Interreligious Dialogue is Hard—But Necessary

by Heather Miller Rubens, ICJS Roman Catholic scholar and executive director

When I’ve told people about the work we have been doing this past year at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies (ICJS), they have a lot of questions: How are you actually able to do dialogue right now? Has the violence in Israel and Gaza frayed interreligious relationships beyond repair? What are commonly held expectations and fears about interreligious dialogue, particularly around Israel and Gaza? What has ICJS learned as an organization?

Last fall, ICJS made a promise to lean into our mission and engage small groups in face-to-face dialogues about Israel and Gaza. Indeed, ICJS believes that to keep faith with diverse interreligious partners in a time of war demands that our organization stay committed to creating space for challenging conversations here in Maryland. Silence around this war advances neither justice, nor peace. Avoiding friends, colleagues, or neighbors will not solve conflict, nor will it slow the spread of antisemitism and Islamophobia infecting local communities. We must be willing to say hard things—and importantly, to hear hard things—from neighbors, colleagues, family, and friends.?

Since last October, ICJS has been a trusted convener of nearly 20 face-to-face workshops and guided dialogues with over 500 people in the ICJS initiative, Can We Talk? Urgent Interreligious Conversations in a Time of War. ?

We began these conversations with our own Board of Trustees. The ICJS board members hold vastly different positions on the conflict, but share a firm commitment to building resilient interreligious relationships here in Maryland. Then we moved next to ICJS friends and fellowship alumni developing dialogue programs and workshops to meet this moment. With this strong foundation and experience, ICJS has been able to help regional organizations, schools, government agencies, and professional associations—most who are new to interreligious dialogue—engage in learning and conversations across deep differences.??

What does “winning” at dialogue look like?

Over the past year, most people entering our workshops have come in with a deep ambivalence about the possibilities of interreligious dialogue. They feel both an urgent need to participate and hope for an authentic exchange; they are curious about a space intentionally created to explore interreligious differences during a time of war. At the same time, many dialogue participants have been anxious about what might happen in a face-to-face interreligious dialogue, with people that they know, that is explicitly focused on the war. Will it devolve into a screaming match? Will something be said that can never be unsaid???

Behind these very real apprehensions about in-person dialogue lie our collective experience of toxic online interactions, which are often extreme, threatening, and frequently anonymous. But in-person ICJS dialogues are very different from these online experiences because we are intentionally creating the conditions for dialogue by convening people who know one another for face-to-face exchanges. While conversations are deeply emotional—often with participants sharing intense feelings of pain and anger—the environment has not been hostile or physically threatening. Nor has a conversation ever completely shut-down.? ? ?

We begin sessions by making clear that we are not creating space to have a debate, but rather a dialogue. We then talk about what success in dialogue looks like. If winning a debate means that you have convinced your conversation partner to adopt your position, what does “winning” at dialogue look like??

Success at dialogue means that you have listened closely to your partner’s viewpoint and that you understand it, even if you don’t agree with it. Winning at dialogue means that you can put your dialogue partner’s position into your own words, and when you restate their position back to them, they nod and say “Yes! That is what I mean.” You’ve won when you have listened closely, and understood a point of view that is not your own. Understanding another’s point of view does not mean that you have adopted it. But it does mean that you understand it to such an extent that you can make a good faith presentation of the position that would be recognizable to your dialogue partner. You didn’t distort or diminish your dialogue partner’s position (as one might do with a straw man fallacy). But deep listening does imply the possibility of change in the listener.?

Considering fears and objections

Recently, I was talking with an ethicist who teaches in the Midwest about her plans for her classroom this fall. Like many college professors, she wants to create a classroom where students can explore difficult topics and develop the reading, thinking, and communication skills necessary in our complex and challenging life. When I shared with my friend about the dialogue work we have been doing at ICJS with adult professionals, our conversation turned to what we each think are the necessary conditions for authentic conversations. We discussed the limits of our abilities as conversation conveners, and what expectations we could and should set before beginning a hard conversation with wary participants. There were two things that we agreed were necessary to say about deep listening: 1) I can’t promise that your conscience will be unburdened; 2) I can’t promise that your narrative will be uncontested.

In wartime, an invitation to engage with an opposing viewpoint, in a dialogical manner, can be threatening—perhaps even more threatening than engaging in a debate with someone with an opposing view. Indeed, deep listening is necessarily a risky endeavor, and I think people intuitively understand that dialogue might profoundly change them—change them even more than an eruptive, emotional face-to-face debate with someone they disagree with. I think what dialogue-averse people fear right now is the quiet hours after an ICJS dialogue—when they might be sitting alone with their narrative disrupted and their conscience troubled. In wartime, uncertainty, grief, pain, and fear drive humans to seek out solace and certainty with like-minded people, not seek out the opposition.??

At the beginning of each session we devote time to naming the risks and the fears that many are bringing into the room, or that may have prevented people from engaging in interreligious dialogue during this war. Let me run through some common fears that we have heard and that we discuss at the start of the sessions:????

Objection #1: Dialogue is not possible on this topic.

For some who are convinced of the justice of their position on a given topic, engaging in dialogue is at best a waste of time and at worst an act complicit with injustice. They are not interested in developing a mutual understanding of divergent viewpoints, but only in convincing others of the justice of their position. They are listening to create challenges or rebuttals to their interlocutor’s claims and they are only interested in debating a given topic. Thus, the dialogical space ICJS is seeking to create around the war is not a space they can join.?

To these people, I say: ICJS understands and respects your position. There are certain topics and certain times when debate may be the right mode of engagement for both individuals and for organizations. But at this moment ICJS is taking a different position. We are choosing to convene interreligious dialogues aimed at keeping strained interreligious relationships—particularly Jewish and Muslim relationships—from breaking under the weight of the war.??

Objection #2: Dialogue is not possible at this time.

For some, the timing of ICJS dialogues is not right for them. They have replied to interreligious dialogue invitations on Israel and Gaza in the past year by saying, “Not now. But maybe someday.” Most of these participants have had positive experience with interreligious dialogues in the past, and see great value in the work of ICJS. But, I think, their past experiences of dialogue brings with it a self-awareness that they are not able to give themselves to dialogue in this moment. Many are emotionally spent, and the capacity to take on more pain is too much for their heart and head to bear. They might be willing and able to listen with an aim for understanding a different view of the war, but cannot do so right now. To these people, I say: ICJS is here and we are waiting for you. When you are ready to join us in dialogue, we are ready to welcome you to the conversation.?????

Objection #3:? I don’t know enough to dialogue.

Many people worry that their knowledge-level is not adequate to enter into a dialogue on Israel and Gaza, and so will opt not to participate until they “know enough” to do so. I’ve taken to calling this objection (or hesitancy) “literacy anxiety.”?

Those suffering from literacy anxiety are concerned that they aren’t reading enough,or they are reading the wrong things. They don’t feel equipped to present their own position to someone else—either because they might not have a fully defined position or they worry that they need to engage in a kind of “debate-prep” before entering into interreligious dialogue. Still others are concerned that their reading habits are too narrow and that their dialogue partners will judge them for their reading habits. There are others who are suspicious of all journalism in this era of “fake news” and “war propaganda.” So even if they read copiously, they do so with deep skepticism.?

For those concerned that “literacy anxiety” inhibits their ability to dialogue, I say: You are not alone in feeling inadequate to the task at hand. Please join us and be willing to share what you do know about Israel and Gaza. Your perspective will add to the conversation, and your participation will advance our collective pursuit of better interreligious understanding.????

Indeed, talking about literacy anxiety has been the part of introductory remarks that has resonated with so many reluctant participants. I assure those who have entered into dialogue (despite their literacy anxiety) that such self-awareness and humility about the limits to their own knowledge—and awareness around the greater limitations to knowledge during the fog of war—is actually an asset in dialogue. Additionally, the pursuit of knowledge is not best done alone, but rather in community and in conversation.?

Objection #4: My relationships will be adversely affected.

Many people don’t want to talk about Israel and Gaza for fear of personal and professional consequences. Some are concerned that family, neighbors, and friends will think less of them if they share a position that their loved ones do not agree with—forever changing their interpersonal dynamic, and possibly irreparably harming a treasured bond. Some have expressed concern that their professional life might be harmed if they take a position on the war or even enter into a dialogue about this topic. Will they be accused of being Islamophobic? Of being antisemitic? Of ethnic self-hatred? Of ignorance? Will they open themselves and their families to online harassment or doxing? Will they lose their clients or their jobs? Will they be accused of being complicit in injustice? Or being immoral??

To these people, I say: Walking into dialogue requires courage.?

Recognizing both the real and perceived harms that may come with talking about Israel and Gaza, ICJS has prioritized creating small, face-to-face dialogue encounters with people who know and care about one another. We use anonymous exercises and ask participants to abide by Chatham House Rules (participants can share information from a meeting, but they can’t reveal the identity of the speaker or any other participant) when talking with others about their experience of the dialogues and workshops, in order to mitigate these harms, and create the conditions for authentic conversations.??????

Objection #5: This war is not religious/interreligious.

Another common tactic to avoid talking about the religious and interreligious aspects of a topic is to claim that a given topic has nothing to do with religion. While we aren’t claiming that the situation in Israel and Gaza is exclusively (or even primarily) an interreligious matter, you can’t avoid the religious/interreligious elements that are part of the conflict. Nor can you ignore how the conflict is experienced by Jews, Muslims, and others in the United States. To these people with this objection I say: Yes—you are right. This conflict is complex and requires many thoughtful, well-intentioned people to be involved in moving forward using the insights, methods, and tools of different disciplines and a variety of expertises. Religion is part of this mix. There is an important contribution that interreligious dialogues can make in that peacebuilding work.?

Continuing Conversations

The conversations that we have with our loved ones and close associates are oftentimes the hardest ones to have, but also the most necessary in building an interreligious society. And the most important tools that you have right now are your voice, your words, and your willingness to show up. ICJS remains committed to engaging small groups in face-to-face dialogues in the coming months. As more institutions, schools, and organizations seek out our expertise in interreligious dialogue, we will try our best to meet community needs.