcludetheother.

Nevertheless, at the same time, the importance of hybrid-identity and its faith component aremorewidely recognised thanbefore and inter faith issues are a higher (but not high enough?!)priority forbothcentraland localgovernment.Faithcommunities,perhapsrepresentedbytheInterfaithNetwork,arenowmorelikelytobeatkeypolicytables,suchasDepartmentforCommunitiesandLocal Government, and interfaith issues are part of new politicalstrategies being developed.

Onecanconcludethereforethatthepopularisationofinterfaithdialogue resulted from a theological search for common ground (and thegrowthoforganisationsandissuingofstatements),transformingit (in Europe and North America at least) from an intellectual project pioneered by a minority to a widely known and common performed practice.However,itsexpansionfromatheologicallybaseddiscussiontoabroadercommunityagendaistheresultofpoliticalinterestandfundingregardingmulticulturalism.

CONCLUSION: Is the dream of interfaith dialogue dying? No,butitisunderthreattodaybecauseoftoomuchemphasison:

1. SeekingCommonGroundbutnotmanagingdifference.This leads to all-too frequent vacuous conversations and

it is notable that both interfaith dialogue and the ecumenical conversationarerunningoutofsteam.Thereisaneedtobeginwithcommonground…andthenmoveforward…

For example, it seems clear that many of the historically divisive issues between Jews and Christians have been either eliminatedor taken to the furthest point at which agreement is possible. The efforts of Christians towards respect for Judaism project attitudesthat would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. Giant strides have been made but we are talking of a dynamic and relentless process.Wewillneverbeabletositbackandsay,“Theworkisdone.The agenda is completed.”

Onmanymajor issues, JewsandChristiansfind themselvesonthe same side of the fence, faced with the same challenges. The agenda is changing and new agendas are no less vital and pressing. So,despitegreatadvances,Jewish-Christiandialoguestillfacemajorchallengessuchembracingdifferenceandmanagingconflict.

Secondly,thereistoomuchemphasison:2. Interfaithdialogueasameanstoservepoliticalpolicyorto servesingleinterestgroups(political,religiousetc).Thisresults in“fictitious”,not“genuine”encounters

Societyneedsinterfaithdialoguetoflourishagain.How?By maintaining the search for common ground but also seeking


challEnging


toembracedifference;bygeneratingmajorinstitutionsandissuingstatements but also by engaging in local initiatives and nationalwhichmakeanimpact;bysecuringwiderreligious,communalandpoliticalsupportbutnotbeingdominatedbysingleinterestgroups.

Insum:interfaithdialogueismultivalentandmultiplex,requiringamulti-disciplinaryapproach,whichinmyview,takesseriouslythesecular reality in which we live today. A dependence upon seeking common ground is a form of assimilation;managing difference isnotaboutbeingthesame;havingsomevaluesincommondoesnotmean sharing all values.

Somelevelofcommonalityisnecessaryforgeneratingsolidaritybut genuine interfaith dialogue requires a constructive interfaithtension.Ittakesahighdegreeofmaturitytoletoppositesco-existwithoutpretendingthattheycanbemadecompatible.Atthesametime, it takes the same degree ofmaturity to respect an opinionthatconflictswithone’sownwithoutattemptingtoachieveanaïveaccommodation.

Letmeendbystatingpersonally,asaJewishtheologianengagedin the practice of interfaith dialogue. The Nobel prize-winningscientist,NielsBohrsuggested“Theoppositeofasimpletruthisafalsehood. Theoppositeof aprofound truth is veryoftenanotherprofoundtruth.” Jewsembracebothsidesofwhatoften looks likea contradiction. Judaism is not concernedwith a two-dimensionalworldbutratherwiththreeandfour-dimensionalreality.

When you see everything in terms of two dimensions, it is either trueoritisfalse.Andtherecanonlybeoneperspective!Thatiswhat

Judaism rejects. There is always more than one perspective. AndJudaismregardsthatasfundamentaltothenatureofreality.IfIamstandinghere,thethingslookdifferentfromwhatyouseeifyouaresittingthere.WeareseeingtheworldfromdifferentperspectivesandJudaism wants to confer dignity on how the world looks to me and howtheworldlookstoyou.Theworldisanirreduciblemultiplicityofperspectives.

There is, in other words, the view of Hillel. But there is alsothe view of Shammai. There is the view of Jacob. But there is also the point of viewof Esau. There is the point of viewof Isaac butalsoIshmael.ThereisalsothepointofviewofAdambutalsoEve.Judaismisanattempttodojusticetothefactthatthereismorethanone point of view.

That, it seems to me, is the goal of a genuine interfaith dialogue.


Edward Kessler

What we call interfaith dialogue is closer to what we might called serial monologue. In these settings representatives fromdifferentreligionspresentthekey ideasof theirrespectivefaithswhile their fellow speakers nod in faux agreement as if the world’s religions all said the same thing. They don’t.

Whileitisnotpoliticallycorrecttosayso,theworld’sreligionsdisagree on the very things that matter to them the most, andthose who insist otherwise either don’t understand the religions they are talking about, or are disregarding and disrespectingthe core teachings of these religions as the religions themselves proclaim them.

ToseewhatImean,let’sbeginwithGod.Itiscommonplacetoimaginethat Jews,Christians,Muslims,andHindus, tonamebutfourmajorfaithcommunities,believeinthesameGod.Theydon’t!The Jewish and Muslim Gods, for example, have no children while ChristiansholdthatJesusistheSonofGod.TheJewishpeopledonot recognise Mohammed as the seal of the prophets and do not acceptthatGodrevealedtheQur’anthroughHisangelGabriel.

Similarly, none of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim GodsappearedasKrishnatotheIndianprinceArjuna,despitethefactthat millions upon millions of Hindus cannot imagine Him notdoing so.

SowhichGodisGod?TheonlywayallofthesepositionscanbetrueisifwearetalkingaboutfourdifferentGods;whichis,infact,just what we are doing.

OrtakeGod’srevelations:Torah,Gospels,Qur’an,andBhagavadGita. The Jewish God dictated Torah to Moses, but had nothing to dowiththeGospels,Qur’anorGita.AndwhileMuslimsmaycreditGodwith Torah, Gospels, and Qur’an, the God of the Christiansonlylaysclaimtothefirsttwobooks.AndwhilethewordsofJesusin the canonical Gospels are considered the words of God, since Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God (Nicene Creed 381 CE), Christians do not accept the same claimregarding the words of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, even though Krishna,too,isanincarnationofGod.SowhichbookisTheBook?

Or take the goals of these religions. Religious Jews long for a messianic restoration of their homeland that, unlike politicalZionism, triggersworldpeace,whileChristiansandMuslims lookforward to the day when all people commit themselves to Christ or Allahrespectively.Hindusontheotherhandhopefortheendofignoranceandtheliberationofhumanityfromtheendlesscycleofbirth, death, and rebirth in which we are trapped.

Then there is the issue of what happens to nonbelievers and differently believing believerswhen they die.While allowing fordifferences among competing denominations and variationsamong believers in any give faith, it is safe to say that the general position of some in Protestant Christianity is that non-Christiansaredestinedtoaneternityof torment inHell for their refusal toaccept Jesus as their Christ. While most Jews have long abandoned theeschatologyofJudaism,thereligion itselfrestrictsHeaventothose deemed to have lived ethically and morally correct lives. Krishna, on the other hand, is willing to welcome all who call upon God regardless of the name they use to do so.

And none of this takes into account the teachings of Buddhism inwhichtheverynatureofaGodasmainstreamHinduism,Judaism,Christianity, and Islam imagine God is called into question, andwhosegoalisenlightenmentandNirvana,conceptsverydifferentfromsalvationandHeaven.

Mypointisthis:diversereligionsareactuallydifferent,andthedifferencesmatter. Politically correct efforts to ignore differencein pursuit of some faux unity, is a disservice to religion and makes true dialogue impossible.

True dialogue, in my opinion, happens when we move beyond theofficialteachingsandcreedsoftheworld’sreligionsandengageoneanothernotasspokespersonsforourrespectivefaiths,butasfellow humans seeking wisdom.

Ifirstencounteredthislevelofdialoguein1984whenIattendedthe inauguralmeeting ofwhat came to be called the SnowmassGroup.FoundedbyFatherThomasKeating,thenaretiredTrappistmonk living in St. Benedict’s Monastery in Snowmass, CO, the Snowmass Group comprised twelve contemplatives from twelvedifferenttraditionswhowerecalledtogethernottospeakforourrespectivefaiths,butfromourownexperiencewithcontemplativepractice–mediation,prayer, chanting, and the like – and in thisway see if what we were experiencing (as opposed to what our religions were saying) was similar.

Itdidn’ttakelongbeforewerealisedweweretalkingaboutthesameexperience:asenseofself-emptyingthatgavewaytoanon-dualrealisationthatalllifewasapartofasingularlivingthateachofuscalledbydifferentnames.WeaffirmedthetruthoftheIndianRigVeda:“Truth is one. Different people call it by different names.” Butasourdialoguecontinuedwerealisedthatnoneofournameswassufficient,nordidmattersimprovewhenwepilednameuponname. We were talking about something that could not be put into

The Risk of Dialogue

Rabbi Rami ShapiroRabbi Shapiro Ph D is an award winning author of over two dozen nonfiction books on religion and spirituality.

A congregational rabbi for 20 years, he is currently Adjunct Professor of Religious studies at Middle Tennessee State University.

There are two types of dialogue: scripted and unscripted – only the latter matters! Sadly, the former dominates, especially in the world of “interfaith dialogue.”

challEnging


words, and hence to the wisdom of the Rig Veda we added the insight of Lao Tzu, “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” Our religious languages were no longer carriers of truth, but fingers pointing beyond themselves to something fundamentallyineffable.

Wecameto this realisationnotby reciting thescriptsofourrespectivefaiths,butbyfirstcleansingourselvesofallscriptsinthecontemplativesilenceinwhicheachofussoughtrefuge,andthenemerging from that silence to engage one another in authentic,unscripted dialogue.

Here are the three keys to authentic dialogue: 1) you don’tknow in advance what will be said, 2) you don’t know in advance how youwill respond, 3) you honor the other’s position not byagreeing or disagreeing but by seeking to broaden your own understandingofwhatisbyaddingtheother’sperspectivetoyourown.Thepointofauthenticdialogueisn’ttowinanargumentordefendaposition,buttoopenyourmindtoperspectiveshithertounconsidered, and in this way to leave open the possibility that your mind will be changed.

I’mnotsuggestingthatthroughauthenticdialogueaJewwillconvert to Islam or aMuslimwill accept Christ or Krishna. I amsuggesting that through authentic dialogue that each dialoguepartner will see what the other sees and in this way step beyond what he or she has been trained to see, and trained to see exclusively,andinthiswayseedifferently.

The unasked question at the center of most interfaith“dialogues” is this: Which religion is the true religion? If thisquestion were actually asked and honestly answered, the“dialogue”woulddevolve intoapologetics,witheachparticipantbecoming an ardent defender of her or his faith. Because the question is rarely if ever asked, no faith is challenged and noneneed be defended, and everyone can listen dully and go home satisfiedthatallreligionsareequalandperhapseventhesame.

When the question is asked, however, the illusion of unityquicklyfallsapart.

Not too long ago I participated in a standard interfaith“dialogue.”Eachpersononthepanelpresentedherreligioninitsbest light, and, if you had never read a history book or glanced at the headlines in that morning’s newspapers, you might have thought that religions – all religions – are about universal love, peace, and harmony.

After the opening round of apologetics, we were invited toask questions of our fellow panelists. The questions and theircorrespondinganswerswereasvapidastheoriginalpresentations.Inhopesofmovingthingsabitdeeper,whenmyturncameIasked

theProtestantsonthepanel if I,asaJew,wouldbetorturedforalleternitybecauseIrefusetoacceptJesusasmyLordandSavior.

Theaudiencesmadeacollectivegasp,andthepanelists–allofthem–suddenlyfoundtheirhandstobethemostfascinatingthing in the room. After a moment of awkward silence, themoderatorabruptlyendedthe“dialogue,”andinvitedeveryonetojoin him in the social hall for refreshments. It would have beenmore refreshing if he had allowed a real dialogue to emerge from these scripted monologues. But that would have been risky, and interfaith gatherings are rarely if ever that.

True dialogue, on the other hand, is always risky. It’s riskybecause it’s unscripted, and because it’s unscripted you don’t know what will be said or what you will say in response to what is said.Itisthisnot-knowingthatmakestruedialogueofvalue.

TheonlytypeofconversationthatinterestsmeisoneinwhichIcanbechanged.Theonlydialoguethatmatterstomeisoneinwhich the other can say something that will transform my place in theworld.I’mnottalkingaboutinformationsharing.Thathappensinlotsofsettingsincludinginterfaithserialmonologues.I’mtalkingabouthearingsomethingthatmakesmerethinkmysenseofself:whoIamandhowIlive.

Thiscanhappenbetweenintimatesandstrangersalike.Itisn’tamatterofknowingandtrustingthepersonwithwhomyouaredialoguing; it’s amatter of knowing and trusting the process ofdialogueitself.Ithappenswhenyouarewillingtostepoutofhiding,willingtosetdownyourscripts–religious,political,psychological,ethnic, racial, sexual—and simply be present to another person withoutlabels.Nothingtoproject;nothingtodefend!

To be honest, I have a hard time participating in standardinterfaith “dialogues.” They bore me. Nothing ever happens


challEnging


The Risk of Dialogue continued

It isn’t a matter of knowing and

trusting the person with whom

you are dialoguing; it’s a matter

of knowing and trusting the

process of dialogue itself.

It happens when you are willing

to step out of hiding...

challEnging


because nothing is allowed to happen. But when something is allowedtohappen–watchout!

I was giving a public talk a few months back, and a pastorsuggestedthatmyunderstandingofreligionasahumancreationratherthanadivinerevelationwasunacceptablesinceitsuggestedthat she could not rely on her theology for answers.

“DoyouthinkOsamabinLadenisinHell,”Iasked.Shedid.“DoyouthinkMahatmaGandhiisalsoinHell?”Shedid.Sinceneitherbin Laden nor Gandhi were Christians both were in Hell. “WhywouldGoddothat,”Iasked.Shedidn’thaveananswer,andsaidsimply,“IleavethosemattersuptoGod.”

“No youdon’t,” I said. “You choose tobelieve in aGodwhotortures the wicked along with the guilty for all eternity. Not every branch of Christianity teaches this. You could opt for anothertheologyandstillbeChristian.Itisn’tthatGodwantsitthisway,itis that you want it this way but cannot admit it, so you choose to blame it on God to avoid having to take responsibility for your own theological fantasy.”

Iheardtheaudienceshiftuncomfortably intheirseats,and Icouldseethisclergywoman’sbodytightenintodefensivemode;nodialogue yet. “What about you,” shehissed. “Don’t you Jewsbelieveyou’reGod’sChosenPeople?Isthatjustyourfantasy?”

“It is, absolutely. God, not the Jewish God, but the Godbeyond corporate religions and the official creeds that supportthem,doesn’tplayfavorites,ordamnpeoplefordifferentbeliefsor disbelief. TheGod I experience isn’t about the saved and thedamned, the chosen and the not chosen, the believer and the infidel,theenlightenedandtheunenlightened.GodasIexperienceGod embraces and transcends all reality in, with, and as God’s own self.”

“But this is theGod I experience aswell!” she shouted.Andthen she sat upright as if a bolt of lightning had just shot up her spine.

“Whatjusthappened?”Iaskedher.“Idon’t know,” she sighed, “but I know this, theGod I know

isn’t the God I preach. I just never realised that before. I’m sosorry.”

“Whybesorry?”Isaid.“Behappy.YouandIjusthadamomentof awakening, with each of us mirroring a truth to one another, and that makes us sister and brother when a moment ago we are antagonists.”

“Godislove,”shesaid.“Maybeso,”Isaid.Thatisauthenticdialogue.

Rabbi Rami Shapiro


challEnging

Vive la Différence!

Rev Dr Patrick McInerney Rev Dr McInerney is the Director of the Columban Mission Institute. The Columbans are a missionary society of priests who work in

15 countries. It was formally founded in 1918 and takes its name from St Columban, Ireland’s sixth century missionary to Europe.

Among its objectives are the promotion of dialogue between Christians and those from all other religious traditions


IntroductionNearly always at interfaith or multi-

faith dialogue gatherings the speakers avow thatweneed to forgetourdifferencesandfocusonourcommonalities.Onhearingthisinclusiveaffirmation,awarmglowdescendson the diverse believers who invariably nod their heads in agreement: yes,we need toput aside our differences; yes, we needto build on the many things we have in common; and yes, the things we share incommon are much greater than those that divide us. So everyone is enveloped in a warm, fuzzy fog which evaporates as soon as it meets the cold, harsh reality – and nothing changes.

The reason this positive strategy doesnot work is that it overlooks the fact that our commonalitiesarenot,werenotandneverwill be the problem! The problem is ourdifferences,ormoreaccurately,thewayweviewourdifferences.Sountilweaddressthisissue,wewillnotbeabletobuildthehoped-forcommunityacrossthedifferentreligions.

To focus on differences does seemcounter-intuitive, so let me hasten to addthat we do need commonalities. If we seethe other as completely “alien”, as comingfrom another planet, as having nothing at all in common, then we will not be able to engage with them nor they with us. As Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said in his welcoming address at a gathering of faith leaders during PopeBenedictXVI’svisit toBritain in2010:“We celebrate both our commonalities and differences, because if we had nothing in common we could not communicate, and if we had everything in common, we would have nothing to say.”1

Paradoxically, acknowledging our differences will help us discover andcelebrate our commonalities. The key isknowing the different types of difference.When we are familiar with these types of differences, our attitude to differences

changes. We no longer see them as obstacles or hindrances to building community, but rather as opportunities for buildingcommunity.Whenwe remove thenegativewrappinginwhichdifferenceshavebecomeencased in ourminds, thendifferences arerevealed as the gifts thatwe have to offereachother.Thistransformationissoradicalthatwecome to recognise thatdifferencesare in fact the sine qua non for community, fortruecommunity isnotthe juxtapositionofclones,butthemeetingofdifferences.

To this end, I have found Lonergan’scategorisation of differences invaluable.2 He identifies genetic, perspectival,complementaryanddialecticaldifferences.3 Knowing these types provides a basis for engaging positively with differences andlearningfromthem.Ihavefoundthisaverypractical way for moving forward throughthemany layered complexitiesof interfaithrelations.

Genetic differencesGenetic differences are “successive

stages in some process of development.”4 Inits most elementary form it is the beginning, middle,andendofaprocess.Inevolutionaryterms it is the emergence through schemes of probability and survival of ever greater levels of integration and complexity increation. Inbiological terms it is thestagesof growth from foetus, to infant, to child, to youth,toadult,toelderly.Inhistoryitisthegenesis,flourishinganddeclineofsocieties.Each subsequent stage presupposes thepreceding stage but is a development of it, so normally the stages are not simultaneous but successive.5

While genetic differences betweenparties at different stages of growth oftenoccasion misunderstanding, they can also inspire hope. The greater achievements of the more advanced motivate others toemulate their achievements; and themore

advanced have a responsibility to assist the less developed in growing to their full stature.

Perspectival differences Perspectival differences are the result

of people who share the same horizon all treating the same object properly andaccurately,buteachfromaparticularpointofviewbasedonindividualvariationsarisingfrom the limitationsand selectivityof theirrespective approaches.6 For example, to a farmer an apple may be the harbinger of a goodseason;toamarketerthatsameapplemay be a good advertisement for sales;to an artist itmay be a good subject for astill lifepainting;tothestarving itcouldbethe difference between life and death! Allthese perspectives are accurate and eachone contributes cumulatively to a deeperappreciation of the apple. Because theyarise from the variety of approaches to the same object, unlike genetic differences,perspectivaldifferencescanbesimultaneous.

Thedelightofperspectivaldifferencesisthatwhenpeopleidentifythemcorrectly,alltension over disputed claims about right and wrong dissolves and is replaced by a sense ofmutualenrichment,aseachofthepartiesgrowsinknowledgeandappreciationoftheobjectinquestion.

Complementary differences Complementary differences arise when

people working within the same general horizon all treat different objects properlyand accurately, but recognise and rely on each other’s respective competencies forthe good ordering of the whole. The classic nursery rhyme of the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker is a good example.These professionals do not necessarily know each other personally, but each benefitfrom the work of the other and together they make for a well-functioning society.


challEnging


Theirdifferencesdonotarisefromthetimesequence, or from perspectives, or frommistakes. Rather their particular skills andproducts contribute to the wellbeing of the social whole.7Itisanappropriatedivisionoflabour such that each contributes, no one hastodoeverything,andeachbenefitsfromtheothers’contributions.

Thejoyofcomplementarydifferencesisthatwhenpeopleidentifythemcorrectly,alltension over disputed claims of priority or pre-eminencedisappearsandisreplacedbyanappreciationoftheother’scontribution.Collaboration thus promotes the goodordering of society.

Dialectical differences Dialectical differences are radical. They

arise when people treat the same object yet come up with conclusions that are mutually exclusive: “What forone is true foranotheris false. What for one is good for another is evil.”8 The positions are diametricallyopposed. Such differences arise from thevery way that horizons are shaped. They do not derive from the object, but from the subject. They derive from inattentiveness,or misunderstanding, or irrationality, orirresponsibility, or any combination of twoor more of these. These failures result in fundamentalepistemological,existentialandreligiouscontradictions.

Suchbasicdifferencescannotberesolvedbyattemptinganewstageofdevelopment.Unlesstheoriginalproblemissquarelyfacedand resolved, it will be carried over into the further stage. There is no pretending that the problemresidessimplyindifferentviewpoints– for there is a radical contradiction ofviewpoints involved. Nor is it a matter ofcomplementarydifferenceswithinacommonhorizon, since they are disagreeing over the same object.

Hence, the only way forward is toget to the root cause of the conflict. Thisinvolves a conversion from inattentivenessto attentiveness, from misunderstanding tounderstanding,fromirrationalitytorationality,from irresponsibility to responsibility. When the fundamental flaw, or permutation offlaws,iscorrected,acompletelynewhorizonor frame of reference results in which the errorcanproperlybeidentifiedandcorrected.

Dialectical differences are indeedchallenging. They are only resolved by the person in the wrong undergoing a radical

change, a conversion, admitting to andcorrecting an error. It requires honesty,integrity and humility, virtues which sadly are sometimesinshortsupply!Buttheresolutionof dialectical differences draws that personinto a new and wider horizon of knowing, valuingandloving,sothebenefitoftheendresultfaroutweighsthedifficultiesinvolved.

However, even unresolved dialecticaldifferences can still have a positive effect.The confrontation between irreconcilabledifferences rubs at our rough edges,eliminating inconsistencies and forcingus to articulate more clearly and moreprecisely what it is we believe and value. Like sandpaper, the roughness of dialecticaldifferences,polishesustomakeusevermoretransparent to the truths and values we hold, so that others too can come to know and value them.

Accordingly, we should not run away from dialecticaldifferences,nomatterhowdifficultand entrenched they may be, but embrace them, for they beckon us to radical new possibilities.

Celebrating differencesThe proper diagnosis of the differences

between religions in terms of these four types of differences enables greater depthand breadth in religious living, fosters mutual learning,facilitatesgreatercollaboration,andprepares theway for resolving conflicts andpromotingreconciliation.

Ifthedifferencesaregenetic stages in the religious development of humankind, then thereligionthatis“lessdeveloped”canlearnfrom the “more developed” – even thoughjustwhichreligionisthe“learner”andwhichis the “teacher” will vary from one area ofexpertisetoanother.Chronologyaloneisnoguaranteeof“progress”soisnotasufficientcriterion.Thisoverturnsanysimplisticclaimsto supercessionism, as the following examples show. The severing of ties with JudaismimpoverishedChristianityandhaddisastrousconsequences for the Jewish people. Butas the recent rapprochement has shown, Christians lose nothing but gainmuch fromrecovering the Jewish identity of Jesus andthefirstdisciples;9andJewishrecognitionofChristiansaskindreddescendantsofancientIsrael provides allies for achieving God’spurposes of being a blessing to the world. Similarly, while post-Enlightenment religionmayconsideritself“developed”,theexclusive

rationality has had detrimental effects onour environment. We have much to learn from the cosmic sensibilities of the ancient,indigenous religions, just as these, in turn, can learnfromthemoreself-criticalprecisionofthe later world religions.

If the differences are perspectival, all religions can learn from each other. For example, believers from other religions bring different sensibilities that yield differentnuances in understanding the sacred texts of theBible,theHolyQur’an,theBhagavadGita,and so on.10Similarly,believersfromdifferingreligions provide nuances in understanding Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, and other sacred personages.

If the differences are complementary, bothreligionscanlearntocollaboratebetterwitheachother.Forexample,ChristianscanlearnfromthevastcontemplativeexperienceofHinduismandBuddhism,justasthesecanlearn from the Christian concern for activepursuitof social justice.Christians can learnfrom Islam’s insistence on the public roleof religion in society, just as Muslims can learn fromChristians’ insistenceon interiorconversion and personal responsibility.

Christians lose

nothing but gain

much from recovering

the Jewish identity

of Jesus and the

first disciples ; and

Jewish recognition

of Christians as

kindred descendants

of ancient Israel

provides allies for

achieving God’s

purposes of being a

blessing to the world.


challEnging


And all religions can help each other in confronting the challenges posed bymodernity and postmodernity.

Thesamemutualbenefitappliestothereligious/secular divide. By acknowledging and building on the genuine achievements of the Enlightenment, the various religious traditions can develop a contemporaryexpression of their ancient meanings and values. And those same meanings and valuescanbeacorrectivetothelimitationsand failures inherent in the Enlightenment’s anti-religiousbias,howeverscientificitmaypretend to be.

Butifthedifferencesaredialectical, then the only way to resolve the tension is for the believersfromthedifferentreligionstoworkatfindingandeliminatingitsrootcause.Anexample is the different understandings oftheidentityandroleofJesusChristasheisvariouslyappropriatedbydifferentreligioustraditions;aprophetinIslam,highlyexalted,yetnomorethanaprophet;anotheravatarof the divine in the Hindu pantheon; Sonof God, Saviour, the Word made flesh,in Christianity. Other examples are theUnicity of God in both Judaism and IslamincontrasttotheTrinityinChristianity,andthe contrasting positions of monotheists,polytheistsandatheists.Inallthis,onemustalways be careful to appreciate precisely what these names supposedly deny or affirm.

Dialectical differences can be resolvedonly through a “conversion” to the greaterhorizon, be it intellectual, moral or religious, where the cause of previous knockdown conflicts can be properly identified andcorrected.Ihastentoclarifythat“conversion”here does not necessarily mean a change of religiousallegiance,thoughauthenticitymaysometimes demand that. Most often theresolutionofdialecticaldifferencesposedbyencounter with the religious other will mean anewdepthandconvictioninlivingoutone’sown religion.

ConclusionBy properly identifying the different

typesofdifferences,believersfromdifferentreligions can help each other to grow to full potential,learnfromoneanother,collaboratebetterwithoneanother,andgrowcloser toGod and to each other. Differences are nolonger an obstacle or a hindrance, but the way forward.

BibliographyClooney,FrancisX.Theology after

Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork, 1993.

Levine,Amy-Jill.The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus.NewYork:HarperSanFrancisco,2006.

Lonergan, Bernard J.F. Method in Theology.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1999.Darton,Longman&Todd1972.

McInerney,PatrickJ.“DifferencesMakeAlltheDifference.”InTravelling Together - Beyond Dialogue: Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society - Common Values and Responsibilities.49-59.MooneePonds:AustralianInterculturalSocietyInc.,2002.

Sacks, Jonathan. Opening Address at Interfaith Gathering for Papal Visit. 2010. http://www.chiefrabbi.org/tag/pope-benedict-xvi/#.UaCtRpxdxh4.

VivelaDifférence!continued

1 JonathanSacks,OpeningAddressatInterfaithGatheringforPapalVisit,(2010),http://www.chiefrabbi.org/tag/pope-benedict-xvi/#.UaCtRpxdxh4.2 BernardLonergan(1904–1984)wasaCanadianJesuitpriest,philosopher,theologianandeconomistwhoisregardedbysomeasoneofthemostimportantthinkersofthe twentiethcentury.Hisground-breakingworkintheoriesofknowledgeisbasedontheanalysisofthedynamicsofhumanconsciousness.Hisapplicationofthisto theological method has proven applicable to the range of human endeavours. 3 ImadeabriefsummaryoftheseideasinapresentationatthefirstInternationalAbrahamConferenceinSydneyin2002,laterpublishedasPatrickJ.McInerney,“Differences MakeAlltheDifference,”inTravelling Together – Beyond Dialogue: Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society – Common Values and Responsibilities(MooneePonds:Australian InterculturalSocietyInc.,2002).4 Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Method in Theology(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1999).236.5 Theexceptionisimmaturehumandevelopment,aswhenadultsexhibitchildishbehaviour.Clinicalpsychologistsidentifythisasunresolvedchildhoodissuesmanifesting themselves in later life. 6 Lonergan, Method:214-20.7 Ibid.,236.8 Ibid.9 IhavebenefitedmuchfromAmy-JillLevine,The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus(NewYork:HarperSanFrancisco,2006).10Thisisanareawherecomparativetheologycanbefruitful,forexample,theworkofFrancisX.Clooney,Theology after Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology (Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork,1993).

Rev Dr Patrick MacInerney


challEnging


Dialogue in an Anxious World

Joseph A CamilleriJoseph A Camilleri OAM is Emeritus Professor at La Trobe University.

For over 40 years, Prof Camilleri has researched, written, lectured and actively engaged around issues of culture, religion and dialogue.

He was the founder and director of the La Trobe’s Centre for Dialogue from 2005 to 2012.

And, in the midst of this inevitable anxiety about the future we must somehow tread a path between diverse, competingandattimessharplyconflictingfaiths, cultures, ethnicities, interests andideologies. How are we to do this? Tothis question there is no simple or singleanswer. For many the answer still lies inconfrontation and even violence. But forothers dialogue offers a more promisingpathway.

BackgroundDialogue across cultural and religious

boundaries is not, of course, a new idea. Relations between the world’s majorcultures and religions have had their low points, often marked by suspicionand mistrust leading at times to outrightviolence, not least between the three Abrahamic faiths. But there have also been high points, including the enormously rich andcreativeinteractionsthattookplaceinmedieval Islamic Spain and southern Italyandat varioustimes inplacesas farapartas Central Asia, Baghdad, Delhi, Cairo, and intheOttomanempire.

Butasamovementwithitsinstitutions,networks and full-time professionals,intercultural, interfaith and inter-civilisationaldialogueisprimarilyaproductof the 20th century. Two world wars, the horrorsoftheHolocaust,andmorerecentlysuch tragedies as those in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia have provided renewed impetus to the advocacy of dialogue.

The United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organisation(UNESCO), which was founded in November 1945 as a specialised UN agency, was set

the task to help create the conditions forgenuine dialogue on the basis of respect for shared values and the dignity of each civilisation and culture. Dialogue as aresponse to cultural and religious diversity has since gained considerable momentum.

Severalnationalandinternationalcentresand initiatives are making dialogue a focalpoint of research, education and advocacy.These include The Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions (CPWR), The Council of Christians and Jews, the Institute forInterreligious, Intercultural Dialogue, theInternational InterfaithCentre (Oxford), theGlobal Dialogue Institute, the InternationalMovement for a Just World (Kuala Lumpur), the Centre for World Dialogue (Nicosia), and theTodaInstituteforGlobalPolicyandPeaceResearch(HonoluluandTokyo).

Who have been the most important contributors to our understanding of dialogue? A number of thinkers have played a key role – Martin Buber, Hans-GeorgGadamer,JűrgenHabermas,TuWeimingandFredDallmayr to name a few. But equallynoteworthy has been the contribution ofa few visionary political leaders – Gandhi,Nelson Mandela, Mohammad Khatami, Václav Havel readily come to mind. In afamous address delivered on 4 July 1994 in Philadelphia, the then Czech President VáclavHavelsaid:

The artificial world order of the past decades has collapsed, and a new more-just order has not yet emerged. The central political task of the final years of this century, then, is the creation of a new model of coexistence among the various cultures, peoples, races, and religious spheres within a single interconnected civilisation.

In November 1998, the UN GeneralAssembly, in response to a call by the then IranianPresidentMohamadKhatami,adopted a resolution proclaiming theyear 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilisations. It also adopted the Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilisations, which has in turn given rise to a great manygovernmentalandnon-governmentalinitiatives.

In 2005, the Spanish Prime Ministerlaunched in partnership with the Turkish Government the idea of an Alliance of Civilisations, which the UN has since endorsed. This initiative was specificallydesigned to address the fault line that separates the Western and non-Westernworlds, the Occident and the Orient. This is a fault line with a long history, of which thepresenttensionsbetweenIslamandtheWest are but the most recent and perhaps mosttroublesomemanifestation.

The establishment in September 2005 of the Centre for Dialogue at La Trobe University Melbourne is very much part of this worldwide movement. The decision to set up the Centre was taken in the knowledge that Australia is well placed to embrace the idea of dialogue, for in its midst are represented many of the world’s religiousandculturaltraditions.

By virtue of its history and geography, Australia has a unique opportunity toweave together the wisdom of diverse traditions–represented in Indigenousandnon-Indigenous Australia, in the country’scultural and religious diversity, and in its proximity to the extraordinarily rich cultural and religious mosaic that is Asia.

Ours is a time of rapid transition, but to an uncertain destination – a time of turbulence when the old is dying, but the new has yet to be born. We live in a world where goods and services, money, technology, arms, images, messages and people are moving across borders with bewildering speed and intensity. In the age of digital overload, we are struggling to find our balance.


challEnging


No culture, religious tradition or civilisation

holds a monopoly on ethical discourse.

What exactly do we mean by dialogue?Like democracy, dialogue has now

become a buzz word, something we largely take for granted. Few are prepared to say, in public at least, that they are opposed to dialogue, and almost everyone welcomes it. Hardlyadaygoesbywithoutsomepolitical,religious or community leader extolling the virtues of dialogue as a way of handling conflict, whether locally, nationally orinternationally.

Of course, being in favour of dialogue isonething.Havingafirmgraspofwhat itinvolves, philosophically and in practice,is quite another. The sad reality is that inAustralia as elsewhere such understanding is stillinshortsupply.

What, then, is the key to dialogue? At its core, dialogue is best understood as the common search for truth. Though participants in dialoguemay differ stronglyon what the truth might be, they accept the need for truthfulness. They do not consciously lie, distort or misrepresent. Importantly, they acknowledge that noperson or group has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom. No culture, religious traditionorcivilisationholdsamonopolyonethical discourse.

So, in dialogue there is room for difference as well as commonality. Theworld’s major ethical traditions share adeep sense of the dignity of human life, a commitment to human fulfilment, anda concern for standards of “rightness”in human conduct. Here we include notonly Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam,Christianity and other faiths but alsoConfucianism, western secular humanism, and the traditions of Indigenous peoples.

There is enough common ground between these ethical worldviews to make possible an on-going conversation about human ethicsingeneralandsocialethicsinparticular.

Atthesametime importantdifferencesmust be acknowledged. Each traditionhas its own sacred texts, distinctive ethosand symbolism, languages and customs, artistic and intellectual achievements, itsown perspectives on ethical conduct, itsown understanding of personal and social relationships – its own unique gifts tocontribute to the dialogue.

There are, in any case, significantdifferences within as well as betweensocieties, cultures and religions, which ishardlysurprisingastheseare livingentitieswhichchangeanddiversifyovertime.

Diversity,evensharpdifferences,shouldbe no cause for alarm. They need not stand inthewayofeffectivedialogueeitherwithinor between political, cultural or religiousgroupings. Dialogue stands to gain from both diversity and commonality.

Diversity is an integral part of the human inheritance. All human beings, regardless of their religious, cultural, philosophical or politicalloyaltiessharethesamecivilisationalinheritance. Each person, regardless of background or viewpoint, can share something of the priceless achievements of different cultures and traditions. As all ofthe world’s libraries, museums and concert hallsattest,humankindisthecustodianofaremarkably rich and diverse inheritance.

The method of dialogueHowthenarewetodealwithdifference?

How can we make effective use of ourdiverseinheritance?HereIcandonomore

than indicate a few of the guidelines that overtheyearsIhavecometoseeasintegraltotheprocessofdialogue:• First, and to repeat what has already

been said, to engage in dialogue is not merely to recognise or tolerate cultural, religiousorpoliticaldifference.Itistoengage with others in a common search for truth and mutual understanding.

• Authenticdialoguecanbeapproachedonly in a spirit of humility and on the basisofrespectfulcommunication.No one, no culture has a monopoly on truth.

• Toengageinsuchdialoguerequiresthatwe speak, but more importantly that welisten.AsformerIranianPresidentKhatami explained in his celebrated address to the University of Florence (10 March1999):Understanding is the result of speaking and listening... “Speaking” and “listening” are a two-dimensional effort aimed at coming closer to the truth...

Dialogue is an encounter across cultural, religious, philosophical, ethical,civilisationalboundaries,inwhicheachparticipantlistenstotheother,becomesopen,sensitive,evenvulnerabletotheother.Intheprocess,dialogueengagestheparticipantinajourneyofself-discoveryaswellasdiscoveryofthe“other”.

• Itfollowsfromwhathasalreadybeensaid that in dialogue we must be willing toholdourrespectivetraditionsuptocriticalexamination,torediscoverthe fundamental ethical impulse which sustains our worldview and to considerwaysofadaptingittothenewcircumstances of our epoch. Dialogue worksbestwhenitfostersprofoundsoul-searching within as much as between faiths,culturesandcivilisations.

Dialogue in an Anxious World continued


challEnging


• Dialogue is no easy undertaking, and nowhere is it more demanding than insituationsofconflictortension.Whether it is in the context of the Israeli-Palestinianconflict,theChristian-Muslim divide, or any of the other deeplydivisiveconflictsintheBalkans,the Middle East, parts of Africa, Korea or Afghanistan, dialogue must somehow summonthementalandemotionalenergies needed to show empathy and compassionforthe“other”.Longheldfearsandanimositiesmustsomehowbe revisited. The fact is that many communitiesindifferentpartsoftheworld, not least in Australia, have sufferedfrompastviolence,somecontinuetosuffertoday.Yet,manyofthesesamecommunitieshavethemselvesinflictedviolenceonothers.Ifdialogueistofosterreconciliation,theparticipantsneedtosharetheirstories,listen to one another’s experience of pain, acknowledge past wrongs, and acceptcollectiveresponsibilityforrightingthewrongsofthepast.

Dialogue in educationUntilfairlyrecentlydialoguewasseenas

theexoticpreoccupationofafewintellectualorreligiousmavericks.However,attitudesarechanging. This is hardly surprising given the complex challenges we face, whether it be financialcrises,climatechange,immigrationand refugee flows, armed conflicts, sexual

rights or politically driven surveillance. Itishardtoseehowtheseandotherequallycontentiousissuescanbeaddressedexceptthrough dialogue.

But the ethos and practice of dialoguedo not grow spontaneously; they need tobe carefully nurtured. They must become an integral part of our educational processes.Some headway has recently been made, but ourschoolsanduniversitiesarestillfarfrompreparing thenext generation to think andact dialogically.

Thetaskbeforeuscanbesimplystated:how to place dialogue at the core of our teaching and learning strategies. Dialogue has much to contribute to the content of education (what is taught and studied) aswellastothemethodofeducation(howitistaught and studied).

ContentAtfirstsightwhatdialoguecanofferby

way of content is straightforward enough.The aim is to help students acquire, in asmuch depth and detail as is practicable,knowledgeandunderstandingoftheworld:its societies, cultures, faiths, civilisations.Whatdoesthismean?Itmeansdevelopingsomefamiliaritywith:• the range of cultures, religions and

civilisationsthatexistintheworldtoday, and where they are to be found (cultural geography)

• a sense of the way cultures, religions andcivilisationshaveevolvedovertime(culturalhistory)–theChristianworldtodayisradicallydifferentfromwhatitwasfive,letalonetenorfifteencenturiesago;thesameistrueoftheMuslimworldorofChinesecivilisation.

In what context can we learn aboutcultures, religions and civilisations? If weare thinking of the traditional disciplines,thentwocomereadilytomind:historyand

geography. But we need to remember that history and geography must be approached in a way that connects in interesting andunderstandable ways with how people think, feel, produce, live, communicate, and generallyorganisetheirsocieties.

To do this at all well, we need the insights ofotherdisciplines:philosophy,psychology,economics,sociology,politics,andthestudyof languages, literature, and the arts. We need to know something of the politicalsystems that have shaped and been shaped bydifferentculturesandcivilisations;ofthedifferentapproachestoscience,technologyandthemedia;andofthecontributionstheyhave made in the past, and are making now.

However,thereismoretoculturalliteracythanfamiliaritywiththeprofilesofdifferentcountries, cultures and religions. At least as important is the need to understand the interactionbetween them,bothhistoricallyand in the current period. Culture and even religion do not operate in a vacuum or splendidisolation.Indeed,thehistoryoftheworldpointstofuriousinteractionbetweenthem, whether through trade, travel, migration,diplomacy,war,orthenumerousexchanges between thinkers, poets, artistsandscientistsandthedisseminationoftheirwork.

This interactioncantakemanyforms:itcan be co-operative or hostile; it can leadtoconflictandwarortomutualadvantage;it can proceed on the basis of prejudice and ignorance or of mutual respect and understanding.

This leads us, then, to a third area of inquiry, namely the conditions that makefor one kind of interaction as opposed toanother.Whatisinter-cultural,inter-religiousor inter-civilisational dialogue? When andwhere has it been practised successfully?Who has generally taken the lead in this kind of activity? Who has opposed it?Are there conditions which encourage

Each tradition has...

its own unique gifts

to contribute to the

dialogue.

(and others which obstruct) dialogical attitudes, perceptions and relationships?Howwouldweapplythesequestionstoanunderstanding of the contemporary world and of Australia’s place in it?

MethodIftheaimistoproducecultural literacy

built on the principles of dialogue, then we need to think creatively on several fronts.Weneedtoconsider:• both the teaching and, more

importantly, the learning process• what goes on both inside and outside

the classroom• how it may be possible to foster

dialogical encounters, either in a purely intellectual or more personal sense.

Inthecaseofbothstudentsandteachersthe key is not just mastery of an endless number of facts (although knowledge of basics is unavoidable). Just as important is theneedtocultivateculturalempathy.Thismeans developing a deep curiosity for and interest in the “other” and in theway onecannegotiateculturaldifference.Forthistohappen, one needs to have a reasonable feel for, and understanding of, one’s own cultural, religious or civilisational background. Inother words, if the learning process is to be dialogical, then one needs to delve deeply into two cultures, one’s own and that of the “other”.Theprocesscanthenbereplicatedwithanynumberofadditionalcultures.

For this purpose, the teacher needs to be in a certain sense ahead of the student – not just in the sense of knowing more facts or even having a better graspof the geography, history or language of a given culture, religion or civilisation. Theteacher needs to have a deeply cultivatedunderstanding of the nature of dialogue, of the dynamics of a dialogical encounter (both intellectuallyandemotionally).Tomakethis

possible, the teacher needs materials that specifically address these skills and insights– not just materials for students, but also materialsspecificallypitchedattheeducator.There is, however, one thing which is even moreimportantthanwrittenoraudio-visualmaterials, and this is the opportunity for teachers to have face to face encounters, to hear from and interact with experts in the field,aswellastheopportunityforin-depthworkshops, seminars, forums and other forms of professional development. Teacher training inuniversitiesmustmakedialogueintegraltothe teaching and learning program.

Moreover, what goes on in the classroom, lecture or tutorial needs to be reinforced by what happens outside the formal learning environment – at home and in the other places where students meet, talk and generally enjoy themselves, as well as in thework-place. In otherwords, educationalinstitutions need to nurture cultural literacyand empathy in these other arenas and ways of learning,orat leastequipstudents todothismore effectively and imaginatively thanwould otherwise be the case. Our schools and universities arenot presentlywell equippedto do this – they do not have the necessary human resources or expertise – often theylack the intellectual horizons to undertake the task.

So, there is much to be done. Governments at all levels (federal, state and local) have an important role to play, as do community organisations, professionalassociations,educationalinstitutionsandthemedia. As for religious organisations, theyare uniquely placed, through their schoolsand liturgical, ceremonial, pastoral and socialactivities,tomakethephilosophyandpracticeofdialoguean integralpartof theirmission and programs. This may well be their most significant challenge as they respondto the increasingly urgent cries of a stressed planet.


challEnging


Dialogue in an Anxious World continued

Joseph A. Camilleri


challEnging


Possibilities and Limits of Interreligious Dialogue

Catherine Cornille Professor Cornille, prior to joining the Faculty of Theology at Boston College, taught for ten years in the Department of Theology at the

Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. She has been a visiting professor at Kandai University, Japan; at the University of Nijmegen,

The Netherlands; and at King’s College, London. Her research interests focus on the Theology of Religions, the theory of

Interreligious Dialogue, and the phenomenon of enculturation and intercultural theology.

Confrontation with religious teachingsdifferent from one’s own but equallyclaiming ultimate truth may shake one’sreligiousconfidenceandcausesomedegreeof confusion. This sense of challenge may lead to various responses, some reinforcing commitment to one’s own tradition, andothers attempting to generate a greateropenness toward the other. Examples of radical commitment may be found in various forms of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism may be defined as a“reactionary, innovative and militant formof traditionalism.” It representsanattemptto cling to certain traditional certainties inthe face of the threats of modernity. Rather thanmerely reaffirming traditional beliefs,fundamentalists tend to focus on a set of simple religious principles which are liftedbeyond any critical reflection, and whichgenerateaclearsenseofreligious identity.Fundamentalists tend to insist that only their own religion is true, and refuse any openness toward religious others.

While radical commitment may thus lead to fundamentalism, extreme openness toward the religious other may lead to or resultfromanattitudeofreligiousrelativism.Here, all religions are believed to be validand true, leading to a lessening, if not a complete abandonment of commitment to anyparticularreligion.Thisattitudemaybefoundintheclaimtobeing“spiritualbutnotreligious.”

Both radical commitment and extreme openness thus pose a threat to either, peace and harmony between religions (in the case of fundamentalism), or the continuity of religious traditions (in thecase of relativism). They thus call for analternative answer which attempts to

maintain a balance between openness and commitment. Such answer may be found in interreligious dialogue, understood here as “the engagement between membersfromdifferent religious traditions,orientedto mutual understanding and growth.” Itinvolves a process of learning not only about, but also from other religions, with an eye to advancing the understanding and truth of one’s own tradition. This is a tall order forinterreligious dialogue, which brings with it asetofpossibilities,butalsolimits.

First, with regard to the goal of mutual understanding: dialogue involves not onlyknowledge of the facts about the other religion(itshistory,teachingsandpractices)but also an understanding of the meaning of particular beliefs and practices for thebeliever. This involves some ability to enter empathically into the life-world of theother and gain some insight into the way life would be experienced and lived if one were to embrace the basic principles and beliefs of the other. Empathy, however, is a notoriously difficult faculty to prescribeor to control. It involves a capacitywhichis somewhat unpredictable, but which may be stimulated by certain attitudesor experiences. Empathy first requires acertain sympathy for the other tradition,and an openness for the meaningfulness ofthetraditionoftheother.Thisdoesnotnecessarily involve acceptance of its truth, butatleastarecognitionofitsvaluefortheother.

Second, the capacity for empathy tends to be proportional to the richnessand diversity of one’s own religious life. One’s own past experiences do represent a storehouse from which one passes analogically into the religious life of the

other. People with a strong devotionalorientation may thus more easily graspdevotionalpracticesinanotherreligionthanpeople with no concept or experience of a personal God. While experience forms a potentialbasisforunderstanding,theactualabilitytogainaccesstodifferentexperiencesremains unpredictable. For many, spending time participating in the daily life andrituals of the other forms an important aid in identifying with their religious life andexperiences. But that too has its limits. Often, themost important religious ritualsareaccessibleonlytobelievers.Participationthus does not guarantee understanding. Ultimately, interreligious empathydependson one’s powers of imagination. It is theimagination which allows believers to gobeyond their own religious repertoire and to enterintonewandoftenradicallydifferentworldsofexperience.Imagination,however,also remains an unpredictable capacity. Rather than affirm or deny the possibilityof interreligious empathy, one may thus recognise it as a variable capacity, which nevertheless forms the basis for advanced learningfromtheothertradition.

The current landscape of religious plurality provides real and serious challenges for Christian believers. On the one hand, it offers unprecedented opportunities for learning about other religions, and for direct encounter with their teachings and practices. But on the other hand, it also may cause a sense of threat to one’s own religious identity and conviction.

...the capacity for

empathy tends to

be proportional to

the richness and

diversity of one’s own

religious life.

While empathy represents an important condition for mutual understanding, thepossibility of growth also depends on certain explicitly religious presuppositionswhich relate to the truth of one’s own tradition in relation to the other. Mostreligions are based on the belief that their own religion contains thehighest truth. Itis thus difficult to imagine the need forgrowth in the truth, let alone learning from other competing religions in thepursuitofthat truth. The possibility of change and growththusrequiresacertainhumilityfromreligious traditions,a recognition that theymight actually not yet possess the fullness of truth, or not yet fully understand the truth.

This humility may be found in the recognition,centraltotheChristianmysticaltradition, that the ultimate reality alwaysremains beyond our understanding, and that our historical understanding of God is always limited. It also requires receptivityto the possibility that there may actually be truth,distinctivetruth,intheothertradition.While this need not be determined a priori, constructive dialogue depends at least onthepossibilityofsuchtruth. Intheprocessof discerning truth in another religion, one’sownreligioustraditionwillalwaysandinevitably remain normative. This meansthatonlythatwhich isnot incontradictionwith one’s own religion may be thought to contain some truth. The process of integrating such truth, however, will be aslow process in which the tradition as awhole will need to play an important role. Fruitful dialogue thus requires a continueddialogue with and within one’s own tradition.

Interreligious dialogue is thus possible,but within limits. It is limited to what canbe understood or grasped, and that cannot be determined a priori. Some beliefs or practicesmay attimesbeunderstood, but

judgedincompatiblewithone’sownreligion.Butwhenit iscompatible,religiousgrowthmay come to take various forms. It maylead to a rediscovery of old and forgottenelementswithinone’sowntradition.

The Christian dialogue with Hinduismand Buddhism, for example, has led to a rediscovery of apophatic thinkers such asMeister Eckhart or Marguerite Porete. Itmay also give rise to an intensification ofcertain aspects of one’s own tradition andfaith life. The intense love of God in some devotional traditions of Hinduismmay callnewattentiontothemeaningofdivinelovein Christianity. Growth may also involvea heightened sense of the particularityof one’s own religion. Suffering has a verydistinctivemeaninginChristianityinlightofthesufferingofJesusChrist.

And finally, growth may involvegaining new perspectives which mayshed a new light on traditional teachings.Some theologians (R. Panikkar, J. Keenan) have come to use Asian philosophies to reinterpret traditional Christian teachings.Thepossibilities forgrowth in turncontaincertain challenges. How are the fruits ofparticulardialoguestobetranslatedtothepews and made relevant to the traditionas a whole? How do traditionsmaintain asense of unity when believers and religious thinkers become involved in the dialogue withvariousreligioustraditions?Thesearequestionswhichcallforcontinuedvigilanceandattention.

But the possibilities and promises ofdialogue far outweigh its dangers and challenges, and call for a receptivity andcommitment on the part of the whole Christian tradition, and of every religioustradition.


challEnging


PossibilitiesandLimitsofInterreligiousDialoguecontinued

Catherine Cornille

It is the imagination which allows believers to

go beyond their own religious repertoire and

to enter into new and often radically different

worlds of experience.


challEnging


Contemporary Challenges to Religion A Report of the Luncheon Club Conversation between Archbishop Philip Freier and Rabbi Dovid Gutnick

Mark Brolly Mark Brolly is a journalist with Anglican Media Melbourne. A former religious affairs reporter for ‘The Age’,

he is also Australian correspondent for the London-based Catholic weekly, ‘The Tablet’.

The Council of Christians and JewsLuncheon Club at East Melbourne Synagogue on4 Juneattractedabout40guests to theVictor Smorgon Community Hall at the136-year-old historic heart of Judaism onEasternHill.

The two men, one the rabbi of the host synagogue and the other the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, traversed subjects ranging from identity, language, worship,outreach, attracting young people and thechallengesofsecularsocietyto“hotbutton”issuessuchassame-sexmarriage.

It was also a time of humour. RabbiGutnick recalled unsuccessfully trying to park his car in his usual spot in the grounds of St Peter’s Anglican Church, across the road, one particularly busyweekend and going up tothe church door to ask what was happening.

“It’stheMessiah!”hewastold.“I was rather taken aback that the

Messiah did not come to the synagogue first,”therabbisaidwithastraightface.TheMessiahinquestion,ofcourse,wasHandel’sfamousoratorio,afixtureatStPeter’sleadingup to Christmas.

What emerged strongly from the conversation between the two religiousleaderswerelessdifferencesofopinionthandifferencesinperspective.

On language, for instance, Archbishop Freier noted that Anglican worship from themid-16th century to themiddle of the20th century had been conducted in the Elizabethan English of the Book of Common Prayer.

“Nowwe largelyhaveallofourworshipin contemporary vernacular English,” he said.

But Dr Freier also said Anglicans in Melbourne and Geelong had been enriched by the diversity that had come into the Church here–Sudanese,Karen,Tamil,andMandarin-

andCantonese-speakingChinese.“Ourmother tongue is the appropriate

languageforprayeranddevotion...Wethinkpeople should be able to read the Bible in their own language and pray in their own language,” he said.

Rabbi Gutnick defended the language of tradition in Judaism, saying worshipping inHebrewwas important because it was thelanguage of the Bible.

He conceded that more than half thepeople who came to his synagogue could not readHebrew “in anymeaningfulway” andmade adjustments for this, with readings and most prayers said in Hebrew and anexplanationgiveninEnglish.

In a question-and-answer period, bothmen were asked about the place of religion within secular society.

Archbishop Freier said “secular societyhas a pretty satisfied view about its owncompleteness” but could draw lessons from the questions religions posed and theexperience of believers over many centuries.

RabbiGutnicksaidheoftenmetpeoplewho had not had any encounter with religion at all and that an initial meeting could behard to get. He recalled as a student inLos Angeles that he became “like a JewishMormon”, going to people’s houses and asking if they were Jewish and trying to encourage them to engage in their faith.

“That isquitecrudebut itwasattimeseffective,” he said, saying his plea for anengagement between the sacred and secular wasalongthelinesof:“Don’tslamthedoorin our faces, let’s have a discussion.”

On the nature of marriage in the face of demandsforequalstatusforsame-sexunions,Dr Freier said the Diocese of Melbourne was oneofthefirstreligiouscommunitiestocallfor the decriminalisation of gay people. But

the Church was not able to marry people whowereinasame-sexrelationship,hesaid,appealing for a deeper understanding of the nature of marriage.

“Idon’t thinkthatasasocietywehavehad a terribly profound discussion around those broader issues.”

Rabbi Gutnick said that while some values came from the world’s perspective, valuesthatcamefromadifferentperspective,suchasreligion,couldbe“verycompelling.”

The Luncheon Club might have been the firsttimethiswriterhadenteredthe136-year-old synagogue but for a chance opportunity a few weeks earlier. Walking through ParliamentGardensafterdinnerinthecity,Inoticedthatthedoorsofthesynagoguewereopen. I stepped inside and was greeted byRabbi Gutnick and his young son.

Eventhisbriefintroductiontothehistoriccongregation widened my appreciation ofthebeautyofEasternHillanditsheritageofreligiousandcivicbuildings--thesynagogue’snext-door neighbour is the fine formerSalvation Army printing house; across theroad is St Peter’s, the “cathedral” of HighChurch Anglicanism; a little further on isthe neo-Gothic magnificence of St Patrick’sRoman Catholic Cathedral; and nearby arelong-standing centres of German LutheranandGreekOrthodoxcommunitiesoffaith.

The synagogue and the churches nearby are testaments to the diversity of faiths that havebeenpractisedinMelbournesincetheearliestdaysofEuropeansettlement.

At a timewhen somuch of our publicdiscourse is marked by harshness, Rabbi Gutnick’s and Archbishop Freier’s meetingon the Hill showed us, in a modest way,how respectful dialogue can transcenddifferencesandencouragethebetterangelsof our nature.

It was fitting indeed that a conversation about “Contemporary Challenges to Religion” between Rabbi Dovid Gutnick and Archbishop Philip Freier should be held over a meal and that food and ideas should be shared more widely. After all, for many Jews and Christians, meals have a central role in the rituals and living of their faith and, of course, in their interaction as human beings.

Fr paul Joseph Duffy SJ

born April 1931;

died 4 June 2013

Paul Duffy was born in Melbourne, Victoria, the youngest of five children to musical parents – his father a musical train driver and his mother a music teacher.

His secondary education was at StPatrick’s College, East Melbourne, and while a student there he and his brother formed a youth branch of the Labor Party. Notinghismanygiftsandinterests,B.A.Santamariaapproached Paul to become his personal assistantshortlyafterleavingschool.

Paul majored in history, sociology and political science at Melbourne UniversityafterwhichhejoinedtheSocietyofJesusin1951.

In 1951-52 he entered the novitiate atLoyola College, Watsonia, Victoria and was ordainedon9December1967.PaulbecameProvincial of the Australian Jesuits in 1979andheldthispositiontill1985,arolewhichlefthimexhaustedandwrungout.

Mass media in the secularisation ofpopular imagination andmorality was alsoa major focus for Fr Paul, and for two years from 1995 he held the post of director of the JesuitCentrefortheStudyofCommunicationand Culture at the University of St Louis in the USA.

He was a highly respected member ofthe Executive Committee of the Councilof Christians & Jews for many years andin this capacity he was directly involved in the production of many of its publicationsdesignedtocreateabetterunderstandingofJews and Judaism. Several of these have been reprinted in response to growing demand.

Paul’s involvement with the Council of Christians & Jews gave him immensesatisfaction and brought him a wide circleof Jewish friends and friends from wider Christian traditions. Interfaith dialogue andecumenismacrossreligioustraditionswereacentral tenet in his labors for a nobler world.

In 2001 Paul moved to the parish atHawthornwherehelivedouthisremaining12 years. Although having an arhythmic heartconditionhestillfoundagoodbalanceof life and ministry.

Attheageof82,kneelingathisbedsidereading and sorting letters of condolenceon the death of his sister Norma who had passed away only a month or so before, Paul passed on from this life, leaving a lastinglegacy,aninspirationforsomany.

geza Vermes

born 22 June April 1924;

died 8 May 2013

Vermes was born in Hungary and although born to Jewish parents, his family and their forebears had not been practicing Jews since at least the first half of the 19th century. All three were baptised as Roman Catholics when he was seven, in 1931, with anti-Semitism rising in Europe.

When the Nazis and their Hungariancollaborators the Arrow Cross extended their dominance, the Vermes baptismalcertificates proved no protection againstHitler’splantoridEuropeofallitsJews.

His mother and journalist father diedintheHolocaustafterbeingtakentoaNaziconcentrationcamp.GezaVermesknewnotwhere or when. With the aid of the church Vermes managed to remain hidden. When hewas18,seekingtobecomeapriest,butalso to protect himself, he sought cover in a Catholic seminary in Budapest where he experienced the immense bravery and compassion of Catholics who shielded him during the War. One in particular was thepriestwhobaptisedhisfamily in1931.Thispriest,whoopenlydenouncedcollaborationwith the Nazis as fundamentally un-Christian,waskilled in1945whentryingtosave a group of women from the ravages of Russian soldiers.

He was liberated when the Red Armycaptured Budapest in December 1944. Inthelate1940shewasordainedapriest.HehadjoinedtheOrderoftheFathersofNotre-DamedeSion inBelgium,afterneither theDominicans nor the Jesuits accepted him – he claims because they wouldn’t admit a Jewish convert. Notre Dame de Sion had been founded by Jewish converts.

Posted to Paris, he met another Hungarian Jewish convert who publisheda journal, Cahiers Sioniens, devoted to exposingthedeeplyanti-JewishteachingsinCatholic education. Vermesmade commoncause with him, and in time, the work ofthe journal led to the doctrinal changes made by the Roman Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council, specifically inits 1965 document Nostra Aetate which stressed the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, as well as the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.

He left the priesthood the followingdecade after falling in love with his futurewife.

Hewasoneofthemostimportantvoicesin contemporary Jesus research and has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his timehelpingtolaunchthenewquestforthehistorical Jesus. He believed the hardeningof mutual suspicions and hatreds was built onamisunderstandingoftheseminalfigureof Jesus, and was not only unnecessary, but was based on ignorance.

Important works on this topic includethetrulyepoch-makingJesustheJew(1973),which describes Jesus as a thoroughly Jewish Galilean charismatic, and The Gospel of Jesus the Jew(1981),whichexaminesJewishparallels to Jesus’ teaching. In 1973, hisscholarship was indeed ground-breakingat atimewhenneither JewsnorChristiansengaged in serious scholarship of each other’s texts.

Vermeswasoneof thefirst scholars toexamine the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were found in 1947andwasoneofonly ahandful of scholars who had direct access to the scrolls. His book, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1962), is regarded as the most extensively studied account of the scrolls.

VermeslefttheCatholicChurchin1957,came to Britain, took up a teaching post, andin1965tookapositionattheFacultyofOriental Studies at Oxford University, rising to become the first professor of JewishStudies before his retirement in 1991. HereassertedhisJewishidentityandin1970hebecame a member of a Liberal synagogue in London – he insisted he had not converted, just“grewoutof”Christianity.

HepassedawayinOxford.

ValE



Rev A J AdamAnne & Keith AmosDr Fr D ArmerMarie ArmstrongPatricia BaitzMrs Cheryl BarkerRobert BlackburnDr Philip BlissMichael BodeyDina & Tony BurgessProf. Des CahillMary Elizabeth Calwell CatholicEducationOfficeFr David ChambersEric M CohenJohn CohenMary & Michael CohenDr Julie ContoleRev Shirley CoxhellEastMelbourneHebrewCongregationMrs Susie EhrmannMary FarrellEla FrydmanGoldschlagerCharitableFoundationMsDorothyGraffJim & Mary GregoryStephanieHellerMargaretHeselevDrPeterHollingworthJHuppertProfJEIsaacDanielleHJelinekJoshua KahanFreda KaufmanHenriettaKayeAMPeter KellyPauline KennedyMerrill KitchenAdam KohnDr Margit KornMaria Lewit OAMDr Serge LibermanDrsLarry&HelenLightMrsHelenLightDr&MrsL&ELustig

Fr Des MagennisGlen MarshallGraham & Gillian McAnalleyHerbert&FraukeMeesMelbourneHebrewCongregationRichard D MooreRabbi Fred MorganLorice MyersLawrence Nemer SVDStephenNewman&BettyManningNorma PalmerMary Ann PayneJane PriceDerek PrinsleyWalter & Sandi RapoportMrs Rysia Rozen OAMIan&ShayndelSamuelPeter&JudiSchiffM ShadboltShirley M ShannonSisters of Our Lady of SionL & F L SlonimSt Bernard’s Catholic ChurchDr Morna Sturrock AMN & R SuperMichaelTaftProfRonaldTaftDr Valerie TarrantThilo TroschkeTammy&DavidWolff

Inthespiritofthetraditionwhichacknowledgesthenobilityofanonymous donors, we also thank those who have donated but wish not to have their names recorded.

The Council of Christians and Jews is grateful for the support received for

Gesher from these generous donors.

DonorS


Camberwell Grammar School

Genazzano

Nazareth College

Parade College

Siena College

Catholic Theological College

Kilbreda College

Newman College

PresentationCollegeWindsor

St Columba’s College

XavierCollege Yarra Theological Union

CaulfieldGrammarSchool

Mazenod College

Our Lady of Sion College

SacredHeartGirls’College

United Faculty of Theology


Victorian Multicultural CommissionEnhancing Victoria’s cultural, religious and linguistic diversity

Victoria is one of the most culturally diverse and harmonious societies in the world. Today, of the four million people living in Victoria, one million were born overseas.

Victoria’s future success depends on promoting economic development, encouraging innovation and building a caring community by addressing social disadvantage and

discrimination. It also relies on the skills and talent of its people from different cultural backgrounds to reach their full potential.

The VMC is committed to promoting the participation of Victorians regardless of their ethnicity, culture and religious background in building a successful future for us all.

The Victorian Multicultural Commission proudly supports the Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria)

Victorian Multicultural CommissionLevel 3, 3 Treasury Place, MelbournePh: (03) 9651 0651 Fax: (03) 9651 0612www.multicultural.vic.gov.auEmail: [email protected]




Epworth HealthCare is a not-for-profit private health care group with eight hospitals across the Melbourne metropolitan area.

We are dedicated to providing excellence in health care to our patients and their families.

Our strong tradition of care extends to our community work supporting those in need.

www.epworth.org.au

94 Gesher 2013 Many Shades of Dialogue94 Gesher 2013 Many Shades of Dialogue


Progressive Judaism Victoria Inc. is proud to be associated withThe Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) Inc.

Etz Chayim Progressive Synagogue (Bentleigh) Kehillat David haMelech (Armadale) Leo Baeck Centre for Progressive Judaism (Kew) TempleBethIsrael(StKilda) The King David School Netzer Reform Zionist Youth Movement ArzaReformZionistOrganisation Bet Olam Jewish Funerals

www.pjv.org.au

Membership of the Council of Christians and Jews includes regular postings on all CCJ events and the annual Gesher journal. Membership links you with people committed to religious diversity and mutual understanding.

Individualmember $45 Individualconcession* $25

Couple $75 Coupleconcesson* $40

Schools,Colleges,ReligiousBodies $75

*Student,unemployed,pensioner,etc.

Please complete the form below and forward to:

CouncilofChristiansandJews(Vic),326ChurchStreet,Richmond,Vic.,3121.Tel + Fax (03) 9429 5212 Email [email protected]

Name

Address

Email

Telephone(Home) (Work)

I/We enclose a cheque (payable to CCJ)intheamountof$

formembershipoftheCCJ(Vic)in2014.Receiptrequired?Y/N

CreditCardNo:— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Expiry://

Type:MasterCard Visa Amount:$

Donations

Donationsmadetothenationalbody,theAustralianCouncilofChristiansandJews(ACCJ)forthebenefitoftheCCJ(Vic)Inc.aretaxdeductible.

Enclosedisadonationof$payabletotheACCJforthebenefitoftheCCJ(Vic)Inc.(Receiptsfordonationswillbeforwardedautomatically.)

Assistance

IwouldliketohelpintheCouncil’sworkinthefollowingareas(e.g.membership,publicity,eventsprogramming,finance,publicationsetc):

Council of Christians and Jews Membership


The Council of Christians and Jews (Victoria) gratefully acknowledges the continuing support of Gandel Group.

The Council of Christians & Jews (Victoria) Inc.

Documents

Many Shades of Dialogue - CCJ Vicccjvic.org.au/wp-content/themes/gesher/booklet/pdf/Gesher 2013.pdf · Many Shades of Dialogue Dialogue, ... religious and racial causes of conflicts