Interfaith Dialogue

[Paul DeBaufer]

I came across this short interview with Peter Rollins. In it he discusses what happens in interfaith dialogue. He has three modes: 1) I believe I am right and you are wrong and I want to make you into me (think some NazNet "dialogues"); 2) I believe I am right and you are wrong and I break fellowship with you (our concerned friends); 3) I believe we are both right, lets look to these places of agreement. Rollins rejects all three.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQGUGtdtfQo&feature=player_embedded

Does what he says make sense? Is it an option worth considering?

[Dale Cozby]

I think there is a time and place for all three of the options he gave, but how about a few other options or wordings for 3?

4) I believe I am right and you are right enough and will get there without my wanting to turn you into me.
or
4) I believe I am more right and you are less right, but where we both are is non-essential so it doesn't matter.

I think back back to a joke about things being all black and white, and a guy decides everything will be green.But then he divides it into dark greens and light greens.

[Ryan Scott]

I think there is a time and place for all three of the options he gave, but how about a few other options or wordings for 3?

4) I believe I am right and you are right enough and will get there without my wanting to turn you into me.
or
4) I believe I am more right and you are less right, but where we both are is non-essential so it doesn't matter.

I think back back to a joke about things being all black and white, and a guy decides everything will be green.But then he divides it into dark greens and light greens.

Well now you're thinking like a pastor and not a philosopher. Shame on you.

[Shea Zellweger]

I came across this short interview with Peter Rollins. In it he discusses what happens in interfaith dialogue. He has three modes: 1) I believe I am right and you are wrong and I want to make you into me (think some NazNet "dialogues"); 2) I believe I am right and you are wrong and I break fellowship with you (our concerned friends); 3) I believe we are both right, lets look to these places of agreement. Rollins rejects all three.

Does what he says make sense? Is it an option worth considering?

I have a lot of feelings about this issue- my school is regularly recognized for its advancements in interfaith dialogue, and the directors of our CIRCLE (http://www.ants.edu/circle) have previously been invited to the White House to meet/consult on matters of interfaith. As an aside, I can't tell whether Rollins means interfaith as in amongst religious or denominations, so my statements may not really address what he's talking about... Jenny Peace (CIRCLE co-director) has suggested to me (and I assume to others) that there are three major mindsets among people who enter interfaith/interreligious dialogue, but her three are a bit different from Rollins'. She says there are some who enter interfaith discussions with the intent to evangelize/convert, some with the intent to find points of commonality, and some with the intent to identify differences and discuss them for the sake of mutual edification. Although Rollins rejects all three of his options, it appears to me that the most common option in intentional interfaith dialogue is actually Jenny's third. Rollins' suggestion is that we seek to see ourselves through the eyes of the other, and that's pretty similar to what our interfaith dialogue groups seek to accomplish at ANTS and HC. However, a lot of people who speak on interfaith actually caution against the idea that Rollins might be hinting at toward the end- in order for interfaith discussion to really take place, all of the participants in the conversation need to be able to be unapologetic about who they are and what they believe, while also showing respect for others. It is often the kneejerk reaction among Christians to apologize for their Christianity and/or for their Christ, because they realize that other groups have been or have felt oppressed by a culture which is still dominated by Christian influences (even if that domination is not as strong as some would like it to be). If Christians are apologetic or ashamed of their Christianity, they actually do their interfaith discussion partners a disservice, as those discussion partners are not given the opportunity to truly learn what it means to be a Christian. We as Christians would not find any benefit from having a conversation with a Jew who is constantly deferring to the Christian position out of fear of offending us- if we wanted to hear the Christian position, we wouldn't be asking a Jew. Likewise, if we constantly defer to the Jewish position, we are denying the Jew the chance to gain the knowledge they are seeking.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think there is a time and place for all three of the options he gave, but how about a few other options or wordings for 3?

4) I believe I am right and you are right enough and will get there without my wanting to turn you into me.
or
4) I believe I am more right and you are less right, but where we both are is non-essential so it doesn't matter.

I think back back to a joke about things being all black and white, and a guy decides everything will be green.But then he divides it into dark greens and light greens.

Looks like you're illustrating Rollins' overall point- that the way we talk about interfaith almost always makes "me/I/we/us" right.

[Billy Cox]

I think there is a time and place for all three of the options he gave, but how about a few other options or wordings for 3?

4) I believe I am right and you are right enough and will get there without my wanting to turn you into me.
or
4) I believe I am more right and you are less right, but where we both are is non-essential so it doesn't matter.

I think back back to a joke about things being all black and white, and a guy decides everything will be green.But then he divides it into dark greens and light greens.

Well, then somebody didn't listen to the clip, eh?

[Hans Deventer]

It aligns pretty much with what he says about doubt. He seems to believe that exactly in that process, you find God.

[David Graham]

Interfaith dialogue then takes time, and in understanding the other person's perceptions of "You" (and your faith) we need to live closely enough with them so that we understand how they perceive others and themselves.

Thus the dialogue goes beyond mere words and dogma, to the very heart of the "culture" of the other, and that can be a "bridge" that is hard enough for us to "honestly" find let alone cross. This is difficult enough even among Christians where the differences are in comparison not that great.

[Hans Deventer]

Thus the dialogue goes beyond mere words and dogma, to the very heart of the "culture" of the other, and that can be a "bridge" that is hard enough for us to "honestly" find let alone cross. This is difficult enough even among Christians where the differences are in comparison not that great.

I sometimes think it is easier regarding people of other faiths, than among Christians. We accept different views from a non-Christian, which seems harder to do from a fellow Christian.

[John Reilly]

Interfaith Dialogue is challenging and perhaps no more challenging than the Inter-Christian Dialogue. Rules of civility and love ought to dominant our conversations. I find my local interfaith clergy group to be very interesting people and most often our conversation is civil. I enjoy talking with the local Rabbi and listening to the folks as we gather for our Interfaith Clergy group. We do not have any Muslim people in our group. I suspect the interfaith challenge would be stressed with an added Muslim dynamic.

[John Kennedy]

Interfaith Dialogue is challenging and perhaps no more challenging than the Inter-Christian Dialogue. Rules of civility and love ought to dominant our conversations. I find my local interfaith clergy group to be very interesting people and most often our conversation is civil. I enjoy talking with the local Rabbi and listening to the folks as we gather for our Interfaith Clergy group. We do not have any Muslim people in our group. I suspect the interfaith challenge would be stressed with an added Muslim dynamic.

You mean they would actually allow pre-millenial, post-trib people in the group? Hmmmm.