Can we talk?

As a member of a minority group in Utah, I have thought even more about issues relating to the conversations between religious groups with different theological understandings than I did when I was part of the majority. Thus, it was with interest that I noticed two posts on BeliefNet.

One is from a member of the LDS church who quotes, with approval, Krister Stendahl on his blog, Mormon Inquiry. Take note of his comments:

Krister Stendahl died earlier this year (hat tip: Lehi's Library). He was a Swedish scholar and theologian, and also served for a period as the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. In LDS circles, he is fondly remembered as the author of three rules of religious understanding, which he propounded during public debate critical of a planned LDS temple in Sweden. They are good rules to follow in any religious or interfaith conversation. Here are Stendahl's three rules.

** When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
** Don't compare your best to their worst.
** Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The other is a column by a Jewish rabbi, entitled Windows and Doors, who critiques the Pope for the pronouncement that interfaith religious dialogue cannot really take place. Read a portion of his comments:

Perhaps Benedict has created a "strict definition" which precludes such conversation because his understanding of dialogue requires a level of spiritual connection/agreement between the conversants, which may not be possible for people who follow different faiths. That might be what he means when telling us that one must "put one's faith in parenthesis" in order to speak with those of other faiths. But that is an odd kind of faith which can only be present among those who share the faith.

The alternative understanding of the Pope's most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other's faith is impossible for him? That's a pretty scary thought from the leader of a billion human beings backed by real financial and political power.

It seems to me that real inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue, as shaped by Stendahl's points, should and must take place. Much of the divisiveness that is found in society occurs between people with different views of the world. In order to overcome that division, I must be in conversation with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews, the LDS, and the fundamentalist Christians, to name just a few, so I can understand them better and they can better understand me. I will not agree with them on every point, nor will they agree with me. I do not have to become just like them, nor do they have to become just like me. Yet, by being in conversation, we acknowledge and honor the humanness of each and can learn something from each other.

Do you interact with people from other religious persepctives? About what do you talk? Do you share with them why you believe as you do and listen as they share with you why they believe as they do? If not, why not?