{"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 <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 \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 <\/a><\/p>\n Website of Dr. Swidler\u2019s Dialogue Institute in Philadelphia, USA:\u00a0 http:\/\/dialogueinstitute.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\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 <\/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 <\/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 (Leonard Swidler, Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, p. 26)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 (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 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 is the understanding of myself and others.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Debate is the successful argument of my position over that of an opponent.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 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 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 <\/p>\n <\/p>\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 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 Excerpted from Interfaith Peacemaking Curriculum<\/b> http:\/\/abrahamicfaithspeacemaking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/For-One-Great-Peace-Study-Guide.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Dialogue\u00a0Principles<\/h2>\n
SHORT VERSION<\/strong><\/h3>\n
LONG VERSION<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Three Goals of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
\n
Principles towards Better Interfaith Relations<\/h2>\n
\n
Four Levels of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
\n
Five Types of Interreligious Dialogue<\/h2>\n
\n
Assisi Decalogue for Peace<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/h2>\n
The Seven Stages of Deep-Dialogue<\/h2>\n
Dialogue vs Debate<\/h2>\n
Dialogue<\/h3>\n
Debate<\/h3>\n
Dialogue is not Debate<\/h2>\n
Nine Guidelines for Listening to Others<\/h2>\n
\n
Compassionate Listening<\/h2>\n
Some Assumptions
\nA First Step Toward Interfaith Dialogue<\/h3>\n\n
<\/h2>\n
Guidelines for organizing interfaith meetings<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/h2>\n
Ten Things You Can Do to Support Interfaith Peacemaking and Collaborative Action<\/h2>\n
\n