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 mini-
lecture/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, mandated

organizations, etc.)
2. Religious Houses/Seminaries (religious, seminarians)
 3. Different faith communities (Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians,
etc…)

IV. Course Duration: Half day (4 - 5 hours)

V. Methodologies/Approaches

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, I-
thou 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 A Person B

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 PHYSICAL REALITY PSYCHOLOGICAL

REALITY A REALITY B

Interpreting Perceiving INFORMATION Perceiving Interpreting

Action Action

Collective
Action

Understanding Believing Believing Understanding

Mutual
Agreement

MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING

SOCIAL
REALITY
A&B
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. An internal stimulus
2. A change agent
3. An innovation
4. Policies
5. Availability of Technology
6. 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 self-
efficacy.

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 Muslim Christian

1. Belief in God “There is no one God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of “The Lord our God is one Lord …” (Dt. 6:4) [key
Allah.” (first and greatest teaching in Islam) verse of the Torah (Taurat) of Moses]

Say He is Allah, the One Allah, the eternally besought of all! He “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
begetteth nor was begotten; And there is none comparable unto Him.” (Mk. 12:28) [according to Jesus]
(Qu’ran)
Believe in the God revealed in the Bible, the
God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
2. People of Scripture Qu’ran is very respectful of the Torah (Taurat), the Psalm (Zabur) and The Torah (Taurat), the Psalms (Zabur) and the
the Gospels (Injil) [these scriptures are acknowledged as three Divine Gospels (Injil) form the major part of the
guidance; the prophets to whom these scriptures were revealed Christian Scriptures.
(Moses, David, Jesus) are believed to be great prophets of Allah and
Islam. Christians have an exceedingly high regard for
scripture as the Word of God, revealing the will
Muslims have an exceedingly high regard for the scripture as the of God.
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]
3. Belief in Prophets 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 The other is to announce an alternative way of living in righteousness, in accordance with God’s will and proposes better
with God 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.]
Prayer as relationship There are various forms of prayer for different occasions [prayer Prayer has many sides and can take many
with God (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.]
5. Mission in the world 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.
Muslim and Christian Cultures In Search of Commonalities edited by Florangel Rosario-Braid
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.]
 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