Mehmet Ozalp
President, Affinity Intercultural Foundation
Sustained Dialogue: Close Encounters
of the Muslim-Christian Kind
Introduction
The primary objective and challenge of interfaith dialogue initiatives is to
have a positive lasting change in people's understanding of the 'other'. There
is a need to formulate innovative community-based educational approaches to
ensure that participants in Muslim-Christian interfaith encounters leave thinking
differently, feeling differently and acting differently.
In order to trial a different approach, Affinity Intercultural Foundation and
St Charles Catholic Church in Ryde, Sydney, developed the idea of having house
discussion groups. The project comprised of six separate groups having monthly
meetings for six consecutive months. Each group was made up of four Muslims
and four Christians. A facilitator directed each meeting, which covered a set
topic from a Christian and Muslim perspective in each meeting. After a particular
faith's perspective was presented, a respondent from the other faith tradition
summarised the presentation in their own words and as they understood it. This
was followed by an informal discussion and questions and answer session.
The experience has generated profound understanding of the other in their frame
of reference. Surprisingly, it has also led participants to better understand
their own faith tradition. The key to success was the establishment of an atmosphere
of trust in an informal setting of a house, training each participant in listening
skills and having a willingness to understand. The right atmosphere, the right
skill set and right attitude produced a unique community-based educational approach
in Muslim-Christian relations.
House Meetings in Interfaith Dialogue
The usual method of interfaith initiatives is in the form of conferences or
one-off seminars. Typically, in the leadership of an organisation or in partnership
with a number of stakeholder organisations, a conference is organised around
a central theme focusing on one aspect of interfaith dialogue. A number of prominent
speakers are arranged to speak in front of an invited audience, who are usually
passive listeners. Conferences last one or two days where there is a peak of
positive energy, which tends to diminish not long after the conference. It is
also very seldom that concrete actionable commitments come out of such conferences.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against having such conferences. I strongly believe
that such conferences have played a major part in raising awareness of dialogue
and laid the foundations of today's positive religious environment. Moreover,
the organisation that I represent, Affinity Intercultural Foundation, has been
a key partner in two international interfaith conferences held in Melbourne
and Sydney over the last two years. We will certainly continue to hold major
conferences to stimulate further mass awareness and establish close relationship
at organisational, academic and religious representation level to continue the
'dialogue movement'. In actual fact, the concept of 'house meetings' was one
of the recommendations of Education Workshop of the last interfaith conference
held in 2003. Nevertheless, in general, such conferences do not generate the
lasting change at the personal level for the participants that we also need
to foster if we were to have permanent effect of education and change to take
place within people.
This is where the concept, what I call, 'sustained dialogue' comes in. The concept
rests on the facilitation of communication of one's own religious ideas and
listening to the representation of the other's religious ideas in the personal
space of all participants in a number of meetings stretched over time. This
concept was trialed in a project that we named the 'Encounters Project'.
The idea of implementing such a project was not the product of one person, rather
it arose from the collective mind of a team of Muslims and Christians and seemed
to be the natural end of a process where a group of Christians and Muslims engaged
in a series of dialogue initiatives. The first initiative started in late 2002
when St Charles Catholic Church social-justice members contacted Affinity to
arrange for a speaker to attend a special evening at their church to inform
the church congregation about Islam and Muslims as well as answer their immediate
questions. A successful evening of initial encounters led to a request to arrange
a mosque visit and meet members of the Muslim community. The mosque visit took
place on the 8th of February 2003. A group of about fifty church members visited
Auburn Gallipoli Mosque. The visit consisted of a tour of the mosque and meeting
other members of the local Muslim community and Affinity executives over an
afternoon tea. Affinity positively responded to the first steps from the Christian
community of Ryde when it organised a return visit to St. Charles Church. A
group of about twenty men and women visited the church. The visit consisted
of a tour of the church, a questions and answer session and afternoon tea.
The reciprocal goodwill gestures had established a relationship and a level
of trust on both sides. We were now ready to continue the relationship and take
the dialogue initiative to the next level. In the ensuing discussions over what
can be done, the idea of having house meetings involving Christians and Muslims
in their personal space was born. The new initiative was titled the "Encounters
Project" and attracted support and grant from the federal Government's
Living in Harmony program.
Governance and Format
An organising committee comprising of representatives from Affinity and St
Charles Church was established to manage the project to completion. Representatives
from the Strathfield Uniting Church later joined in this organising committee
as well. The organising committee was authorised to formulate and execute the
project to ensure that the following outcomes were met.
" People who would be willing to take part in the project are found.
" The format of the gatherings is formulated.
" The topics of discussion would be identified and agreed to the satisfaction
of both Muslims and Christians.
" The meetings are carried out with full participation.
" The project is video taped from start to end and then an edited documentary
tape is produced.
" The writings from both Muslim and Christian perspective addressing the
common topics are compiled into a book.
The committee met regularly starting from July 2003 on a fortnightly basis and
since January 2004 on a weekly basis to manage the project. The committee has
chosen six subject matters that they believed would cover the core of each religion.
Focusing on the core subject matters rather than peripheral areas was a courageous
move as it inevitably meant that certain differences in Muslim and Christian
theology would also be highlighted. The committee felt that for understanding
to take place at the kernel of religion, we had to face these differences and
give each other the opportunity to ask questions with the intention to understand
rather than to challenge. Each topic was to be covered at each month's gathering.
The six subject matters of discussion were as follows.
1- Monotheism
2- Prophethood
3- Scriptures and their History
4- Family and Marriage
5- Spiritual Experience and Development
6- Concept of Holy War
The evening gatherings were attended by four Muslims and four Christians who
would meet in the home of a participant, alternating, between a Christian home
and a Muslim home each time. Participants from each faith traditions were selected
to be two males and two females to ensure equitable gender participation. Considering
that the project would run over six months, a number of reserves were also arranged
just in case a regular participant could not make a meeting. A facilitator chaired
each meeting. The six facilitators were trained in facilitation techniques and
all participants were trained in listening skills prior to the commencement
of the project.
The general format of the evening discussions is given in Appendix-1. The evening
format was prepared to give people a chance to express themselves and also listen
to the other. This was achieved by engendering a level of formality and informality
to the two-hour gatherings. If the whole experience was made too formal it would
be perceived as too rigid and prevent the expressions of genuine feelings and
thoughts. If it were made too informal, there was the possibility that one group
or certain individuals would dominate the discussions or people would easily
diverge in many areas with no coherence in discussions. The key was to have
a balance between some structure and providing flexibility.
The meetings started with a fifteen-minute talk about the evening's topic of
discussion from a representative of each faith tradition. A Muslim respondent,
for example, would then summarise what he or she understood in his or her words
from the presentation of the Christian participant. If anything were summarised
incorrectly, the group giving the talk would clarify it. This would be then
repeated for the other faith tradition. In this way, a minimum level of structure
was set so that both Muslims and Christians would feel that they had equitable
time in expressing their views and beliefs. The role of the respondent was important
as it forced participants to listen to the other side's presentation. But it
was aimed at even more than that. Having to do a summary meant that the respondent
had to try and understand the information provided by the other team so that
he or she can put it in his or her own words when summarising it. The roles
of giving the presentation and summarising were rotated between all participants
so that everyone got a chance to present and summarise.
The main role of the facilitator was to maintain the equitable distribution
of presentation time between each group; to ensure that everyone got a fair
opportunity to ask questions and make comments; prevent pointless discussion
and divergence into subject matters not related to the topic of discussion and
to summarise the similarities between the Muslim and Christian perspective of
each topic. The last point is important as it ensured that the gathering was
ended on a positive note.
Key Outcomes
I can categorically state that all those who participated in the project have
experienced a profound change. They are now thinking differently, feeling differently
and certainly this change will result in a difference in their actions. There
are four key outcomes of this project. Some were expected and surprisingly some
were unexpected.
1. Greater Understanding of One's Own Faith
The most surprising outcome of the project was that it has lead participants
to increase the level of knowledge and understanding of their own faith tradition.
Writing the topics of discussion, sharing insights between own group members,
studying the topic knowing that one will give a fifteen-minute presentation
and finally listening to the presentation in a meeting all augment one's understanding
of the faith tradition that one belongs to. This was further enhanced by the
questions that were asked by the other group and the answers that were given
by the members of the same group.
For example, Graham Ellis, retired Uniting Church priest, remarked "Not
only am I learning about Islam. I am also appreciating some of the basic elements
of Christianity. These basic elements are so often taken for granted but having
to think and speak about them in a group that sincerely wants to know, makes
me look again and in looking I find a richness that I hadn¹t realised
was there." In a similar tone Muhammad Elbishbeshy, a Muslim from an
Egyptian background, said, "I cannot believe how much these meetings
have made me appreciate my own faith".
2. The Level of Improvement in Understanding the other Faith Tradition is
Different for Muslims and Christians
Another unexpected outcome of the project was that the net change in the level
of understanding of the other's faith tradition by Muslims and Christians
was not the same. In general, Christian participants experienced a higher
leap in their understanding of Islam than the learning by Muslims of Christianity.
This is mainly due to the fact that, prior to the start of the project, Muslims
have already had a base knowledge about Christianity for two reasons. Firstly,
one of the essential tenets of Islam is that it recognises Christianity as
a God revealed religion and Jesus as a person who represented God on earth.
Naturally, the fundamental source in Islam, the Qur'an, talks a lot about
Jesus and Christian concepts. In learning his or her religion, a Muslim inevitably
learns about Christianity as well. Secondly, living as a minority in a predominantly
Christian society, Muslims unavoidably learn about the basic Christian beliefs
and practices. However, the same can not be said about Christians whose faith
tradition does not talk about Islam and Muhammad and as a result they do not
necessarily learn about Islam. Added to this lack of knowledge is the distorted
imagery portrayed by media sources and actions of some Muslims, places an
average Christian in a dark view of Islam and Muslims. Therefore, the Muslim
and Christian reaction to a dialogue experience is not the same.
For Muslims, the project provided an opportunity to understand Christianity
in a Christian frame of reference. They had some knowledge about Christian
beliefs and practices but did not appreciate them in the experience and rationale
of Christians. For example, Muhammad Elbishbeshy was eager to find out how
Christians understood the concept of Trinity. In a similar tone, I wanted
to find out what Christians were feeling when they were going through the
experience of a Eucharist practice. For some Muslims the concept of Eucharist
was a revelation in itself. We were able to ask our questions knowing that
Christian participants would not be offended and as a result received honest
answers.
For Christians, the project provided an opportunity for them to learn about
Islam directly from Muslims. They were also able to test the information that
they received from the media sources. The general observation was that the
experience shifted the paradigms of Christian participants about Islam and
Muslims. Again Garham Ellis remarks, "The whole process has alerted me
to the programs on television/radio and the articles in the press. Sadly,
these have not helped much in my understanding of Islam but rather have helped
me identify the stereotypes of both Islam and an Anglo-Celtic Australia, its
insensitivity, crudeness and ignorance."
It is inevitable that our beliefs and practices shape our paradigms. We evaluate
the world through our frame of reference and it is not easy to get out of
that frame of reference. It seems that this project provided better understanding
for both Muslims and Christians although it was not to the same degree.
3. Realisation of Commonalities
The positive tone of the word 'dialogue' and an emphasis of the gatherings
to highlight similarities enabled the participants to see many similarities
not only in certain beliefs but also in practices as well. I will not go into
the similarities between the two religions as it is beyond the scope of this
paper.
Once again the Muslim and Christian response to the similarities were different.
For Muslims, similarities were expected and were natural, as they believed
that both Islam and Christianity are revealed by the same God. Their rationale
was that if the same God revealed both religions, it is inevitable that there
will be similarities. Makiz, a young Muslim lady and a university student
remarked, "it was re-affirmed to me how truly we come from the same Abrahamic
descent." For some of the Christian participants, the similarities were
more of a surprise for the reason's already mentioned in the second outcome.
Exclamations of how many similarities there were between Islam and Christianity
underscored the responses of many Christian participants.
4. Better Understanding of Differences
The usual tendency in a dialogue initiative is to put the differences in the
background for the concern that they will cause people to be defensive and
unwilling to listen. However, such attitude also does not give opportunities
to discover the reasons for the differences. Perhaps a true understanding
takes place when the differences are explored. Also talking about differences
without getting offensive or defensive is a test of sincerity and respect
for the other in dialogue.
We were able to ask questions in areas of differences knowing that the intention
was to understand not to challenge. This attitude has paramount importance
in the success of dialogue initiatives. Having ongoing meetings also allowed
the participants to build a trusting relationship so that such questions could
be asked with ease. Monica, a Christian lady, said "The need to confront,
in a mature way, any serious tension between Islamic and Christian views has
been positive. This has been achieved with a matured understanding of each
other's faith and appreciation for both. There are differences, evident to
all in the group but with questioning and hopefully understanding of differences
and similarities of same, there has developed a much better appreciation of
each other's faith." On a similar tone the same feelings were echoed
by Zuleyha Keskin, a Muslim lady from a Turkish background, "I learnt
that there are more similarities between Islam and Christianity than I had
realised. At the same time, there are significant differences in our understanding
and interpretation of our religions. It made me realise that we could talk
about each other's religion openly without offending members of the other
faith. I realise that we can build friendships with Christians and it does
not make me feel uncomfortable. I learnt that Christians have a great interest
in learning about my religion and that they are willing to put misconceptions
behind them."
Ingredients for a Successful Interfaith Experience
The feeling of the majority if not all of about sixty participants in the 'sustained
dialogue' experiment is that the experience has been positive and the project
was successful. Their participation resulted in lasting change in people and
enabled them to see each other as fully human. It is important to give an assessment
of the key ingredients that created the environment for success. I believe the
project succeeded because of the following seven factors.
1. Strong Management and Organisational Support:
The project was organised and managed by a committee made up of Christians
and Muslims. It was not organised solely by one faith group. In this respect,
there was a closer dialogue and relationship building at an organisational
level as well. Without the sponsorship of Affinity Intercultural Foundation
and St Charles Church as the main organisers of the project, individuals would
not feel safe to engage in dialogue at a personal level. The facilitation
of trusted and experienced organisations is key to success in interfaith dialogue.
The logistics of the operation was also significantly complex and it required
a strong management team to make sure everything was running smoothly and
consistently.
2. Trust Between Organisations: As I have explained before, participants
took part in this project because there was already an adequate level of relationship
and trust built up prior to engaging in this project. Such a trusting relationship
was created by mutual visits and 'testing the water' initiatives that made
everyone comfortable about each other's intentions.
3. Personal Space in Home Environment: Almost everyone noted that the idea
of meeting in each other's homes augmented the personal comfort and created
a positive psychology for all participants. This is mainly due to the fact
that we usually invite our friends to our homes. So receiving all in a home
implied friendship. The other reason is that sitting in living rooms, we were
all in each other's personal space (within 3 metres), in which people feel
less reserved. In the fourth meeting, for example, some participants in the
group remarked that they did not feel at ease and did not leave the gathering
feeling good about it. When we tried to understand why this was the case,
it occurred to us that the living room of the house was large and the seating
arrangement was too distant (about 5 metres) between the participants rendering
people distant at a personal level.
4. Set Topics and Set Format: Knowing what topics would be covered
in each meeting meant that there was an opportunity to prepare and anticipate
certain expectations of each other. This made participants comfortable and
confident in going into the meetings. Giving input on the selection of the
topics also empowered both Christians and Muslims to own the subject matters
of discussions. The format also allowed the benefits of having a structure
and the flexibility and comfort of informality.
5. Fair Opportunity to Express Oneself: One of the main motivators
for people to participate in these meetings were not only to learn about the
other faith tradition but also to have an opportunity to express their faith
and feelings to others. Although this seems to be counter-intuitive to the
purpose of dialogue, it is an essential part of human nature and a key ingredient
of dialogue. That is, everyone wants to be given a chance to express himself
or herself. A dialogue initiative that ignores this key ingredient is destined
to fail.
6. Listening: Just as dialogue that generates
no new understanding is futile, new understanding does not develop if participants
do not listen to one another. Knowing that our natural tendency is to express
ourselves rather than to listen first, the format was specifically designed
to force participants to listen. The appointment of a respondent made sure
that at the very least the respondent would listen attentively. And since
everyone took turns in this role, every participant went through an intense
listening experience. The coverage of the respondent after a presentation
was also a form of revision in itself. Moreover, it gave an opportunity to
the presenter to clarify any misunderstandings. Furthermore, since we are
usually not trained in the skill of listening to other people, we have run
workshops on listening skills.
7. Facilitation: Having an objective facilitator
made sure time was equitably distributed between both groups and that one
group or a few individuals did not dominate the discussions. The presence
of a facilitator also made participants comfortable knowing that if any person
stepped out of line (although this never happened in all thirty-six meetings),
there would be someone to mediate or stop the discussion.
The idea of having house gatherings to facilitate learning at an individual
level has worked and resulted in lasting change within the participants. The
'sustained dialogue' experience was a unique community-education initiative
as it was a large operation and has the propensity of expanding to include hundreds
of people and over time thousands. Also, such a project does not necessarily
have to be for Muslims and Christians only. Suitable topics can be chosen to
accommodate people of all different faiths, so that they can come together in
a similar manner. The project not only proved that a personal dialogue experience
enables a participant to learn about his or her own faith but also learn about
the other faith tradition while having an opportunity to get to know members
of the other faith tradition at personal and human level. Margaret Roberts has
simply summed up the result of the project for herself, "I have learnt
a lot about Islam as well as my own faith." A Muslim lady, Amine O. Atalay
spontaneously expressed the feelings of all participants:
An encounter of the yearning souls,
To share a taste of the Divine...
It was a night illuminated brighter than the day!
The sun of a spiritual dimension was gently on the rise
As the eager made their way to a home they had never been before
Appendix-1: Meeting Format
7:30 Facilitator introduces topic and gives guidelines on how the discussions
will take place.
7:35 First speaker from group will give a presentation addressing the topic
of the gathering for 15 minutes. The groups will alternate in starting with
Christian speaker and Muslim speaker each week.
7:50 A representative from the other group will summarise in 5 minutes what
they
understood from the talk of the group that gave the presentation.
7:55 Second speaker from the other group will give a presentation addressing
the topic of the gathering for 15 minutes.
8:10 A representative from the other group will summarise in 5 minutes what
they
understood from the talk of the group that gave the presentation.
8:15 Time for discussion and asking questions.
8:45 Break, tea/coffee is served.
9:00 Continue with reciprocal questions and discussion.
9:25 The facilitator will give a summary of the evening, highlighting the similarities
between the two religions that were pointed out and discussed throughout the
evening.
