Glocal Christianity on "interfaith" dialogue

Commenter Cuboid Master brings to my attention this post about "interfaith" dialogue at a blog called Glocal Christianity. The post asks interesting questions, and the ensuing comments show the happy morass into which such discussions almost immediately sink as different perspectives crash into each other. As can be expected, one major strand of the discussion is of the "whoa-- there are language issues!" sort: is "interfaith" too Christocentric a term? I'm of several minds about such discussions, because they often seem to lead nowhere-- where "lead nowhere" can be defined as either (1) leading to a watered-down, meaningless, ultra-PC terminology that satisfies no one and possesses that made-by-committee stink, or (2) leading to an endless debate from which no happy majority emerges. I'll take option (3), whatever that might be.

I liked the fact that the post author, Matt, included atheists as part of the larger discussion. His reason for doing so strikes me as valid:

What’s more, it suggests Atheists are excluded from the conversation. This is something I find deeply problematic too, as Atheism is as much a religious option as Christianity and Paganism, in a negative kind of way. I mean, it’s like talking of hairstyles and excluding the skinhead option from the discussion.

You see, all too often I think conversations between Christians and Atheists degenerate into a bipolar “theism versus atheism” thing that I find most unhelpful. I prefer broader, more pluralistic conversations that welcome MONO-theists, PAN-theists, POLY-theists and A-theists to the one round table.

One commenter quickly picked up on something I also noted: the above litany of "-theists" fails to include Buddhists. Buddhism doesn't fit easily into any of the established categories, but my experience has also been that most traditions, when you've made room for the variety they represent, aren't easily pigeonholed.

There's a meta-question in all this: why bother dialoguing? Aren't we, at least in America, already getting along fine as it is? We're not out on the streets killing each other, right? Regarding the problem of talking with atheists, one commenter to Matt's post writes:

All theist/atheist “conversations” I recall being in become debates – and usually degenerate into apologetics, leave niceties for coarsities, and ultimately with no apologies. I find it has about as much chance of “succeeding” as arguing with a sibling over their choice to abandon a perfectly wonderful spouse.

I'm left wondering what "success" means to this writer. Does dialogue have to have set goals and guidelines?

Anyway, the blog is worth the trip over, and the comments to the "interfaith" post are interesting and insightful. Go have a look.

Thanks, CM.


_