The Value of Interfaith Conversation? 5 Views

The Boston Globe published on Christmas Eve five essays on the value of interfaith dialogue. Contributors included Harvard's Diana Eck, who has written about the value of religious pluralism; Alan Wolfe of Boston College; Notre Dame's Mark Noll, formerly of Wheaton College; Reza Aslan, author and graduate student at UC Santa Barbara, and Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things.

I would characterize the five essays as reflections on the Christian-Muslim conversation and its implications for peace in the world. Of the five Neuhaus' is the most guarded. Tolerance is needed, but it must be rooted in reason. Aslan, the only Muslim in the group (and a liberal one at that) provides a caveat that sometimes from the Muslim perspective, interfaith dialogue is seen as coercive. Of the five, the one I found the most interesting was Alan Wolfe's. His point is quite simple, really, let's broaden the conversation partners to include more than religious leaders.

Wolfe writes that generally it's the leadership/the elites that stir up trouble not the general populace. He points specifically at Iran, noting that while the people may have no love for Israel, Israel isn't at the top of their list of important issues, though apparently it's important to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He writes further that "Religious tolerance is frequently found among ordinary people because, at least in the United States, religious pluralism is a fact of life." Religious leaders, however, must worry about keeping their religious traditions together and have more to lose.

Thus, the key to dialogue isn't to bring together religious leaders, but lay people from varying religious traditions. "Find yourself face to face," he says, "with a person from a different faith than your own, and it is hard to conclude that your truths are infallible and those of others are heretical." Such is good advice!

By the way, thanks to Melissa Rogers for the link.

Comments

Popular Posts