The following is an argument for a means of compassionate communication among religions, applying a holistic or unifying regard for the similarities and differences that are essential characteristics for faith life in the global age. Diversity is an opportunity, a celebration. Diversity is not a threat to the world's religions. Rather, it is a reflection of the diverse union of the Godhead. Avoidance of the central fact that there are diverse faith traditions, which have value in the theological sense, is a primary cause for conflict at every level of human interaction.

In the field of interreligious dialogue, primary theories and principles guide the issue. Doctrine is inevitable and necessary for a religion. Creeds and dogma to which they point give definition to religion, simultaneously limiting and isolating adherents from those of other religions. Doctrine belongs to a religion's diversity aspect (which is not solely defined by doctrine. Diversity includes other characteristics such as culture, history, etc.). Unity is a non-temporal, non-spatial (eternal, infinite) aspect that is transcendent and immanent to the diverse elements of faith that distinguish one religion from another.

Basic assumptions guide debate about dialogue among the world's religions. These assumptions include a conviction that interreligious dialogue has a vital role in the quest for world peace. For another, doctrinal differences among religions can be reconciled or accommodated without compromising doctrine's essential utility to religions. Dogmatism leads to intolerance. More than one faith model can have ultimate value.

Theoretical frameworks that guide this position: Cultural, historical and personal conditions are necessary considerations, which are informed and structured by an individual's or a religion's faith experience and vice verse. The One Reality, whether known as God, Trinity, Allah, Brahman, Nibbana, Yahweh, etc., reveals itself or is revealed within the context of such considerations. However, that Reality is not limited to the conditioned ways in which the faithful refer to it.

Unreasonable attachment to the letter (dogma) rather than the spirit (faith) of doctrine results in exclusivism, self-proclaimed superiority and isolation. These results are antithetical to a religion's proclaimed objectives to realize alignment with the One and perpetuate dangerous illusion.

Caution: A sanitized one world religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or some amorphous "other” religion, contradicts the overwhelming and diverse evidence to the contrary that the world and its peoples are created in and best served by an atmosphere of diversity.

Relevant research investigates the social implications of interreligious dialogue, the possibilities and effectiveness of moving beyond doctrine, and theological support for the Trinity as a unity-in-diversity paradigm for the world's great spiritual traditions, especially institutional religions. Additional research investigates Christian and extra-Christian mystical traditions and the relevance of right and left-brain hemisphere functions.

Theological issues are primary factors that guide debate and investigation into the possibilities for interreligious dialogue. If a religion defines itself as the exclusive conduit to God, salvation, enlightenment or whatever, then that definition is theologically founded. The concern in certain religions is that a given tradition will lose its central defining cause for existence. For example, Christianity is grounded in Christ's Gospel imperative to spread the Good News. Is it possible for Christianity to broaden its doctrinal perspective to include a unity-in-diversity model in its consideration of non-Christian religions without sacrificing central articles of Christian faith? Some Christian theologians argue that the most central Christian dogma, the Trinity, is paradigm for unity-in-diversity model of religions. Conversely, Trinitarian theology and Christology often are raised as central theological areas that prevent inclusion of the world's religions as receptacles of similar value and truth. An urgent question: Can Christianity accept as either similarly valid a religion that neither requires nor demands that its adherents embrace salvation, let alone salvation solely through Christ's redemptive event? How is the Trinity present to the world and its religions? Must the religions accept the Trinity, as does Christianity, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit or do non-Christian models

for salvation, enlightenment or liberation have ultimate equal value to the Christian model?

At the heart of this debate or controversy, depending on where one stands, are problems that misguide efforts to penetrate depth of the issue. Any doctrine necessarily casts distinctions. In the collective religious comprehension of some people of faith, their way is "true” and "only.” An "us vs. them” mentality permeates the core of institutional religion. This creates resistance that is difficult, if not impossible to relieve at the discursive level. Additionally, how do faithful adherents of a religion learn to discern the value of church as institution (rational, discursive) and as faith in the Divine as immanent and transcendent (intuitive, experiential)?

Perhaps the most difficult problem is that an attempt to convey a new vision of life is limited by language and other restrictive factors, some conscious, some unconscious. Answers to this predicament wait on human exploration in the non-rational realms of Reality, mystical exploration. In truth, all verbal attempts to comprehend one another are servants, not masters of non-verbal experience.

The most apparent issue for interreligious dialogue is that certain religions are convinced that their ways are the one true way to God and that other religions are incomplete in comparison. Any attempts at analysis or reasonable defense fail, for, invariably, there is an equal and opposite defense.

The most effective theological inquiry focuses on a unity-in-diversity model, which maintains that all life is an interrelated web. Each and every element has the potential to provide strength and substance to the whole web. This is an appropriate and effective approach to interreligious dialogue. The image opens the mind to possibilities that break down barriers to dialogue and to peace. Mystical investigation and experience allows rational and intuitive brain functions to find balance. The process is summarized by S. Radhakrishnan:

"In every man there is a ray of the eternal light emanating from the Central Sun. When we love man, we are conscious of our unity with him in the central spirit and we give effect to this consciousness in our lives." (1)

Religions ought to recognize that their creedal and doctrinal forms represent constructs that are primarily harvested from rational consciousness. These forms constitute the primary materials that theologians use in their arguments for and against the ways and means of interreligious dialogue. Additionally, theological inquiry of rational constructs is itself a rational, albeit necessary, endeavor. Therefore, intuitive methods and comprehension are largely subjugated by rational domination. Some approaches that help achieve balance between human rational and intuitive knowing include immersion in sacred texts of other religions and concerted efforts to practice one's own religion's contemplative path. Sacred texts provide mythological and poetic languages that reside in intuitive domains. Contemplative practice is direct experience beyond the discursive mind. Balance between the brain's rational and intuitive functions is a crucial factor for the interreligious dialogue process.

Theological inquiry and creative investigation into one's own and the "other” create opportunities to realize what already is true: The world's religions are integral elements of an existent unity-in-diversity reality. However, before individuals and religions can awaken to what is, they must strive to access the vast region of faith that resides within the mind—that mysterious, yet central common denominator of all people. As the late Dom Bede Griffiths writes,

"In each religion the divine Reality is manifested under different signs and symbols and we need to be able to discern this hidden Truth in each religious tradition. Each has something to contribute to human understanding and to human fulfillment." (2)

1. Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Religions (New Delhi, India: Orient Paperbacks, 1979) 61-62. 2. Griffiths, Bede, The Marriage of East and West (Springfield, Illinois: Templegate Publishers, 1982) 33-34.

Tell Your Friend