How to establish a productive interfaith dialogue

[Servant19]

Yes, we should all be involved in our communities. We join with several other Christian faith traditions in providing for and serving the poor in our area. It is a wonderful thing to see and everyone is greatly blessed. The witness of one’s life speaks louder than any preaching.

God bless you brother

.

 

[SteveVH]

God bless you brother

.

You too, Servant.

 

[johnnyc176]

Yes, we should all be involved in our communities. We join with several other Christian faith traditions in providing for and serving the poor in our area, visiting the sick and those in prison. It is a wonderful thing to see and everyone is greatly blessed. The witness of one’s life speaks louder than any preaching.

I can’t agree with you on this Steve. I think the both/and applies here. Just living one’s faith may not give an indication of the One True Faith. An athiest can do all that you mentioned. Jesus commissioned the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel and it’s mission the salvation of souls. Most of the apostles died speaking the words of Truth. I know you know this I am just pointing out that we hear all too often those words from Catholics that it’s best that we just live our Faith.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recent talk about not forgetting the mission…

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3466/pope_emeritus_benedict_xvi_dialogue_cannot_substitute_for_mission.aspx

“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. "‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’

“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. "The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.

 

[commenter]

The rest of religion should be ignored when it comes to attempting “productive interfaith dialogue”, in my humble opinion
(not ignored by you in your personal life, but just ignored in this dialogue setting)

.

One could argue that most of the problems that happen at pot luck suppers have to do with the food we bring. Thus, if we all showed up without food, we would have no food problems at our pot luck supper. Ignoring our doctrines (temporarily, for the sake of this dialogue setting) is like that.

1. Some religious people believe that doctrines - everybody’s doctrines - are person-specific. Chocolate is MY best desert, but it isn’t THE best desert, for humanity. Jean is MY best wife, but your own spouse is just as good - for you. The doctrine of the Trinity may help many understand God. Some totally different analogy might work better for someone else. Dogmas are useful only as analogies, or as “bridges” to spirituality, and thus, God. Evangelism means me helping you feel fulfilled in your own bridge to God and others, not to spread mine. Spirituality is good in itself.
2. Others believe there are good and evil spirits, good and evil spirituality; some doctrines reflect absolute realities of true/false, good/evil. That doesn’t mean we have perfect information about truths but we know some doctrines have much more truth than others. Some decisions are personal - who if anyone should I marry? - other standards are universal - Marriage is between one man and one woman, indissoluble.

Jesus was very much in # 2. Dogma, spiritual warfare, evangelism (“Go forth, baptize all nations!”) were all there at the start, not added by the Church. In your posts, you are asking people to essentially assume position #1, rejecting position #2, without your proving that #1 is truer. That’s like a Christian in dialogue with a Jew, and asking them to concede (just for the weekend) the Gospel of Mathew is true. Asking me to go for a weekend dialogue under the Baha’i standard - something similar to #1 - would be conceding your view before the dialogue even starts.

Take a look at G K Chesterton’s books “Orthodoxy” or “The Everlasting Man”. Most Christians haven’t read them but “Orthodoxy” especially sums up, explicitly, the paradigm that traditional Christians and many others are, implicitly, responding to. Even for purposes of refuting it, it’s worth a read.

 

[Servant19]

One could argue that most of the problems that happen at pot luck suppers have to do with the food we bring. Thus, if we all showed up without food, we would have no food problems at our pot luck supper. Ignoring our doctrines (temporarily, for the sake of this dialogue setting) is like that.

1. Some religious people believe that doctrines - everybody’s doctrines - are person-specific. Chocolate is MY best desert, but it isn’t THE best desert, for humanity. Jean is MY best wife, but your own spouse is just as good - for you. The doctrine of the Trinity may help many understand God. Some totally different analogy might work better for someone else. Dogmas are useful only as analogies, or as “bridges” to spirituality, and thus, God. Evangelism means me helping you feel fulfilled in your own bridge to God and others, not to spread mine. Spirituality is good in itself.
2. Others believe there are good and evil spirits, good and evil spirituality; some doctrines reflect absolute realities of true/false, good/evil. That doesn’t mean we have perfect information about truths but we know some doctrines have much more truth than others. Some decisions are personal - who if anyone should I marry? - other standards are universal - Marriage is between one man and one woman, indissoluble.

Jesus was very much in # 2. Dogma, spiritual warfare, evangelism (“Go forth, baptize all nations!”) were all there at the start, not added by the Church. In your posts, you are asking people to essentially assume position #1, rejecting position #2, without your proving that #1 is truer. That’s like a Christian in dialogue with a Jew, and asking them to concede (just for the weekend) the Gospel of Mathew is true. Asking me to go for a weekend dialogue under the Baha’i standard - something similar to #1 - would be conceding your view before the dialogue even starts.

Take a look at G K Chesterton’s books “Orthodoxy” or “The Everlasting Man”. Most Christians haven’t read them but “Orthodoxy” especially sums up, explicitly, the paradigm that traditional Christians and many others are, implicitly, responding to. Even for purposes of refuting it, it’s worth a read.

You make valid points here commenter, however whenever dialogue is commenced in order to advance a “relationship” moderation and a yearning to find commonality must be sought.

When dialoguing one must strive to find elements of #2 which can help develop a foundation.

What dogmas of Christ would you consider are the equivalent of “who if anyone should I marry?”

Which dogmas are a MUST in terms of dialogue with other Faiths and religions?

.

 

[Servant19]

I can’t agree with you on this Steve. I think the both/and applies here. Just living one’s faith may not give an indication of the One True Faith. An athiest can do all that you mentioned. Jesus commissioned the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel and it’s mission the salvation of souls. Most of the apostles died speaking the words of Truth. I know you know this I am just pointing out that we hear all too often those words from Catholics that it’s best that we just live our Faith.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recent talk about not forgetting the mission…

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3466/pope_emeritus_benedict_xvi_dialogue_cannot_substitute_for_mission.aspx

I wholeheartedly disagree with what is being stated here. That “religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace”, is a “renunciation of truth” and a “lethal to faith” simply baffles my mind…

I hope and pray that what I read is a misunderstanding on my part…

.

 

[SteveVH]

I can’t agree with you on this Steve. I think the both/and applies here. Just living one’s faith may not give an indication of the One True Faith. An athiest can do all that you mentioned. Jesus commissioned the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel and it’s mission the salvation of souls. Most of the apostles died speaking the words of Truth. I know you know this I am just pointing out that we hear all too often those words from Catholics that it’s best that we just live our Faith.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recent talk about not forgetting the mission…

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3466/pope_emeritus_benedict_xvi_dialogue_cannot_substitute_for_mission.aspx

What we are talking about is working together in acts of charity. We do this with all manner of faith traditions. I have listed only some of the interfaith dialogues currently taking place with other world religions and the Catholic Church.

If the dialogue centers on the nature of our worship and theology then, as Servant very well knows, we will defend the Apostolic faith until the end, no questions asked. But that is not the focus of this discussion.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[johnnyc176]

What we are talking about is working together in acts of charity. We do this with all manner of faith traditions. I have listed only some of the interfaith dialogues currently taking place with other world religions and the Catholic Church.

If the dialogue centers on the nature of our worship and theology then, as Servant very well knows, we will defend the Apostolic faith until the end, no questions asked. But that is not the focus of this discussion.

Blessings.

Steve

I was replying just to your comment. Admittedly I didn’t read the whole thread. I saw a comment about changing the Church’s doctrine. Anyway…the apostles were not defending the faith. They were proclaiming the Truth. I just think we lose sight of that sometimes, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI alludes to, in the interest of getting along. I’m not arguing against interfaith dialogue as long as it is in perspective. Who can argue against the recent interfaith conference about marriage and family.

 

[SteveVH]

I was replying just to your comment. Admittedly I didn’t read the whole thread. I saw a comment about changing the Church’s doctrine. Anyway…the apostles were not defending the faith. They were proclaiming the Truth. I just think we lose sight of that sometimes, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI alludes to, in the interest of getting along. I’m not arguing against interfaith dialogue as long as it is in perspective. Who can argue against the recent interfaith conference about marriage and family.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Nick44]

We will be judged upon what we have done with what we have been given.

Bravo, Steve. On that point we are in complete agreement.

“The whole duty of man in this Day is to attain that share of the flood of grace which God poureth forth for him. Let none, therefore, consider the largeness or smallness of the receptacle. The portion of some might lie in the palm of a man’s hand, the portion of others might fill a cup, and of others even a gallon-measure.” --Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, p 8

We are also admonished to not assume anything as regards our ultimate destiny:

“…for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner attained, at the hour of death, to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the Concourse on high! And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire!” --Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, p 266

 

[SteveVH]

Bravo, Steve. On that point we are in complete agreement.

“The whole duty of man in this Day is to attain that share of the flood of grace which God poureth forth for him. Let none, therefore, consider the largeness or smallness of the receptacle. The portion of some might lie in the palm of a man’s hand, the portion of others might fill a cup, and of others even a gallon-measure.” --Baha’u’llah, Gleanings, p 8

Yes, here is something very similar from St. Therese

*"To this dearly loved sister I confided my most intimate thoughts;
she cleared up all my doubts. One day I expressed surprise that
God does not give an equal amount of glory to all the elect in
Heaven–I was afraid that they would not all be quite happy.

She sent me to fetch Papa’s big tumbler, and put it beside my tiny
thimble, then, filling both with water, she asked me which seemed
the fuller. I replied that one was as full as the other–it was
impossible to pour more water into either of them, for they could
not hold it. In this way Pauline made it clear to me that in
Heaven the least of the Blessed does not envy the happiness of the
greatest; and so, by bringing the highest mysteries down to the
level of my understanding, she gave my soul the food it needed."*

• Attributed to St. Therese

We are also admonished to not assume anything as regards our ultimate destiny:

We call it the sin of presumption.

Peace.

Steve