Agree to Differ

[

] 48

decision-making processes, towards collective and inclu-

sive decision-making that aims to foster a more sustainable

common good. Various forms of dialogue are at the heart

of positive peacebuilding in all of its three phases, from

prevention of conflicts, to peacemaking and post-conflict

reconstruction. They are also essential in constructive,

peace-oriented international relations, as captured in the

following statement:

No peace among the nations without peace among the religions.

No peace among the religions without dialogue between

the religions.

No dialogue between the religions without investigation of

the foundation of the religions.

–Hans Küng,

Christianity: Essence, History, Future

(1996)

The three parts of this statement reflect three orders of

dialogue. Taking each one in reverse order, it is possible to

say that the third element, “investigation of the foundation

of the religions,” requires that each human being develop

an internal dialogue about the meaning of life, through a

search for meaning that investigates the foundations of reli-

gious, cultural, and ideological worldviews, as well as their

constant interactions. This internal dialogue can take place

within one’s own self-consciousness, stimulated by interac-

tions with both written and oral sources of knowledge. It

is a dialogue that is often invisible and inaudible because

it takes place inside one’s head and heart.

The second element, “dialogue between the religions,” is

in fact a dialogue between followers of different religions.

This dialogue is called ‘interreligious dialogue’. Because

there are also many differences within each religion, there

is also a dialogue between followers of various branches

within each of the religions. This dialogue is called ‘intrare-

ligious dialogue’. In the case of Christianity, there is a

special term for this intrareligious dialogue: ecumenical

dialogue. Both interreligious and intrareligious dialogue

can be conducted between followers that are engaged in

dialogue for personal reasons and/or institutional ones.

The personally motivated form is often found at grass-

roots level, while the institutional dialogue has a more

official character. Both are equally important in promot-

ing dialogue between the religions. They are the two sides

of what is often known as ‘theological dialogue’, although

other kinds of dialogue (often more action-oriented)

can also result from improved mutual understanding of

religious, cultural and ideological worldviews. Greater

understanding helps correct misperceptions and fosters

trust. It results in a respectful attitude that offers a balance

between two conclusions: “we have more in common than

we initially thought” and “we agree to disagree (or differ)

on a few points (matters) of ultimate concern.”

Finally, the first element, “peace among the religions,”

needs more than understanding about what is shared

(commonalities) and what is not (differences). It requires

active social engagement with one another, at both personal

and institutional levels, both locally and globally, to address

areas of conflict whether they are within, between or beyond

religious communities. If a problem is within a religious

community, it may be that other religious communities have

gone through or are still confronted with a similar problem.

By sharing solutions, capacity can be increased that will later

improve the situation. If a problem is between two or more

religious communities, then engagement with each other is

necessary to find sustainable solutions through inclusive and

dialogical processes of decision-making and implementa-

tion. If a problem is beyond the religious communities, they

may collaborate on the basis of shared moral commitment to

finding solutions that can alleviate or resolve it.

All three forms of dialogue (internal, theological and

socially engaged) are equally important. If a person wants

peace, then they need to practice dialogue. It is the best

way to strengthen traditional practices that have sustained

harmony for centuries, as well as to prevent and counter

radicalization. The practice of dialogue contributes directly

to building resilient communities by transforming the

vicious cycle of individual and systemic violence into a

virtuous cycle of self-reinforcing harmonious relations. All

human beings can practice any or all three forms of dialogue.

Dialogue begins through personal encounters with others

that challenge and then change our preconceptions about

them as well as ourselves. This first step of dialogue remains

at the level of individual perception and understanding.

Continued encounters, especially linked to common action,

lead to deeper behavioural change in the dialogue partici-

pants. Finally, dialogue can become a way of life.

In order to promote the culture of dialogue, an inter-

national intergovernmental institution was established in

Vienna, Austria: the KAICIID Dialogue Centre. It is the first

KAICIID board members Metropolitan Emmanuel and Dr Hamad Al-Majed

discuss the role of dialogue and interaction in interreligious education

Image: KAICIID

gree

iffer