Inter-fatih Dialogue Course Description

Media and Spirituality

The Importance of Media and Communication in Interfaith Dialogue By Titus Brandsma Center - Media Program

I.

Course Description This course gives a background on the method of “dialogue/dialogic/al” communication differentiated with monologic communication and the importance of media in the process of dialogue. This will be a minilecture/group sharing that aims to level-off understanding about interfaith dialogue, how it emerged and the efforts done by various Churches to make it grow. This session will also review the how to’s and essence of engaging in interfaith/interreligous dialogue.

II.

Objectives 1. Share the roots of dialogue/dialogical communication and come up with a basic understanding on the process in the communication perspective. 2. Awareness of the importance of media in the process of dialogue especially in its development and to making it known. 3. Come up with a basic understanding and leveling off on the topics of interfaith dialogue and all issues related to it. 4. Awareness and consciousness that various Churches have done maximum effort for the cause of interfaith dialogues through documents/papers written and gatherings organized. 5. Review the process of dialogue, the elements needed to proceed to it successfully and renew among the participants their commitment to the advancement of interfaith dialogue through various programs and activities they may establish.

III.

Target Participants Minimum of 35 participants, maximum of 150 participants 1. Parishes (PPC, WESTY, Catechists, Youth groups, organizations, etc.) 2. Religious Houses/Seminaries (religious, seminarians)

mandated

3. Different faith communities (Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc…)

IV.

Course Duration:

V.

Methodologies/Approaches

Half day (4 - 5 hours)

1. Lecturette 2. Reflection and Group Sharing 3. Plenary Sharing

VI.

Materials Needed 1. An enclosed hall/audio-visual room/classroom 2. Computer and LCD Projector / White wall/fabric for screen 3. Sound system with auxiliaries and cassette recorder

VII.

Expected Output 1. Awareness and consciousness on the relevance of media in the process of dialogue. 2. Renewal of commitment to interfaith dialogue and openness to other avenues that accommodate such dialogue. 3. Acknowledge the efforts of various Churches on the growth of interfaith dialogue that would in turn come up with own contributions to make it grow more. 4. Both deepening of one’s spirituality and acceptance of other religious beliefs that transcends to understanding others’ culture. 5. Develop the culture of peace, justice and acceptance.

VIII. Outline of the Course I. An Overview and of the Underpinnings of Dialogue Communication Theorists: David Bohm Peter Senge Robert Hargrove William N. Isaac Dervin, B. Theories on Dialogue Monologic and Dialogic Communication Convergence Model of Communication Integrated Model of Communication for Social Change Education and Critical Theory

II.

Basics of Inter-faith Dialogue Concept of God Why So Many Religions? Similarities of Christian and Muslim faiths Overview of Interfaith Dialogue Forms of Interfaith Dialogue The ABC of Interfaith Dialogue 1. What is Interfaith Dialogue? 2. Why engage in Interfaith Dialogue? 3. Who should engage in Dialogue? 4. How to enhance Interfaith Dialogue? 5. The ABCD of Interfaith Dialogue?

III.

Application of Theories Importance and Relevance of Media and Communication in the Process of Dialogue The “Active Critical Audience”

IV.

Application Discuss concrete proposals and activities to strengthen Interfaith Dialogue

Media and Spirituality

The Importance of Media and Communication in Interfaith Dialogue By Titus Brandsma Center - Media Program I. The Overview and Underpinnings of Dialogue Communication Theorists 1. David Bohm on Dialogue “dialogue as a communication system that has the potential for bringing about a new world view..”; “sees dialogue as a vehicle for bringing about world peace..”; “to participate in dialogue, one must first understand what dialogue is..”;

Dialogue comes from the Greek word “dialogos” Logos means ‘the word’ or the ‘meaning of the word’ Dia means ‘through’ it doesn’t mean two Dialogue suggests a “stream of meaning” flowing among, through and between us This makes it possible to create a flow of meaning in the entire group so that some new understanding will emerge. This is turn will create a “shared meaning” in the group that serves as the glue or cement that will hold the group (and society) together. Coherent at the “tacit level” that will hold tremendous power that can fuel grassroots changes in a society… Three conditions for dialogue: 1. Participants must suspend assumptions. In dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points or prevail, and nobody tries “to win.” The primary objective of dialogue is to suspend your opinions and look at the opinions of others. Dialogue requires an “empty space” to give all participants the necessary space to talk (CONCEPT OF “OPEN SPACE”) 2. All participants must regard one another as colleagues. 3. There must be a “facilitator” who holds the context of dialogue. Experienced dialogue facilitators can play a key role in creating an environment that allows participants to speak frankly about

the values and opinions they hold. Facilitator will initially have to work to keep the space empty for open communication to take place and for participants to simply listen rather than voicing their own judgments. The facilitator makes certain that each person has the needed space to talk openly. A reason for dialogue must exist in order for participants to engage in dialogue. Initial Guidelines: 1) suspend assumptions and certainties; 2) observe the observer; 3) listen to your listening; 4) slow down the inquiry; 5) be aware of thought; 6) befriend polarization. www.soapboxorations.com/ddigest/bohm.htm

2. Dialogue from Peter Senge’s Perspective Wrote The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization 1990 Draw heavily on Bohm “Reflection and inquiry skills provide a foundation for dialogue” and that “dialogue that is grounded in reflection and inquiry skills is likely to be more reliable and less dependent on particulars of circumstance, such as the chemistry among team members.”

3. Robert Hargrove on Dialogue “A dialogue is a conversation where there is free flow of meaning in a group and diverse views and perspectives are encouraged.” Dialogue is important because “[i]t is the primary way by which groups think and interact. Lack of dialogue leads to poor decisions, lack of team learning and a general deterioration of the group.” Solution-oriented than Bohm’s use of dialogue. Hangrove contends that we don’t really seek to understand other people, but rather to constantly assess what they say so that we can hold onto our preconceived notions. Collaborative conversations spells out five phases: 1. Clarify the purpose of the conversation. Conversations in which the group clarifies its purpose. Have a free and informed discussion about its vision, purpose and goals. Create a mission statement. 2. Gather divergent views and perspectives. Creating a community of commitment involves speaking to the personal visions and purposes that live in people’s minds and hearts. It involves encouraging people to step back from the front lines and engage in different kind of conversation. The conversations that build community are those where people speak authenticity and

vulnerability about themselves, about one another and about the problems they are faced with. Building community becomes the cornerstone for productive conversations on issues and problems and makes possible decisions, plans and strategies that everyone can stand behind. 3. Create “new” options by connecting different views. Conversations in which the group learns to think and interact better together. “Cook alone” or “potluck” model of conversation vs. “cook together”. Instead of people serving finished products, people take their raw ideas, cook them together with other’s thoughts, question the reasoning process, and perhaps come to a new idea or insight. 4. Generate a conversation for action. Conversations in which powerful commitment are made.

4. William N. Isaac’s take on dialogue Dialogue - it is a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, a process for transforming the quality of conversation, and in particular the thinking that lies beneath it. Phases for the evolution of the container (how to make dialogue happen in organizations) 1. Instability of the container- initial phase when participants have concerns for safety and trust which they must move through, leading to 2. Instability in the container - when members struggle with polarization and conflict due to the clash of personally held beliefs and assumptions. It may take a lot of time to surface these conflicts. Suspending these beliefs can lead to 3. Inquiry in the container - with people inquiring into polarization and fragmentation. At this phase people often experience collective pain as the depth of disconnection is held by the group. This phase leads to 4. Creativity in the container - where new understanding based on collective perceptions emerge and people engage in more generative thinking together.

5. Dervin, B. - Toward Communication Theory of Dialogue 7 Stances (No theory and only practice) 1. Dialogue as natural human condition. 2. Dialogue as dialectic. 3. Dialogue as ontological state of being.

4. Dialogue as personality/cultural trait. There are people who are capable of dialogue - who can listen well, who can think reflectively -- and people who cannot. But to hold that dialogic skill is a matter of innate aptitude rather than education, is to privilege a personality theory, often unwittingly. A related idea holds dialogic aptitude to be a cultural trait - some cultures can, some can’t. 5. Dialogue-as-communicative recipe. This position holds that people maybe taught certain formulas that allow them to think reflectively or listen emphatically, for example, and thereby enhance their dialogic capabilities. 6. Dialogue as communicative competence. It suggests that the dialogic capacities and skills of humans exist and our task is to discover what they are and use them. 7. Dialogue as intersubjectivity, interaction. Acknowledge that dialogue is performative. (reflective thinking, dialectical exchange, listening, the co-production of meaning, and interaction) Alternative Assumptions: The Verbs of Dialogue Shifts emphasis from dialoguer to dialoguing, from listener to listening, from speaker to speaking; and it conveys the idea that communicating is not invariant, but variable…there are listenings and speakings, not just listening and speaking. This change in verb endings accounts for the varieties of human communicating, it allows for differences in how people make their communicating moves Dialoguing as the moving through time space -- the making both of internal and external moves -- thinkings, listenings, speakings, interrupting, rememberings, disagreeings, agreeings, hatings, questionings, abstractings, detailings, comparings, etc. We must move beyond global elusive concepts of process to the actual moments of communicating, to the communicatings that are made in all communicating situations. Dialogue involves iterative step-takings, an on-going never-ending bridging of order and chaos. Participants in communication are separated by gaps. This bridging is done through the processes that these verbs of communicating represent -- thinkings, listenings, observings, speakings, etc. Through these processes human create, maintain, reify, destroy, and reinvent structures. This is done innovatively and habitually, uniquely and repetitively, consciously and unconsciously. We advocate instead that participants involved in dialogue are in the process of becoming.

Debatings, repeatings, rememberings, questionings, comparings, scannings, and contrastings. There are varieties of ways to debate, repeat, remember, question, compare and contrast. These varieties comprise dialogue. One fertile arena is listening. For Barthes, listening is what reduces the babble of multiple voices -- listening not only to what is voiced but what is silenced. Questions as powerful tools for self-reflection, examination and growth. To assume that all dialogue creates harmony and understanding, agreement or consensus, etc., allows no room for iteration, invention, growth, human flexibility and obstinacy, or the sheer accident of disturbing circumstances. Dervin, B., Higgins, J., Huesca, R., Osborne, T., & Jaikumar-Mahey, P. (1993). Toward a communication theory of dialogue. Media Development, XL (2), 54-61.

Theories on Dialogue 1. Monologic and Dialogic Communication An essential component of an individual’s “humaneness” is communicative interaction with others. First Revolution - scientific invention phase which produced mass communication Second Revolution - scientific theory and human engineering phase which produced cybernetics and motivation research Third Revolution - human communication as dialogue (openness and human respect (Floyd Matson and Ashley Montagu, The Human Dialogue, 1967) Because of this diversity, this orientation toward communication has been characterized by several different names including: presence, encounter, genuine communication, therapeutic encounter, supportive climate, nondirective therapy, existential communication, facilitative communication, helping relationships, authentic exchange, conversation, Ithou relationship and dialogue Dialogic encounter assumes an essential faith in human interaction. It is not a method, but rather an attitude or orientation toward communication. Dialogue is characterized by trust, openness, spontaneity, caring, sensitivity, sincerity and empathy. MARTIN BUBER: the renowned philosopher, developed a profound interest in dialogue. His I-Thou and I-It concepts are one well-known way of viewing many different types of relationships. Three types of dialogue were

recognized by Buber: (1) genuine dialogue, in which mutual relationships grows, (2) technical dialogue, in which there is the goal of achieving objective understanding, and (3) monologue, in which one is more interested in self than in the relationship. I-Thou relationships are dialogic, while I-It relationships are monologic. Johannesen (1971) states that an I-Thou relationship possesses the following six characteristics: 1. Mutual Openness: possess the qualities of “mutuality, openheartedness, directness, honesty, spontaneity, frankness, lack of pretense, nonmanipulative intent, communion, intensity and love in the sense of responsibility of one human for another.” 2. Nonmanipulative: absence of forcing one’s belief on another. Dialogue, in the I-Thou sense, can include influence and yet not include manipulative intent. Use of propaganda and “suggestion” are seen as manipulative approaches. 3. Recognition of Uniqueness: each participant should be allowed equal rights and respect in the exchange. One’s partner is not viewed as simply another similar member of a categorized group. 4. Mutual Confirmation: I-Thou encounters include mutual confirmation and awareness. “One becomes totally aware of the other rather than functioning as an observer or onlooker.” Awareness of one’s communication partner leads to confirmation and acceptance of “otherness.” 5. Turning Toward: “Where the dialogue is fulfilled in its being, between partners who have been turned to one another in truth, who express themselves without reserve and are free of the desire for semblance, there is brought into being a memorable common fruitfulness which is to be found nowhere else. 6. Nonevaluativeness: In dialogue, there is an attempt to see the other’s point-of-view even if it is opposed to the other, heeds, affirms and confirms his opponent as an existing other” He believed that the essence of communication, language, and even one’s identity resides in the “between”. The meaning of messages is co-generated by the participants rather than being dictated by one. Dialogue, is related to the transactional model of communication. The shared meaning and the relationship itself are the unique creations of both parties to the interaction.

Person B

Person A The Between

(FIGURE 10: The Between) Monologic communication involves manipulation and control just as one would treat a physical object. It is the embodiment of an I-It relationship and obviously takes a one-way, transmission model approach to communication. A person employing monologue seeks to command, coerce, manipulate, conquer, dazzle, deceive or exploit. Other persons are viewed as “things” to be exploited solely for the communicator’s self-serving purpose: they are not taken seriously as persons. Choices are narrowed and consequences are obscured. Focus is on the communicator’s message, not on the audience’s real needs. Audience feedback is used only to further the communicator’s purpose. An honest response from a receiver is not wanted or is precluded. Monological communicators persistently strive to impose their truth or program on others; they have the superior attitude that they must coerce peole to yield to what they believe others ought to know. A dialogic view of public relations, differs from a technician approach by being more humanistic, communication-oriented, relationship-focused and ethical. This perspective focuses on communicative relationships rather than on technical skills. http://faculty.evansville.edu/dt4/301/Dialogue.html

2. Convergence Model

Figure 2: Basic Components of the Convergence Model of Communication

PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY A Interpreting

PHYSICAL REALITY

INFORMATION

Perceiving

Action

PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY B Perceiving

Interpreting

Action Collective Action

Understanding

Believing

Believing Mutual Agreement

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL REALITY A&B

Understanding

The call for a model of development communication based on dialogue versus monologue, horizontal versus vertical information-sharing, equitable participation, local ownership, empowerment, and social versus individual change continues to be heard and, if anything, has grown stronger with the rapid decentralization of authority and increased access to new communication technology that occurred during the 1990s. It needs to be based on a model of communication that describes a process of dialogue, information sharing, mutual understanding and agreement and collective action. Second, it needs a model of social change based on community dialogue and collective action that clearly specifies social outcomes as well as individual outcomes. The convergence/network model of communication needs the first requirement. It represents communication as a process of horizontal sharing between two or more participants within social networks. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to present this model in detail, but a brief description is necessary to understand how community dialogue fits into a model of social change. The first noticeable feature of the model is that information is shared or exchanged between two or more individuals rather that transmitted from one to the other. All participants act on the same information; none are passive receivers of information. The information can be created by the action of any participant, or it may originate from a third source such as television and radio, or a person or institution not directly participating such as church, school, nongovernmental agency and so forth. Second feature is the important role of the perception and interpretation of participants and thus participants draw upon the principles of semiotics and the hermeneutics, which treats understanding in terms of a dialogue or ongoing cultural conversation. The third feature of the model is that it represents a horizontal, symmetrical relationship among two or more participants that is created by sharing information. The outcomes of information processing by the participants are social - mutual understanding, agreement and collective action, as well as individual - perceiving, interpreting, understanding and believing. And finally the model implies a continuous, cyclical process as participants take turns creating information to share with one another and then interpreting and reinterpreting its meaning until a sufficient degree of mutual understanding and agreement has been reached for collective action to take place. “Information” is preferred over the term “message” to allow for both verbal and nonverbal information, unintended as well as intended information. Each participant perceives and arrives at her/his own unique interpretation, understanding and beliefs about information that is shared. Once reached, each person’s understanding and beliefs can then be expressed to others. In the diagram, talking is one type of action that follows from, and is based on, each person’s own understanding and beliefs.

But dialogue must mean more than just endless turn taking. The underlying assumption of dialogue is that all participants are willing to listen and change not just one of the parties. This turn taking (conversation, dialogue) constitutes a feedback process for each participant which, if effective, leads to a “series of diminishing mistakes - a dwindling series of under-and-over corrections converging on a goal.” Convergence does not imply perfect agreement, only the direction of movement. Boundaries determine who is included and who is excluded within a dialogue. Boundaries can be determined by observation and self-report, and by mapping the social networks within a community. Splitting communities into factions with different points of view reduces overall social cohesion of a community and hence its capacity to solve mutual problems through collective action. If severe, it can bring cooperative action among groups within a community to a halt. Effective dialogue occurs: (1) when participants with differing points of view listen to one another, as indicated by paraphrasing the other’s point of view to the other’s satisfaction, (2) when each one acknowledges the conditions under which the other’s point of view can be accepted as valid and (3) when each one acknowledges the overlap or similarity of both points of view. Dialogue can also lead to disagreement and divergence especially when the dialogue makes it clear each individual’s true interests and values are in conflict.

3. Integrated Model of Communication for Social Change The catalyst leads to a dialogue within the community that when effective, leads to collective action and the resolution of a common problem. The model identifies six potential catalysts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

An internal stimulus A change agent An innovation Policies Availability of Technology Mass media, including messages designed to promote individual behavior or collective action, may stimulate members of a community to adopt the behavior or to emulate other communities that have achieved some common goal by working together.

The catalyst in the model represents the particular trigger that initiates the community dialogue about a specific issue of concern or interest to the community. This catalyst is a missing piece in most of the literature about development communication. Much of the existing literature implies that

the community spontaneously initiates dialogue and action or that an external change agent visits the community to mobilize the community. Experience has shown that communities rarely initiate a dialogue about a problem spontaneously. What the model implies is that some type of catalyst is usually necessary to stimulate a community to consider and discuss a problem. Once this discussion is initiated it may unfold in several directions: from simply creating a greater sense of dissatisfaction, to inciting community conflict or to cooperative action that helps solve the problem. The Community Dialogue and Action Box of the model describes a sequential process or series of steps that can take place within the community, some of them simultaneously, and which lead to the solution to a common problem. It is a descriptive model, one that could be used to describe and explain why previous community projects were successful or unsuccessful. In another sense, it is a prescriptive model, one that can be used by local leaders and external change agents to increase the likelihood that community action will be successful. Each small box in the model represents a step that may or may not happen in a specific context or case. “Community dialogue” and “collective action” work together to produce social change…The development of a community can occur through a variety of change processes: 1. Externally generated change 2. Individual behavior change 3. Social influence for individual behavior 4. Community dialogue and collective action 10 Steps of Community Dialogue are: 1. Recognition of a Problem. 2. Identification and Involvement of Leaders and Stakeholders. 3. Clarifications of perceptions. 4. Expression of Individual and Shared Needs. 5. Vision of the Future 6. Assessment of Current Status 7. Setting Objectives 8. Options for Action 9. Consensus on Action 10. 1 Action plan Five key action steps (“collective action”) 1. Assignment of Responsibilities 2. Mobilization of Organizations. Communication through the local media can be an invaluable resource for mobilizing community support and activity.

Diaz Bordenave (1998) lists several ways in which the media can facilitate the dialogue and action process. In the dialogue phase: 1. It can support the diagnosis of problem situations and the presentation of the problem to the community. 2. It can stimulate community deliberation and the prioritizing of problems. 3. It can support the exchange of ideas and experiences among distant communities. 4. It can help community organizations find solutions to problems, and in the action phase community, communication and local media can contribute by: (e) informing the community about available services and how to gain access to them; (f) training community members how to use the media to inform the general public about their needs; (g) helping communities to obtain legitimization and support from authorities; (h) providing feedback to the community about the progress and achievements of community projects and (i) praising/rewarding communities for their achievements and thereby enhancing member’s self-esteem and sense of collective selfefficacy. Other actions: 1. Implementation 2. Outcomes 3. Participatory Evaluation

Outcomes: Individual changes 1. improvement in skills necessary to inform to perform new behaviors; 2. ideational factors such as knowledge, beliefs, values, perceived risk, subjective norms, and even self-image; emotional responses such as feelings of solidarity, empathy and confidence; and increase in social support and influence from others as well as increased advocacy to others; 3. intention to engage in new behavior in the future; 4. specific behaviors related to the problem addressed by the dialogue and collective action. The model also indicates that these individual outcomes can be the result of the direct influence of one of the external catalysts identified in the model, such as mass media messages. Possible outcomes: Increase in the following

1. Community’s sense of self-efficacy - the confidence that together they can succeed in future projects. 2. Sense of Ownership - the degree to which they perceive themselves as responsible for the project’s success and thus feel they deserve the credit and benefits from the project. 3. Social cohesion - the extent to which members want to cooperate in another community project and the degree to which the social network of the community is interconnected as opposed to divided into cliques and factions. 4. Social norms - the accepted rules for participation, especially regarding who should or should not speak up and share in decision making and “fairness” regarding contribution and sharing of benefits, and finally, 5. Collective capacity - the overall ability of the community to engage in effective dialogue and collective action that is a consequence of all of the social change indicators specified by the model.

4. Education and Critical Theory In education, critical theory means not believing everything that you hear, read and see and urges learners to wrestle with their experiences and question how, what and why something comes about. Paulo Freire, coined the term conscientization or critical consciousness to describe this way of thinking. Freire believed that dialogue should be used in education as both a means of enhancing understanding and making a difference in the world. Freire and his associates used dialogue as a tool for deepening mutual respect and empowerment of students in the educational process. The use of dialogic thought and communication has provided a new and profound approach to the learning and changing process. Paulo Freire views politics and education as activities -- that is, with an important action dimension which goes beyond theory and reflection. His pedagogy is an active process, for learners as well as for teachers. It proclaims a radically new relationship between teachers and learners and fellow learners and between learners and knowledge. Dynamic dialogue between teachers and learners may even lead to them creating new knowledge.

Importance of Media The new information technologies used for the “demassification” of messages have the potential to facilitate dialogue. The Internet is an example of one contemporary context for using new technology to

“interpersonalize” the relationships between an organization and their publics. Individualized marketing and target advertising combined with interactive capabilities generated by the internet and the world wide web have created a communication environment in which organizations can literally interact with and provide selective information for customers via a mediated channel of communication Similarly, other forms of electronic technology are being combined to relationalize or interpersonalize the cold, impersonal nature of technology. (interactive banking, electronic banking)

II.

Basics of Interfaith Dialogue 1. Concept of God Man has been seeking for his Creator from the beginning of known human history. He has called his Creator by many different names, at different times and in different places. Man has an innate nature to seek for his Creator. While seeking for his Creator, anything that were very powerful, enormous, or unusual, drew his attention and he worshipped them. He even worshipped fellow human beings who were gifted with special abilities by God, could perform magic or miracles. In creating things in this world, we may utilize basic laws in the world but in no way can we alter these fundamental laws. Did all these come into existence and continue to exist by themselves? Basic human intelligence will tell us that there is a Creator who brought into existence each and everything around us and beyond.

saif_w.tripod.com/interfaith.htm (Islam Herald)

2. Why so many Religions? Men turn to various religions to solve mysteries of the human condition, which today, as in earlier times, burden people’s hearts: the nature of man; the meaning and purpose of life; good and evil; the origin and purpose of suffering; the way to true happiness; death; judgment and retribution after death; and finally, the ultimate ineffable mystery which is the origin and destiny of our existence. Negative connotations associated with the image of life in Western society (the so-called Christian society) present a considerable obstacle to the acceptance of the Gospel. http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap13.html

3. Interfaith Dialogue “Christian faith” was born in a Jewish milieu. Historical background The World missionary conference at Edinburgh in 1910 is commonly accepted as marking the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement. An influential book of the period was J.N. Farquhar’s The Crown of Hinduism, which argued that Christ fulfilled the longings and aspirations of Hinduism. Missionary conference, Jerusalem 1928. While asserting that the Christian gospel provided the answers to a troubled world, the conference affirmed the “values” in other religions and called on Christians to join hands with all believers to confront the growing impact of secular culture. But of course, not all agreed and maintained that the Christian gospel is unique among religious traditions. Report of the Commission of Appraisal of the Laymen’s Foreign Mission Enquiry edited by W. E. Hocking criticized the exclusive attitude of Christians towards other faiths and claimed that the challenge to the Christian faith came not from other faiths but from anti-religious and secular movements. The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World by Hendrik Kraemer became the preparatory study book for the next international missionary conference in Tambaram, India, in 1938. Post-Tambaram developments. This was during the Second World War and it has become a different scenario. Nationalism and revival of religious traditions were evident. The churches, awakened to the need to express their unity in a world shattered by war, had come together in Amsterdam in 1948 to form the WCC. Both the Int’l Missionary Council (IMC) and the WCC’s department on evangelism were eager to follow up on the unfinished Tambaram debate on other faiths. Adopted strategies were setting up of a number of study centre around the world that would address the question in concrete historical situations and a long-term joint study on “The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men,” which sought to take the discussion beyond Tambaram and the continuity-discontinuity polarity. In this context the concept of dialogue appears in the New Delhi statement as a way of speaking about Christian relations with people of other faith traditions. This was further considered at the first world mission gathering under WCC auspices in Mexico City in 1963. A more significant discussion took place at the East Asia Christian Conference

assembly in Bangkok in 1964. Its statement on “Christian Encounter with Men and of Other Beliefs,” took the debate at many points. A WCC conference in Kandy, Sri Lanka, in 1967, proved to be a landmark both as the beginning of serious interest in interfaith dialogue as such in the WCC, and as the first involvement in the ecumenical discussion of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians. Developments within the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church (like the WCC and many of its members churches) has had a long history of relating to the Jewish people. During Vatican II it was decided that a similar relation should be developed with the followers of other religions as well. Pope Paul VI thus established a special secretariat (later a pontifical council) for relationships with non-Christians and the papal encyclical Ecclesiam Suam emphasized the importance of positive encounter between Christians and people of other faith traditions. The Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) promulgated on 28 October 1965. Other key Vatican II, documents, such as the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) and the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes), included important pointers to a dialogical attitude towards people of other religious traditions. Although Vatican II did not develop clear theological positions on other religions it did, by opening up the issue in the direction of interfaith dialogue, mark a new phase in the relationships of the Roman Catholic Church, in all parts of the world, with people of other faiths .The preparatory materials for the Kandy meeting included Nostra Aetate and parts Lumen Gentium. http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/diction.html

4. Similarities of Christian Muslim Faiths (in religion)

COMMONALITIES ON RELIGION Commonnality 1. Belief in God

2. People of Scripture

3. Belief in Prophets

Muslim “There is no one God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.” (first and greatest teaching in Islam)

Christian “The Lord our God is one Lord …” (Dt. 6:4) [key verse of the Torah (Taurat) of Moses]

Say He is Allah, the One Allah, the eternally besought of all! He begetteth nor was begotten; And there is none comparable unto Him.” (Qu’ran)

“The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mk. 12:28) [according to Jesus]

Qu’ran is very respectful of the Torah (Taurat), the Psalm (Zabur) and the Gospels (Injil) [these scriptures are acknowledged as three Divine guidance; the prophets to whom these scriptures were revealed (Moses, David, Jesus) are believed to be great prophets of Allah and Islam.

Believe in the God revealed in the Bible, the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The Torah (Taurat), the Psalms (Zabur) and the Gospels (Injil) form the major part of the Christian Scriptures. Christians have an exceedingly high regard for scripture as the Word of God, revealing the will of God.

Muslims have an exceedingly high regard for the scripture as the Word of God, revealing the will of God. The scripture which is used in worship, provides criteria for living moral and religious life and serves as inspiration in day-to-day living. Regularly recite the opening sura and other short pieces as part of their Use the Psalms and other biblical text in their ritual prayer [Qu’ran recitation is also a part of many religious occasions morning, evening and other daily prayers. outside the five daily prayers, e.g., after a funeral and during the fasting month of Ramadan] Qu’ran lists nearly 30 prophets most or whom are recorded in Christian biblical tradition [among them, three biblical prophets receive particular treatment and are the central characters in numerous Qu’ranic stories: Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa) Common belief in a God who has spoken to humankind through the prophets. The life and mission of the prophet follows the same pattern [A prophet is elected by God from among his own people. He speaks their language and delivers the message of God. The prophet has the two-fold task of denunciation and annunciation. He criticizes whatever is sinful in the world and whatever is contrary to God’s will.

4. Prayer as relationship with God

Prayer as relationship with God

5. Mission in the world

The other is to announce an alternative way of living in righteousness, in accordance with God’s will and proposes better ways of serving people. However, he has to face opposition from his people who threaten to kill him. But in the end, God always saves his prophet and he punishes the unbelieving people.] Prayers is the acknowledgement of the dependence of humans to God, an act of submission to God [We pray to God in order to know, be attuned to and practice his will. The purpose of prayer is to worship the one true God. It is to praise the magnificence of God as Lord and Creator. It is to thank God for his benevolence, compassion, and gratuitousness to human beings.] There are various forms of prayer for different occasions [prayer Prayer has many sides and can take many (salat) is the second pillar of Islam. It is ritual prayer, an essential forms [There are personal as well as expression of worship, strictly regulated by Qu’ran, the Hadit and congregational or liturgical prayers. The Figh. The salat, whether communal or individual, is uniform all over Christian prayer is Our Father taught by Jesus the world. The ranks of the faithful, their unison in movement behind to his disciples. The prayer Our Father is the imam (prayer leader), facing the direction of Qibla, the raka’h adoration of God, praise and thanksgiving (unit) and the sujud (prostration), which brings down the believer to demand for forgiveness, assistance and hope. the Earth, is all performed in the same way. There is commonality in Among the liturgical prayers, the Mass of the the language of the prayer and in almost every detail. The salat is Holy Eucharist is at the center of Christian performed everyday, five times a day, at prescribed hours. The call to prayer and life. It is always presided by a priest the prayer, which is sung by the muezzin from the top of the minaret, and celebrated everyday, especially on is a reminder of the various times of prayer, and scans the rhythm of Sunday, which is the day of the Lord. Many the Muslim life.] There are also prayers of request as well as Filipinos recite the rosary, which alternates the invocation. Our Father and Hail Mary.] 3 important aspect of mission: Mission is derived form the mission of Jesus (1) to propagate Islam, which is total submission to the one true God Christ who came to proclaim the good news of [Muslims are charged with the mission of bringing the whole world to the kingdom of God [God’s kingdom is the reign its supreme God and of freeing it from servitude to any false god. The of justice and peace of compassion and way of spreading Islam is through jihad. Jihad is a striving in the reconciliation, and of life and love. In Jesus this cause of God. It means executing of one’s utmost power in repelling kingdom was initiated, but the fullness of this an enemy. In the early mission of Muhammad his preaching was will be realized at the end of time. Meanwhile, received with hostility and persecution. He then wielded his believers the Church, as a sign and sacrament of this into a single brotherhood, the Umma. The Muslim soon discovered Kingdom, was born to proclaim this good enemies of the Umma. It was about this time that Muhammad was news.] commanded to fight those who fought him and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. They were commanded not to Mission work of the Church consists of the

start aggression or hostilities against the people. However, they were to stand firm in resisting aggression and oppression directed against the Umma and in restoring peace, justice and freedom of humanity]

Mission in the world

(2) to restore peace [Islam is the peaceful surrender to the will of God. Muslim salutation, “Assalaam Allikum” means “May God’s peace be upon you!” The mission of the Umma is to proclaim the message of Islam peacefully to all peoples, and to invite all into the Dar al Islam (Region of Peace), which is the Umma]. (3) service [The third pillar of Islamic duty, almsgiving (zakat), is imposed on Muslims to help the needy.

following activities: (1) witness, whereby the Christian through his life manifests the new humanity, whose faith is manifested in love and service to the neighbor; the Christian, therefore, is called and sent to collaborate with others in the right ordering of human society. (2) preaching the gospel of good news of God’s kingdom so that others may believe in the only Lord and savior and become members of the Church and attain the fullness of life (salvation). [In the mission of preaching the Gospel (evangelization), the Church announces a message of liberation. It is a message touching life as a whole: human, family and social life; international relations; peace, justice and development. The Christian missionary is therefore concerned with social transformation, addressing the problems of poverty, injustice, ecological destruction, and the discrimination against women, indigenous peoples and other marginalized peoples.]

Muslim and Christian Cultures In Search of Commonalities edited by Florangel Rosario-Braid

5. Overview of Interfaith Dialogue Interfaith dialogue was understood as an encounter between people who live by different faith traditions, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and acceptance. Dialogue did not require giving up, hiding or seeking to validate one’s own religious conviction; in fact the need for being rooted in one’s own tradition to be engaged in a meaningful dialogue was emphasized, as were common humanity and the need to search in a divided world for life in community. Dialogue was seen as a way not only to become informed about the faiths of others but also to rediscover essential dimensions of one’s own faith tradition. Removing historical prejudices and enmities as well as the new possibilities of working together for common good should be important and affirmed. http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/diction.html Interfaith is a process of coming together of people committed to their respective religions and spiritual paths for the purpose of mutual understanding, appreciation and enrichment. [inter is a Latin word meaning among or between] A sense of offering space, openness and respect. It can be informal or formal, internal to oneself, between neighbors, among community groups, right up to large international gatherings. The venue can be a church, temple, mosque or a house, street, bus, etc. Related terms to interfaith each with their own emphases: Multi faith – means many faiths, with no implication of dialogue Inter-religious dialogue – some scholars, who focus on culture, prefer the term religion to faith, as they take the view that faith does not express y the full plurality of culture. Comparative Religion – emphasis on scholarly analysis Ecumenism – dialogue between Christians and other faiths Engagement, activism – concentrate on practical projects to tackle the critical issues on the planet which are evident externally: conflict resolution, reconciliation, human rights, education, social welfare and the environment Interfaith works through people meeting each other – especially through networks: Education – religion be taught in a plural context – that typically involves the study of the major teachings from several world traditions (field trips to places of worship and try some practice thus gaining quite vivid impression of what life can be like in another faith; becoming common for school children to send queries to maintainers of websites on particular

faiths!; more courses available on the study of world religions and quite a number are using the term “interfaith”. Community Centers – people can attend talks about other spiritual paths, try yoga, practice meditation and join in the celebration of other religious festivals. Official co-ordination: organizations and networks Implicit interfaith activities Other interfaith activities

Forms of Interfaith Dialogue Dialogue of life – Christians and Muslims living the values of their religion in peaceable exchange with one another. They bear witness to their respective faiths and enrich their neighbors by practicing what is best in their religions. Dialogue of Action – People of different faiths cooperate on issues of justice and human promotion. Muslims and Christians together address the structural and attitudinal roots of conflict and explore ways to find solutions for long-lasting peace. Dialogue of Theological Exchange – Looking at the convergences (and divergences!) of two different religions. Dialogue of Prayer – People of different faiths come together to pray to the same God. This requires a deeper level of trust and openness. It is only possible where people have laboriously prepared the groundwork.

The ABC of Interfaith Dialogue 1. What is interreligious/interfaith dialogue? A conversation, a two-way communication between two or more persons holding significantly different views as a result of each person’s own religio-cultural history and upbringing. Come with an open mind which appreciates differences and pluralism. End of exclusivistic and triumphalistic attitudes, the sense of superiority and “chosenness,” and the notion that one’s own religion is the one and only which deserves absolute and final status. A process where one learns not only about the other but also about oneself and one’s own religion. Committed to witnessing to one’s own religious experiences and convictions. Ultimate goal of dialogue is the conversion of the dialogue partner. Serves as a platform where one comes to convert the other as well as be converted by the other. 2. Why engage in interreligious/interfaith dialogue?

Religions are different – openness to Truth Difference which unite. Religions will Meet, Anyway. Transnational migration, tourism, multinational businesses, the mass media, higher education, the internet and a host of other factors are bringing cultures closer to one another and often even into each other’s living rooms, as in the case of television. Suffering in the World 3. Who should engage in dialogue? Dialogue of discourse – trained scholars, religious leaders and theologians of religions Dialogue of religious experience – dialogue of spirituality, this is the spiritual dimension of dialogue (how we pray? why we pray? who is God for us? what motivates us to live virtuously?) experiences in pilgrimages… Dialogue of Action – religionists