{"id":1793,"date":"2015-06-01T17:53:47","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T22:53:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scarboromissions.ca\/?page_id=1793"},"modified":"2017-05-29T20:49:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-30T01:49:13","slug":"principles-and-guidelines-for-interfaith-dialogue","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.scarboromissions.ca\/interfaith-dialogue\/principles-and-guidelines-for-interfaith-dialogue","title":{"rendered":"Principles and Guidelines for Interfaith Dialogue"},"content":{"rendered":"

This compendium of concise and handy resources provides insight into the interfaith movement\u00a0and its treasure chest of wisdom and learning opportunities. The collection explores the goals, types and stages of dialogue and touches on issues such as interfaith etiquette, listening, peace-building, hospitality, respectful presence and dialogue-versus-debate. These principles and guidelines are useful for those who are new to interfaith as well as for veterans of interfaith work.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Dialogue Principles<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Three Goals of Interreligious Dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Principles towards Better Interfaith Relations<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Four Levels of Interreligious Dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Five Types of Interreligious Dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Assisi Decalogue for Peace<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. The Seven Stages of Deep-Dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Dialogue vs Debate<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Dialogue is not debate<\/a><\/li>\n
  10. Nine Guidelines for Listening to Others<\/a><\/li>\n
  11. Compassionate Listening<\/a><\/li>\n
  12. Guidelines for organizing interfaith meetings<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Ten Things You Can Do to Support Interfaith Peacemaking and Collaborative Action<\/a><\/li>\n
  14. Interfaith Lessons I Have Learned<\/a><\/li>\n
  15. Ten Rules for Interfaith dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  16. Guidelines for Interreligious Understanding<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Purpose and Principles of the United Religions Initiative (URI)<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. Essentials for formatting a mission statement for Interfaith Studies at the university or college level<\/a><\/li>\n
  19. The Language of Interfaith Conversation<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Rights, Responsibilities and Skills of Dialogue<\/a><\/li>\n
  21. A Safe Place to Address Prejudice, Stereotypes and Fears<\/a><\/li>\n
  22. One Muslim’s Interfaith Resolutions<\/a><\/li>\n
  23. Tips for interfaith families: How to make a seder inclusive<\/a><\/li>\n
  24. A Declaration of Interdependence<\/a><\/li>\n
  25. Why Interfaith dialogue Doesn’t Work – and What We can Do About It<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Dialogue\u00a0Principles<\/h2>\n

    Dr. Leonard Swidler<\/strong> is a highly respected American scholar in the field of interfaith dialogue. Dr. Swidler has published this set of ten inter-religious principles which have become a classic. \u00a0Below please find this \u201cdialogue decalogue\u201d in both Short and Long versions.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    SHORT VERSION<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    FIRST PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn; that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly.<\/p>\n

    SECOND PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Inter-religious, inter-ideological dialogue must be a two-sided project within each religious or ideological community and between religious or ideological communities.<\/p>\n

    THIRD PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity.<\/p>\n

    FOURTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In inter-religious, inter-ideological dialogue we must not compare our ideals with our partner’s practice, but rather our ideals with our partner’s ideals, our practice with our partner’s practice.<\/p>\n

    FIFTH PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Each participant must define himself… Conversely, the interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation.<\/p>\n

    SIXTH PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Each participant must come to the dialogue with no hard-an\u00e7l-fast assumptions as to where the points of disagreement are.<\/p>\n

    SEVENTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dialogue can take place only between equals… Both must come to learn from each other.<\/p>\n

    EIGHTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dialogue can take place only on the basis of mutual trust.<\/p>\n

    NINTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Persons entering into inter-religious, inter-ideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions.<\/p>\n

    TENTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Each participant eventually must attempt to experience the partner’s religion or ideology ‘from within’; for a religion or ideology is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and ‘whole being,’ individual and communal.<\/p>\n

    \"dialogue_decalogue_1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    Website of Dr. Swidler\u2019s Dialogue Institute in Philadelphia, USA:\u00a0 http:\/\/dialogueinstitute.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    LONG VERSION<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    FIRST PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The essential purpose of a dialogue is to learn, which entails change. At the very least, to learn that one\u2019s dialogue partner views the world differently is to effect a change in oneself. Reciprocally, change happens for one\u2019s partner as she\/he learns about oneself.<\/p>\n

    SECOND PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dialogue must be a two-sided project: both between religious\/ideological groups (Inter- and Intra-). Intra-religious\/ideological dialogue is vital for moving one\u2019s community toward an increasingly perceptive insight into reality.<\/p>\n

    THIRD PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is imperative that each participant comes to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. This means not only describing the major and minor thrusts as well as potential future shifts of one\u2019s tradition, but also possible difficulties that she\/he has with it.<\/p>\n

    \"dialogue_decalogue_2\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

    FOURTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    One must compare only her\/his ideals with their partner\u2019s ideals, and her\/his practice with their partner\u2019s practice. Not their ideals with their partner\u2019s practice.<\/p>\n

    FIFTH PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Each participant needs to describe her\/himself. For example, only a Muslim can describe what it really mans to be an authentic member of the Muslim community. At the same time, when one\u2019s partner in dialogue attempts to describe back to them what they have understood of their partner\u2019s self-description, then such a description must be recognizable to the described party.<\/p>\n

    SIXTH PRINCIPLE <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Participants must not come to the dialogue with any preconceptions as to where the points of disagreement lie. A process of agreeing with their partner as much as possible, without violating the integrity of their own tradition, will reveal where the real boundaries between the traditions lie; the point where she \/ he cannot agree without going against the principle of their own tradition.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    SEVENTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dialogue can only take place between equals, which means that partners learn from each other \u2013 par cum pari according to the Second Vatican Council \u2013 and do not merely seek to teach one another.<\/p>\n

    EIGHTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Dialogue can only take place on the basis of mutual trust. Because it is persons, and not entire communities, that enter into dialogue, it is essential for personal trust to be established. To encourage this it is important that less controversial matters are discussed before dealing with the more controversial ones.<\/p>\n

    NINTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Participants in dialogue should have a healthy level of criticism toward their own traditions. A lack of such criticism implies that one\u2019s tradition has all the answers, thus making dialogue not only unnecessary, but unfeasible. The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, which is impossible if one\u2019s tradition is seen as having all the answers.<\/p>\n

    TENTH PRINCIPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n

    To truly understand another religion or ideology one must try to experience it from within, which requires a \u201cpassing over\u201d, even if only momentarily, into another\u2019s religious or ideological experience.<\/p>\n

    \"dialogue_decalogue_3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Website of Dr. Swidler\u2019s Dialogue Institute in Philadelphia, USA:\u00a0 http:\/\/dialogueinstitute.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Three Goals of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. To know oneself ever more profoundly and enrich and round out one’s appreciation of one’s own faith tradition<\/li>\n
    2. To know the other ever more authentically and gain a friendly understanding of others as they are and not in caricature<\/li>\n
    3. To live ever more fully accordingly and to establish a more solid foundation for community of life and action among persons of various traditions<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      (Leonard Swidler, Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, p. 26)<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      <\/p>\n

      Principles towards Better Interfaith Relations<\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. We confess our failures and lack of love, respect and sensitivity to people of other faiths in the past. We intend to forgive one another, seek the forgiveness of others and commit ourselves to a new beginning.<\/li>\n
      2. We affirm that good interfaith relations can open the way to better interethnic relations and peace throughout the world.<\/li>\n
      3. We recognise building true community (koinonia) , both among persons and various ethnic and religious communities, as our primary objective. We need to develop a global theology that will be appropriate for the unfolding sense of a globalised world.<\/li>\n
      4. We affirm the importance of promoting a culture of dialogue within and among all religious communities and indigenous traditions.<\/li>\n
      5. We condemn violence and terrorism as being against the spirit of all true religion and we pledge ourselves to removing their causes.<\/li>\n
      6. We shall respect the integrity of all religions and ensure that they have the freedom to follow their own beliefs and practices.<\/li>\n
      7. We believe that the different religions are enriched by identifying agendas in which they can collaborate, such as making peace, protecting the environment, eradicating poverty and ensuring the human dignity of all.<\/li>\n
      8. We affirm that it is important for us all to listen to and learn from other religions so that we can value religious plurality as a factor that enriches our communities.<\/li>\n
      9. We endeavour to live out and explain the truths of our own religion in a manner that is intelligible and friendly to people of other faiths.<\/li>\n
      10. Cultural diversity as well as religious diversity in our communities will be affirmed as a source of enrichment and challenge.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Prepared by the Rt Rev. Kenneth Fernando for the Network of Interfaith Concerns of the Anglican Communion<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Four Levels of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
          \n
        1. The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighborly spirit, sharing their joy and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations.<\/li>\n
        2. The dialogue of action, in which persons of all religions collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people.<\/li>\n
        3. The dialogue of theological exchange, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other’s spiritual values.<\/li>\n
        4. The dialogue of religious experience, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          (M. Thomas Thangaraj, The Common Task: A Theology of Christian Mission, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1999, pp. 95, 96.)<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Five Types of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
            \n
          1. Informational:<\/strong> Acquiring of knowledge of the faith partner’s religious history, founding, basic beliefs, scriptures, etc.<\/li>\n
          2. Confessional:<\/strong> Allowing the faith partners to speak for and define themselves in terms of what it means to live as an adherent.<\/li>\n
          3. Experiential:<\/strong> Dialogue with faith partners from within the partner’s tradition, worship and ritual – entering into the feelings of one’s partner and permitting that person’s symbols and stories to guide.<\/li>\n
          4. Relational:<\/strong> Develop friendships with individual persons beyond the “business” of dialogue.<\/li>\n
          5. Practical:<\/strong> Collaborate to promote peace and justice.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

             <\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            <\/p>\n

            Assisi Decalogue for Peace<\/h2>\n

            During the interfaith prayer service at Assisi (2002), ten of the 200 faith representatives each read one of the following ten commitments in their own language. In March, Pope John Paul II sent a copy of the Decalogue for Peace to all heads of state. In an accompanying letter, the Pope stated that the participants at the Assisi gathering were inspired more than ever by one common conviction \u2014 humanity must choose between love and hatred.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are opposed to all true religious spirit and we condemn all recourse to violence and war in the name of God or religion. We undertake to do everything possible to eradicate the causes of terrorism.<\/li>\n
            2. We commit ourselves to educate people about respect and mutual esteem in order to achieve peaceful coexistence and solidarity among members of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions.<\/li>\n
            3. We commit ourselves to promote the culture of dialogue so that understanding and trust may develop among individuals and peoples as these are the conditions of authentic peace.<\/li>\n
            4. We commit ourselves to defend the right of all human beings to lead a dignified life, in accordance with their cultural identity.<\/li>\n
            5. We commit ourselves to engage in dialogue with sincerity and patience, without considering what separates us as an insurmountable wall, on the contrary, recognizing that facing our differences can become an occasion for greater reciprocal understanding.<\/li>\n
            6. We commit ourselves to pardon each other’s errors and prejudices of the past and present, and to support one another in the common struggle against egoism and abuses, hatred and violence, and in order to learn from the past that peace without justice is not true peace.<\/li>\n
            7. We commit ourselves to stand at the side of those who suffer poverty and abandonment, speaking out for those who have no voice and taking concrete action to overcome such situations, in the conviction that no one can be happy alone.<\/li>\n
            8. We commit ourselves to make our own the cry of those who do not surrender to violence and evil, and we wish to contribute with all our strength to give a real hope of justice and peace to the humanity of our time.<\/li>\n
            9. We commit ourselves to encourage all initiatives that promote friendship between peoples, in the conviction that, if a solid understanding between peoples is lacking, technological progress exposes the world to increasing dangers of destruction and death.<\/li>\n
            10. We commit ourselves to ask the leaders of nations to make every possible effort so as to build, at both national and international levels, a world of solidarity and peace founded on justice.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

               <\/p>\n

              <\/h2>\n

              <\/p>\n

              The Seven Stages of Deep-Dialogue<\/h2>\n

              By Paul Mojzes and Leonard Swidler<\/b><\/p>\n

              Outlined below are seven stages that many people experience in the process of dialogue with other religions and cultures.<\/p>\n

              Stage One\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Radical Encountering of Difference<\/b><\/p>\n

              Early encounters with those of other religions are inherently challenging and even threatening as I face a new worldview, a new way of interpreting reality, and new ways of responding that are clearly other. I am tempted to appropriate the other to my own worldview. I soon realize that this disruption to my worldview and ways of responding won\u2019t go away, nor will it accommodate my own worldview and ways of responding. I may be tempted to withdraw from the situation, only to discover that my place in society may not allow for such withdrawal. The decision to proceed moves me on into the second stage.<\/p>\n

              Stage Two\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Crossing Over \u2014 Letting Go and Entering the World of the Other<\/b><\/p>\n

              As I make the decision to engage the world of the other sincerely, I find myself called to explore, to learn anew, and to reassess my norms regarding adequate and appropriate expressions of values, and to critique my traditional attitudes. I find that I need to approach the new worldview with openness and a bracketing of my stereotypes and prejudices. As I do this, I find myself moving into stage three.<\/p>\n

              Stage Three\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Inhabiting and Experiencing the World of the Other<\/b><\/p>\n

              The experience of empathy and interest then expands into a sense of freedom that opens doors to learn many things from this other world: what is of greatest importance, modalities of interaction, what causes suffering to those in this world. As I experiment with integrating ways of thinking and acting in light of my discoveries, I sense an excitement and a deepening relationship with those of this world. At a certain point, after I have gained some competence in negotiating this environment, I discover that this is not my true home. This moves me into the fourth stage.<\/p>\n

              Stage Four\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Crossing Back with an Expanded Vision<\/b><\/p>\n

              The new knowledge I have gained in alternative ways of thinking and acting is now part of my repertoire as I regain my sense of belonging in my own world. I am able to think and act from both perspectives as the context may require. My own sense of identity has deepened, has changed, and no matter what choices I freely make to believe and to act, I can no longer assume that my former unilateral way of being in the world is the only way. My attitudes and concerns are irrevocably reshaped to hold the other in view, in relationship. This moves me into stage five.<\/p>\n

              Stage Five\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The Dialogic Awakening \u2014 A Radical Paradigm Shift<\/b><\/p>\n

              I experience a profound shift in my worldview as well as expanded consciousness of concerns and needs and causes of dysfunction in world realities and viable ways of human response. I can no longer return to my former worldview that did not have a place for this other. Further, I am irrevocably shaped to the possibility that there is a plurality of viable worldviews, concerns, and human responses. This changes my sense of myself. I become aware of the interconnectedness of myself and many\/all others, including Earth and all her needs and potentials. This awakening is what moves me into the sixth stage.<\/p>\n

              Stage Six\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Global Awakening \u2014 The Paradigm Shift Matures<\/b><\/p>\n

              This stage of Deep-Dialogue opens me to the common ground that underlies the multiple worlds with which I am surrounded. I can perceive that the unique differences essential to these worlds are contained in a field of unity. My own inner world is now apparent as a range of perspectives and unique to myself. I am increasingly open to dialogue with others in my various communities of life, to a transformed relationship with them and an embrace of the context in which these communities are situated. There is for me an expanding world of communities of life with greater potential for ongoing dialogue, new learning, and deepened relationships. This moves me to stage seven.<\/p>\n

              Stage Seven\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Personal and Global Transforming of Life and Behaviour<\/b><\/p>\n

              One of the most significant transformations that has taken place on this journey is a greater and more encompassing moral consciousness and ensuing practice. The communion that I experience with all \u2014 self, others, and the Earth \u2014 is profound. I sense that my care for myself, instead of being in competition with concerns for the welfare of other realities, is integral to the care of the whole. As I come to deeper self-realization and greater self-fulfillment, I experience deeper meaning in relationships and in my whole life.<\/p>\n

              Paul Mojzes<\/b> is an American professor of religious studies.<\/p>\n

              Leonard Swidler<\/b> is an American professor of ecumenical and interfaith studies.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              <\/p>\n

              Dialogue vs Debate<\/h2>\n
              \n

              Dialogue<\/h3>\n

              Dialogue is the understanding of myself and others.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

              \n

              Debate<\/h3>\n

              Debate is the successful argument of my position over that of an opponent.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I listen openly and compassionately with the view that I want to understand.<\/div>\n
              I listen in order to counter what I hear, and am closed to new ideas.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I listen for strengths, so I can affirm and learn, and to hear other viewpoints.<\/div>\n
              I listen for weakness, so I can discount and devalue what I hear.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I speak for myself using my own experiences and understanding, and examine my own assumptions.<\/div>\n
              I speak based on my own assumptions about others\u2019 experiences and motives, in an effort to prove that I am right.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I ask questions to increase understanding, and am willing to temporarily suspend my beliefs.<\/div>\n
              I ask questions in order to control the conversation, or to confuse: I look for ways to affirm my own beliefs or \u201cwin.\u201d<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I allow others to complete their communications.<\/div>\n
              I interrupt or change the subject.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I concentrate on others\u2019 words, feelings, body language, and other modes of communication.<\/div>\n
              I focus on the point I want to make next.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I respect others\u2019 experiences as true and valid for them, and want to work with others to come to new understandings.<\/div>\n
              I critique others\u2019 experiences as distorted or invalid or wrong.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I respect the expression of feelings in myself and others.<\/div>\n
              I distrust the expression of feelings as manipulative or less than legitimate.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I honor silence.<\/div>\n
              I am anxious in silence or use it to gain advantage.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              I look for ways to keep the conversation going, even in conflict.<\/div>\n
              I look for ways to end the conversation, when I am uncomfortable.<\/div>\n
              <\/div>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Excerpted from Interfaith Peacemaking Curriculum<\/b> http:\/\/abrahamicfaithspeacemaking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/For-One-Great-Peace-Study-Guide.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

              Published by Abrahamic Faiths Peacemaking Initiative<\/b> http:\/\/abrahamicfaithspeacemaking.com<\/a><\/p>\n

              Reprinted with permission.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              <\/p>\n

              Dialogue is not Debate<\/h2>\n

              Debate is oppositional: two or more sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward a common understanding.<\/p>\n

              In debate one searches for the other positions flaws and weaknesses. In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other position.<\/p>\n

              Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude, an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.<\/p>\n

              In debate winning is the goal. In dialogue finding common ground is the goal.<\/p>\n

              Debate defends one’s position as the best solution and excludes other positions. Dialogue opens up the possibility of reaching a better solutions than any of the original solutions.<\/p>\n

              Debate assumes there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue assumes many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution.<\/p>\n

              Debate implies conclusion. Dialogue remains open-ended.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              <\/p>\n

              Nine Guidelines for Listening to Others<\/h2>\n

              These guidelines were developed by Kay Lindahl, the founder of the Listening Center in Laguan Niguel, California. Kay is also the chairperson of the North American Interfaith Network (NAIN).<\/p>\n

              We include these guidelines here because listening is so vital to any form of dialogue, including interfaith dialogue. These guidelines are designed to facilitate healthy dialogue and deep listening and to create a safe space for meaningful conversation on all levels:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. WHEN YOU ARE LISTENING, SUSPEND ASSUMPTIONS<\/strong> – What we assume is often invisible to us. We assume that others have had the same experiences that we have, and that is how we listen to them. Learn to recognize assumptions by noticing when you get upset or annoyed by something someone else is saying. You may be making an assumption. Let it be – suspend it – and resume listening for understanding of the other.<\/li>\n
              2. WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING, EXPRESS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSE<\/strong> – informed by your tradition, beliefs and practices as you have interpreted them in your life. Speak for yourself. Use “I’ language. Take ownership of what you say. Speak from your heart. Notice how often the phrases “We all”, “of course”, “everyone says”, “you know”, come into your conversation. The only person you can truly speak for is yourself.<\/li>\n
              3. LISTEN WITHOUT JUDGMENT<\/strong> – The purpose of dialogue is to come to an understanding of the other, not to determine whether they are good, bad, right or wrong. If you are sitting there thinking: ‘That’s good”, ‘That’s bad”, “I like that” “I don’t like that”, then you are having a conversation in your own mind, rather than listening to the speaker. Simply notice when you do this, and return to being present with the speaker.<\/li>\n
              4. SUSPEND STATUS<\/strong> – Everyone is an equal partner in the inquiry. There is no seniority or hierarchy. All are colleagues with a mutual quest for insight and clarity. You are each an expert in your life. That is what you bring to the dialogue process.<\/li>\n
              5. HONOUR CONFIDENTIALITY<\/strong> – Leave the names of participants in the room so if you share stories or ideas, no one’s identity will be revealed. Create a safe space for self-expression.<\/li>\n
              6. LISTEN FOR UNDERSTANDING, NOT TO AGREE WITH OR BELIEVE<\/strong> – You do not have to agree with or believe anything that is said. Your job is to listen for understanding.<\/li>\n
              7. ASK CLARIFYING OR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS<\/strong> to assist your understanding and to explore assumptions.<\/li>\n
              8. HONOUR SILENCE AND TIME FOR REFLECTION<\/strong> – Notice what wants to be said rather than what you want to say.<\/li>\n
              9. ONE PERSON SPEAKS AT A TIME<\/strong> – Pay attention to the flow of the conversation. Notice what patterns emerge from the group. Make sure that each person has an opportunity to speak, while knowing that no one is required to speak.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                <\/p>\n

                Compassionate Listening<\/h2>\n

                Some Assumptions
                \nA First Step Toward Interfaith Dialogue<\/h3>\n
                  \n
                1. Compassionate Listening assumes that before authentic dialogue can occur, conflicting parties must first listen to each other. We cannot assume that we really know how it is to be another.<\/li>\n
                2. Compassionate Listening does not seek to change the other, but to love them. The more a person is loved, the more they are free to respond to inner truth.<\/li>\n
                3. Compassion Listening assumes that to build peace we need to acknowledge the humanity and the suffering of the other. Misunderstanding, conflicts, and violence are the result of unhealed wounds.<\/li>\n
                4. Compassionate Listening trusts that when people truly feel heard, they will be more open to hearing the stories of those with whom they disagree.<\/li>\n
                5. Compassionate Listening is a practice of reconciliation, and is thus based in the belief that mutual understanding and respect are the foundations for building communities across the borders of difference.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Excerpted from Interfaith Peacemaking Curriculum<\/b> http:\/\/abrahamicfaithspeacemaking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/For-One-Great-Peace-Study-Guide.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                  Published by Abrahamic Faiths Peacemaking Initiative<\/b> http:\/\/abrahamicfaithspeacemaking.com<\/a><\/p>\n

                  Reprinted with permission.<\/p>\n

                  <\/h2>\n

                   <\/p>\n

                  <\/p>\n

                  Guidelines for organizing interfaith meetings<\/h2>\n