Problems and Prospects of Inter-religious Dialogue

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2000

Anastasios (Yannoulatos)

An Eastern Orthodox Perspective

A distinguished church leader, Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, offered us a rare example of a mature attitude towards a responsible inter-religious dialogue. He had studied deeply other religions, especially those of India, but also lived among people of other faiths in a sincere effort of understanding and loving relation with them. Endowed with exceptional intellectual talents, a strong critical mind, solid knowledge, and quick and deep perceptiveness, he was able to penetrate to the very core of the issues, and to understand the vital point of others' arguments. And through his deep Christian commitment and sincere love, he was always ready to share his point of view and his personal religious experience with people of other faiths; all the while showing respect to others and maintaining a friendly atmosphere, even when it was not possible to reach a common agreement. Bishop Newbigin sought to promote a sincere religious dialogue without over-simplification or compromise, and he often prompted Orthodox theologians to participate in it. We remember him with gratitude.

The world needs sincere dialogue at all levels. Absence of dialogue leads to suspicion and ultimately to conflict and contempt. In order to make inter-religious dialogue possible, we are not obliged to become religiously neutral, or to water down our own faith; rather, we need to be deeply religious, sincere and patient in our encounter, respecting the identity and freedom of others. In the process of trying better to understand the other, we understand ourselves in a deeper way.

Conditions for inter-religious dialogue

During the past few decades, inter-religious dialogue has passed through various phases and has brought people of different persuasions and cultures closer together.(1) Certain scholars have seen in this dialogue great hope for understanding anew the religious experience, even seeing a way to reach new religious consensus that could enable an agreement for globally accepted ethics.

Nevertheless, in recent years this new enthusiasm has given way to serious reservations and disappointments. Many faithful in various religions have felt that a new danger lies hidden in this dialogue, the danger of syncretism and compromise within their own belief. A growing reservation has arisen in many religious communities concerning this whole process of dialogue. It is necessary, therefore, to find a path between the extremes, to clarify again and again the character, scope and hope of this dialogue.

1. Inter-religious dialogue most certainly cannot change the personal persuasion and confidence of the believer of a particular religion, nor replace the deep human longing for the Absolute. It can, of course, help overcome misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the religious views of others, and facilitate a better understanding of the serious points of other cultures' and peoples' religious experience.

2. The true inter-religious dialogue is not an encounter between religious systems in abstract ways, but rather a meeting between human persons who share a common human nature. According to many religions, all human beings -- irrespective of their race, sex, colour, language and education -- are endowed with the dignity of their divine origin through their relation, whether they are conscious of it or not, with the Sacred.

What makes it easy for us to converse and communicate with followers of other religions is the acceptance of them as brothers and sisters with deep respect for their freedom, especially their freedom of conscience. We accept them as they are, with sincere love, sharing with them the religious experiences that we have found to be most important in our search for the meaning of life and death, and in our longing for the Absolute.

3. In our time, the effort of deciphering the sacred symbols of other religions, as well as the sympathetic study of their essential message, is crucial. Religions as systems surely contain positive as well as negative elements. In approaching and considering concrete religious systems today, we should avoid both easy enthusiasm or contemptuous criticism. Vague knowledge about various religions has created a negative illusion in the past. Through fragmented knowledge today, we risk coming to a "positive illusion" that all religions are the same, generalizing our views of one religion to apply to the others as well.

4. The fact that religions are organic entities and not a compilation of various elements should not be forgotten. The danger of certain inter-religious dialogues is to equate elements that appear and function in different frames and relations. Religions are living organisms, and their parts exist in relation to one another; we cannot cut off particular points of their teaching, and identify them with similar manifestations of other religions in order to produce beautiful and easily-constructed "courtesies" and theories.

5. Inter-religious dialogue can contribute to transplanting new seeds from one culture to another, and to bringing to maturity existing, but dormant, seeds in various religions. Religions are organic wholes, but as experienced by living human beings, they are "living wholes" always developing and evolving. They have their own internal dynamism. They receive influences and absorb new ideas which enter into their environments. They adapt themselves to new challenges.