Introduction

Following the presentation, there were two voices in the auditorium. A woman was sitting a couple of rows down, asking how one goes about doing interreligious dialogue. How does one begin? With whom does one begin? How does one find them? And, about what does one dialogue? Farther down, a man asked, with a tad of sarcasm in his voice, where the interreligious dialogue is when it is needed. Where was the dialogue in Bosnia, and where is it in Israel-Palestine? To be honest, is it not just a group of dialogue jet-setters who go from one place to the other, exchange niceties, and gather for a group photo?

I wondered how to answer. I wanted to encourage the woman, who was looking for people of other faiths, for a place where they could meet, and for an agenda for the meeting. I could quote: “All partners involved need to be included in the planning process from the very beginning. The strength of setting the agenda together lies in the fact that all partners own the agenda and become committed to making it work. For the conduct of dialogue clear objectives and commonly agreed criteria for participation and regular assessment are essential.” ¹ All of this is true, but if I limited myself to this as an answer, I would feel I had left something out. From her question, it felt as if one Muslim were as good as another. One could swap one Hindu with another. As long as there was a Buddhist, all was fine. It was all a question of the brand name and less a meeting, which required trust.

To the man, I could also quote: “In dialogue we strive to be inclusive, since dialogue can easily become an elitist activity and be confined to certain strata of society. Care should be taken to ensure that dialogue takes place at different levels, between different groups and on subjects that affect the lives of all sections of the community.” ² I could defend dialogue by saying that interreligious dialogue is not an instrument to resolve problems instantly in emergency situations; it is not like an ambulance but rather like prophylactic medicine. I could say that dialogue is not a quick fix but a long process enabling people to build trust and friendship, that in times of conflict it would prevent religion from being used as a weapon.

But, I know that, in spite of these valuable considerations, there was some truth to what the man was saying. There is mainly in international interreligious dialogue, as well as in other forms of meetings and consultations, the culture of “now where did we meet last time?” At the world level, the interreligious dialogue community is relatively small, and one meeting chases the other. There is little time to get into the heart of the matter. Hence, there is also a culture of tea-and-sympathy in dialogue.

This is the Scylla and Charybdis of interreligious dialogue, located in such proximity to each other that it is difficult to pass. Scylla and Charybdis pose a threat to the passing sailors of dialogue. Scylla is more interested that a sufficient number of religions are present, as if religions existed without people. Charybdis is more interested in the meeting, ticking it off before heading for another meeting that is not very different from the previous one—all of them on much the same theme: peace, globalization, harmony.

How do we sail? We need to find a way that goes beyond continually starting dialogue over from the beginning, stating only the obvious, and offering a facile summary of religious traditions in their ideal versions only. This is not to say that nothing has happened in this remarkable development of religious discourse and action. Interreligious dialogue is no longer only the pioneering work of a few enthusiastic specialists. Already the fact that people of faith have begun to see “the other” not as the a priori negative but as possible co-wanderers is a major breakthrough in the world of...