Attitudes towards dialogue

Learnings for the Future of Inter-Faith Dialogue (Part #3)

It is perhaps useful to cluster types of dialogue in terms of the following attitudes:

(a) those groups who simply do not favour dialogue. In the case of spiritual or religious groups, this may follow directly from the sense that once one holds the truth, or is following the most appropriate path, interaction with those in error, or going in the wrong direction, can only be counter-productive.
(b) those groups who favour minimalistic dialogue, possibly only to avoid being labelled as isolationists. This position is clearly important to groups concerned to leave some possibilities open, as well as to those anxious to position themselves in the best light in relation to perspectives which might otherwise appear more attractive.
(c) those groups who favour and initiate dialogue on their own terms in order better to demonstrate the prime role of their own belief system. Dialogue is then envisaged in two stages: establishment of a pattern of communication apparently characterized by symmetry and equality; then use of that pattern unilaterally to communicate the essential truths. This form of dialogue is favoured by Christian ecumenical movements and in Muslim invitations to dialogue.
(d) those groups who are content to engage in any dialogue process, but without any expectation that it should be especially challenging or that it should progress beyond peer bonding and celebrations of mutuality.
(e) those groups who believe that progress in the quality and challenges of inter-faith dialogue can lead to the emergence of new patterns of understanding and organization of relevance to society at large.

The Chicago event, as with many inter-faith, inter-sectoral and inter-cultural initiatives, seems to have responded primarily to those of Type (d), although (c) and (b) would necessarily have participated. Thus the advice on inter-faith dialogue in the Sourcebook responds to the needs of those in (d). The Bangalore meeting, which immediately preceded it, is more likely to have emphasized Type (e). It is ways of envisioning Type (e) forms of dialogue which are called for in order to move beyond enthusiastic celebration of underachievement.