Journal of Dialogue Studies Vol 10

Welcome to this special edition of The Journal of Dialogue Studies on the theme of ‘Inter-Religious and Inter-Convictional Dialogue’. This special edition is a joint initiative of the Dialogue Society (which sponsors the journal) and the Oxford Centre for Religion and Culture (OCRC), based at Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford. It is produced out of a collaboration between the Society and the Centre in relation to a series of seminars on ‘Inter-Religious and Inter-Convictional Dialogue’, an associated colloquium, and a book launch held at Regent’s Park College during the University’s Trinity Term 2022, between 9 May and 13 June inclusive.

Read this articleCite

Christianity’s traditional claim to universal, revealed truth is not conducive to dialogue, only to proselytism and comparative studies. Once understood as a human construct, along with other religious and secular belief systems, with all the relativities and openness that implies, dialogue becomes possible; hence the profound changes in Christianity’s position on such matters as Creation, slavery, and sexuality even before it’s human rather than divine nature was fully recognised. The paper argues however that the best approach to interfaith dialogue is not to focus on the various faiths and belief systems which we do not share but on human issues and endeavours which we do share. Extended examples are given including an interfaith centre whose strap line became: ‘Learning to live well together’ in multi-faith communities, to faith-based development agencies, to the shift in emphasis within the ecumenical movement from unity in ‘Faith and Order’ to unity in ‘Life and Work’. Four further considerations are discussed: the need to be aware of the social and political contexts within which dialogue takes place; that Christian contributions to dialogue must be on equal terms and cannot claim privileges in the marketplace of ideas; that often, and fortunately since it enables co-operation, there is a disjunction between theology and social policy where secular disciplines can claim a measure of autonomy; and finally dialogue and imbalances of power.

Read this articleCite

This paper reflects on the concept of inter-convictional approaches in relation to Muslims and dialogue particularly in Western, British contexts and considers what is gained when the lens ‘inter-convictional’ is used in dialogue. It draws on ethnographic and qualitative data to explore ideas of lived experience and inter-convictional dialogue in relation to Muslims and dialogue, in the UK. Ethnographic data from a variety of research projects is used in case studies of Muslim and non-Muslim dialogians ‘coming to common terms’ around three areas – Muslim women’s agency; dialogue on university campuses; and Muslim-heritage children’s faith needs in the British care system. This paper argues for enhanced societal reflection on what is shared in the ‘everyday’ and the ‘ordinary’ to enable a sociological, theological, and lived ‘coming to common terms’ through dialogue. Thus, this paper posits a new paradigm for dialogue, one that is predicated on lived experience and empathy.

Read this articleCite

Judaism, except for around 100 BCE to 100 CE, has almost never sought the conversion of adherents of other faiths, which has, I suggest, meant, in particular, a somewhat more open acceptance of the validity of the other two main monotheistic faiths, and in recent times, an acceptance of the validity of Eastern religions, though this is less accepted in many of the more traditional forms of Judaism and is also more nuanced for all religious Jews, depending on the definition of idolatry and/or pantheism that is adopted and how it applies to them. This acceptance by Jews of the ‘other’ has not been uniform amongst different groups of Jews nor in all times or locations, and the desire of other religions to, shall we euphemistically say, ‘encourage’ the conversion of Jews to their faiths has left a difficult legacy. These themes are explored in the essay. It would seem to me that building understanding between people of religion is vital for a more peaceful world where, if we can acknowledge that we are all made in the Divine image, we will then be able to fight our common problems together.

Read this articleCite

This paper was delivered at Regent’s Park College, Oxford in May 2022 as part of an Oxford Centre for Religion and Culture and Dialogue Society Seminar Series on Dialogue. Humanist worldviews are characterised by a trust in science as the best method to learn about the world, hence a rejection of super-naturalism. They see humans as social animals capable of developing morality thought empathy and reason, giving their own meaning and purpose to life, seeking happiness, and helping others do the same. They see secularism – understood as state neutrality; freedom of religion or belief constrained only by the rights and freedoms of others; and absence of privilege or disadvantage on that basis – as a key element of a good plural society, based on fairness, freedom, and peace. Humanists UK encourages dialogue between humanists and people of faith in order to contribute to building such a good plural society, while ensuring that Humanism is well understood, and enriching the personal development of those involved. The British religion or belief landscape has changed beyond recognition since the mid 1980s. There is a growing non-religious majority – around half with a broadly humanist worldview according to the British Social Attitudes Survey – and a religious minority, which, while remaining predominantly Christian – albeit not predominantly Anglican – features an unprecedented diversity of religion or belief identities. The potential for incomprehension, segregation, and potential hostility is significant, creating an ongoing need for dialogue. A number of objections and challenges to effective dialogue are reviewed, such as the self-selecting nature of those who choose to engage. While these are real limitations, dialogue – however limited – takes us in the direction of a peaceful, plural, and well-integrated society. Failing to include the non-religious in it – over half the population – makes little sense, and risks further widening a ‘religious versus non-religious’ fault line.

Read this articleCite

Dialogue has been a prominent device for the basis and structure of transmission of Indian and European (metaphysical) philosophical insights and thought. The impetus given by different models of dialogue (Peters & Besley 2021) in the Western tradition makes us ask – does the impact of a dialogue model on the evolution of society vary with its structure? To elucidate on this, the article identifies five infra-structural (essential) aspects that afford dialogue; it then examines three fundamental structural elements of dialogue (the nature of content, the medium of transmission and the accommodative capacity of the language used) and the choices in those three dimensions made therein to design a dialogue. Subsequently, the impact of different design choices actually made by the leading proponents of Indian and European philosophy are examined to understand their impact on the evolution of philosophy and philosophical traditions in these cultures. The impact on society of such evolution is left to the imagination of the intelligent reader.

Read this articleCite

In the ‘one world’ of today the various religious traditions are consciously interacting with each other in mutual observations and dialogue. Religious pluralism reflects the situation of the simultaneous existence in a single social arena of several different worldviews that are often considered incompatible with one another. It has always been a fact of life, but its awareness has become more evident in recent times than before because of the process of globalisation. As part of this process the world is now witnessing the breaking of cultural, racial, linguistic, and geographical boundaries. In the early decades of sixteenth century, Guru Nanak (1469-1539), the founder of the Sikh tradition, encountered the leaders of different religious persuasions and tested the veracity of his own ideas through dialogue with them. He proclaimed: ‘As long as we are in this world, O Nanak, we should listen, and talk to others’ (GGS, 661). For instance, his dialogues with Nath adepts are recorded in his celebrated Siddh Goṣṭ in the Sikh scripture (GGS, 938-946). His travels exposed him to diverse cultures and societies that helped him evolve his unique lifeworld. A distinctive feature of the Ādi Granth (Original Scripture) is that it contains the compositions of fifteen non-Sikh poet-saints (<ṇī>Bhagat Bāṇī) from both Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, along with the compositions of the Sikh Gurus. The Sikh scripture upholds genuine respect for the plurality of identities, ideologies, and practices. Exploring a four-point theory of religious pluralism and the issues of inter-religious dialogues, the essay will focus on the lived realities and broadly contemporary realities of adherents of Sikhism.

Read this articleCite

This paper considers Paul Knitter’s (2013) Christian proposition that inter-religious dialogue can contribute to social action; moreover, that social action can contribute to inter-religious dialogue. In consideration of Knitter’s approach and its resonance with Buddhist social activism a comparative weaving of Buddhist social action produces a socially engaged dialogue wherein the commonality of what is ‘all around religions’ – a suffering humanity – is a starting point for action-oriented inter-religious dialogue. Action, therefore, holds a practical priority for dialoguers over theological or spiritual dialogue, not to discount either – but finds a need for cooperation and foci based on the sign of the times, as a global imperative to act. Such an approach requires that Christian dialogue with Buddhists specifically, and other religionists potentially, allows unique conclusions to be drawn. That is, both in Knitter’s proposition and Buddhist social activism the requirement to engage the suffering and oppressed around the table of dialogue is a significant contribution to the field of inter-religious and comparative religious study. The proximate concerns with all forms of global suffering allows for a better understanding of each other in the specific Buddhist-Christian context. The development of a social action model within which Buddhist social engagement provides a readily available audience with which Christian social activists may partner, also contributes to the theoretical understanding of postmodern and particularist criticisms of inter-religious dialogue. Buddhist dialogue actors form a snapshot of twentieth-century evidence reinforcing the claims in the paper.

Read this articleCite

Pagans have been involved in interreligious dialogue with other faiths and beliefs for nearly four decades but have had considerable difficulty in being recognised formally as participants beyond the local level.  This paper, in three main sections, examines the experience of gaining this recognition and speculates (with evidence) as to the reasons for its difficulty.  First it proposes a working definition of modern Paganism and consider what the latter’s unique outlook brings to the process of interfaith dialogue.  The next section traces the process of Pagan involvement at local, regional and national levels, mostly in the UK; and finally, it discusses the patterns of engagement, the tacit assumptions and the practical solutions that have emerged during this process.

Read this articleCite

Rather than attempting to survey all the topics covered in Paul Weller’s book, this article draws out a number of issues which seem of particular interest. These include the role of the five purposes of Islamic law (maqasid al-shar’ia) in providing a framework for developing new Islamic reflection, and the question of what constitutes authentic Islam. It goes on to look at Gülen’s comments on conversion and interreligious relations; Weller’s concept of ‘theological insecurity’; and the role of Sufism and love in Gülen’s thought. It concludes with some comment on the theme of self-criticism within the Gülen Movement.

Read this articleCite

Read this articleCite

Read this articleCite