|
|
|
|
Rebecca Alpert Jim Biechler Marcus Braybrooke Ellen T. Charry Leobard D'Souza David Efroymson Gabriele Feyler Stefan Feyler Eugene Fisher Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer Krystina Gorniak-Kocikowska Yitz Greenberg Wan-Li Ho Sanaullah Kirmani Reinhard Kirste Hans Küng Lihua Liu Jack Malinowski Patricia Martinez Sergio Mazza Alan Mittleman Ronald Modras Paul Mojzes Malcolm Nazareth Angelika Quade Ida Raming Virginia Kaib Ratigan John Sahadat Simone Schaupp Ingrid Shafer Shu-hsien Liu Thomas Thompson Catherine Berry Stidsen
|
Sanaullah Kirmani Ph.D. An Experiment in Interfaith Dialogue: One of the extraordinary things about Leonard Swidler is his spirit of experimentation. Boldness and innovation in both dialogue format and venue are well known to those who have attended any of the "Trialogues" arranged by Leonard Swidler. For example, Swidler guided the trialogue in Macedonia to take a very bold step by establishing dialogue between Christians and Muslims through interactive sessions and by encouraging the setting up of a joint Christian-Muslim working committee as well as initiating visitation between Christian and Muslim Faculties of Theology. Given the heated and, at times, acrimonious exchanges between the principals, the effort could have "backfired" at any time during the proceedings, yet Swidler took a big risk to his scholarly reputation in stepping into the uncharted waters to guide this experiment, in terms of a trialogue, to a successful conclusion. A continuing link was established between the two communities. Preceding the various successful trialogues that have taken place over the last twenty or so years, was what one might call an "experimental" trialogue mainly designed and conducted by Leonard Swidler. This was the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Trialogue at the Kennedy School of Ethics, Georgetown University, where it ran from 1978 to 1985 . To the best of my knowledge this had not been done before on such a formal scale. This was really a step in the unknown that Leonard took. There was very little, if any, experience to fall back on. Leonard admits to the great trepidation with which he approached this undertaking and, I believe, those of us who participated in this trialogue were aware of this. It was really Leonard's unmitigated faith in the dialogue process, a faith that many participants began to share, that moved us to try to open up to each other. The outcome of such a trialogue was quiet unpredictable, but the fact that it ran for eight long years, with effects as mentioned below, is argument enough for its success. The Kennedy School of Ethics Trialogue membership consisted of a small number (initially two or three and later four or five) of participants from each of Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions. The membership was kept constant with just one or two exceptions when other scholars were unanimously invited to join the group but only after a very careful consideration of their potential to participate in an intensive sharing of their respective religious traditions . Each meeting of the trialogue was held over a three-day period twice each year, and these meetings were conducted under certain agreed upon "Dialogue Principles" The meetings were held in a medium sized conference room whose interior was arranged carefully to provide comfort and closeness, and this set up was not changed throughout the life of the trialogue (1978-1985). This constancy in the physical environment promoted both a familiarity with immediate physical surroundings and a feeling of continuity. It is also important to note that the meetings were closed and no observers were ever present. On a rare occasion, an external expert on a particular aspect of a religious tradition would be invited to participate for that one meeting. Except for the inaugural dinner, all the meals, with rare exception, were private to the group. Given the physical arrangements discussed above and the frequency of meetings, the trialogue members became closely acquainted with each other. Over time, a deep trust developed between the participants such that they could candidly dialogue on divisive religious topics. It was intellectually challenging as well as supportive and also fascinating to discover, as the trialogues progressed, that my theological concerns as a Muslim were more often than not mirrored in the concerns of my Jewish and Christian trialogue partners. Swidler began these meetings, and continued to conduct them with an appreciative, yet critical and open attitude toward his own religious tradition. This attitude set an atmosphere of academically critical, yet personally acceptive and supportive environment. This environment strengthened as the trialogue progressed and personal and academic relationships grew. In such an environment I, as a Muslim, felt free to voice my concerns and struggles with certain aspects of my own tradition as, I believe, others did with their respective traditions. Also, we did not feel offended or attacked when participants raised, what might normally be considered embarrassing and "fighting", questions about each other's traditions. The participants could openly, and without the fear of loosing acceptance and friendship, share the support, triumph and frustration present in their expressions of their respective faith commitments through their particular religious traditions. We also appreciated the depth of our experience and the feelings occasioned by our continuing encounters with our sister religious traditions . The trialogue partners from sister religious traditions helped deepen each other's faith, strengthen their respective commitment to their own individual traditions and helped each other to form a more inclusive religious worldview. For those who participated in it, this Trialogue furnished a validating experience of the efficacy of dialogue or trialogue as a method to break through communal mistrust and nurture religious pluralism. The lasting effect of this experience is evidenced by individual contributions to the field of dialogue made by many of its former members and the establishment and work of the International Scholars Annual Trialogue. The witty and funny side of Len's personality has often eased a difficult situation. I recall the first dinner we had during the Kennedy Institute meetings. We had an impeccable set up for the first dinner: white tablecloths, expensive china, fancy flatware, flowers on the table, and tasty appetizers. Each course was formally and pleasantly served. Len must have personally seen to such fine culinary arrangements. When the time came for the main course we were served Chicken Cordonblau (Editor's note: Eugene Fisher commented on the same incident and called the dish Chicken Kiev; . Len is always mindful of the dietary restrictions in Judaism and Islam, so imagine the consternation on his face when we cut into the chicken only to find it stuffed with ham! Len was unflappable. He rose to the occasion and turned to me and spoke to me in words to the effect (to paraphrase him), "I was only trying to get proof positive as to how serious you are about your dietary regulations.. Now I know." Some substitute was got for us in a hurry. I think that by initiating the Kennedy School of Ethics Trialogue Leonard Swidler established a paradigm for subsequent trialogues. I consider the Kennedy Institute of Ethics meetings to be one of my academically defining experiences. The blessings of my intellectual and personal friendship with Leonard Swidler continue to be inspiring, challenging and enriching. Sanaullah
Kirmani Ph.D.
|
Webpage Editor: Ingrid H. Shafer, Ph.D.
e-mail address: ihs@ionet.net
Text and graphics copyright © 2004 Ingrid H. Shafer