dialogue

A method by which religious people in the second half of the 20th century tried to understand one another. Dialogue was especially popular among liberals of all three branches of CHRISTIANITY: EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, and PROTESTANTISM. Talking with people who practice a religion different from one's own is certainly not new. Akbar (1542–1605), a Muslim emperor of India, was noted for his religious tolerance. At his capital, Fatehpur Sikri, he built a structure that provided him an elevated seat in the center of a room. Different religious teachers—Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian—occupied elevated "pulpits" in each of the room's four corners. In this way, Akbar entered into discussion with all four teachers simultaneously. During the 20th century, Christian denominations and MISSIONARIES became increasingly interested in "interreligious dialogue." Different Christian churches, for example, Catholics and Lutherans, established offi cial dialogues with one another. Some Christian groups established offi - cial dialogues with representatives of other religions, for example, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. Indeed, the Second VATICAN COUNCIL saw dialogue as the most appropriate means to use in missionary efforts. In 1983 Leonard Swidler, a theologian, published 10 ground rules for interreligious dialogue. He called them the "Dialogue Decalogue." The following points drawn from his rules give a good idea of what interreligious dialogue is about. ? People participate in interreligious dialogue to learn what other people believe, not to teach them what is true (rule 1). ? Participants must accept one another as equals. For example, one cannot consider people of other religions savage, primitive, demonic, deluded, or evil (rule 7). ? Each participant has the right to defi ne what her or his view actually are. For example, if a person insisted that a physical image was not GOD but simply a means to help one WORSHIP God, one should not insist that that person was worshipping the image or idol itself (rule 5). ? Participants must be willing to look at their own religions critically (rule 9). ? All participants must share their positions honestly. That means they must be willing to share their doubts and hesitations as well as their convictions (rule 3). ? In a dialogue people should compare the practices of others with their own practices, their own ideals with the ideals of others. In the past, people had often used their ideals to condemn the practices of others. They had conveniently ignored problems with their own practices (rule 4). Swidler claimed that interreligious dialogue was "something new under the sun." Others claimed that only dialogue and the attitudes found in dialogue could save human beings from universal threats, such as nuclear holocaust or an ecological imbalance that would poison the Earth. These claims are probably too enthusiastic. Some have rejected interreligious dialogue altogether. More traditional Christians have seen dialogue as abandoning the basic calling of a Christian: to proclaim the truth of Christianity. Some non-Christians have seen dialogue as a new and underhanded way for Christians to try to convert them. In their eyes, those who advocated dialogue were wolves in sheeps' clothing.