[0:25]The book is about the im- possibility of interreligious dialogue. It's a little bit of a provocative title, uh but the content is really an analysis of the conditions for the possibility of interreligious dialogue. And, um, the occasion for the book was a realization that everyone talks about interreligious dialogue and its importance, uh but there's very little reflection on how difficult interreligious dialogue is, um. And I use the term interreligious dialogue in a very, um, robust sense of the word as a dialogue of not only of mutual understanding, but also of mutual enrichment. So, um, the book is about, uh, if religions are really going to learn from one another, what is required internally in order for religions to open themselves up to such enrichment, um. So, uh, the premise of the book is that religions are not by nature inclined to dialogue with one another. Um, and so if a dialogue is going to be possible, what kind of internal critical reflection is necessary? What kind of resources may religions have in their tradition that may not have been tapped yet in the past to make it possible to open themselves up to other religions, um. So the book is really a kind of a, what I call a phenomenology of interreligious dialogue. So what are the fundamental conditions for the possibility of interreligious dialogue that should be, if the conditions are valid, applicable to any religious tradition, but then I look within the conditions, I look at how they are applicable to Christianity in particular. So, um, hopefully, the, conditions themselves are, can be used then, you know, by other religious traditions, but I apply them to Christianity. Showing how difficult each of the conditions is, uh, in the process of fulfillment within Christianity. So, um, the conditions that I identify are five: the first is humility, the second is commitment, the third is interconnection, the fourth is empathy, and the fifth is, uh, generosity or hospitality with regard to the truth of other religions. So maybe, in going, uh, deeper into the particularity of each, uh, condition, if we take for example, the condition of humility, what I talk about there is, you know, the, the necessary recognition of the limitation of your own tradition in the attempt to fully grasp or express ultimate reality or the ultimate truth. So what I mean by humility is not just personal spiritual humility, but really doctrinal humility, or humility with regards to the way ways in which ultimate truth has been expressed in teachings, but maybe also in the practices of a particular religion. Uh, so that doctrinal humility is, is a necessary condition and is really against the self-understanding of most religions. Because most religions claim to possess the ultimate truth, to have the, uh, sure and certain way to salvation or liberation, um. So there's a kind of doctrinal absolutism that you find in most religious tradition traditions that's in, in, uh, contradiction with the, the need for doctrinal humility. But then I go on to show that, you know, in the Christian tradition, there really are resources for such humility. You know, and in particular, I look at the aphatic, uh, tradition of Christianity that always emphasizes the radical transcendence of God. So God is always beyond our understanding, uh, and then, you know, within Christianity in the past century there has been sort of a recognition of the, uh, historical cultural particularity, at least of the ways in which Christianity has expressed the truth and then also what we call an etological orientation. That the ultimate truth will only be fully grasped and expressed at the end of time. So, um, the Vatican, for example, has a very beautiful document where it talks about truth not being, uh, something, uh, we possess, but a person we confess. Uh, and I think that's sort of a beautiful resource within Christianity, uh, that allows us to be open to whatever truths may be found in other religious traditions and that may, uh, help us grow in our own understanding of the truth. If I continue, you know, with the other conditions, so the second condition is, um, commitment. Uh, and that's maybe a little bit, uh, of a strange condition because you would expect that anyone belonging to a particular religion is committed to their tradition. Um, but you often find in interreligious dialogue that dialogue happens by individuals who speak mostly in their own name, or who find themselves on the margin of their own tradition, sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity, and who engage with other religious traditions, but don't feel a sense of, uh, responsibility to speak in the name of a tradition, or to bring the fruits of their dialogue back to to their own traditions. So, uh, when I talk about interreligious dialogue, it's not just sort of a a new age engagement with different religions where I pick and choose what I find interesting, but really, uh, an engagement of a tradition, one religion with another religious tradition. And so, there has to be a sense of of accountability and of responsibility to a particular religious tradition. Um, so that's, uh, a necessary condition for genuine interreligious dialogue, but again, the challenge is that religions are not often, uh, open to such dialogue or receptive to people who are engaged in such dialogue, who are pioneering interreligious dialogue.
[6:58]Um, so really be receptive to it, to the fruits of such dialogue rather than a kind of, uh, suspicious or rejecting of what happens in interreligious dialogue. So that would be the second condition. The third condition, um, that I discuss in my book is, uh, interconnection. So for dialogue to be possible and fruitful, you have to believe that your faith and tradition has something to do with other religions, or that other religions have something to do with with your faith and tradition. You can say, well, the very term religion makes or the connection between all these, uh, traditions, but, um, the term religion itself has been put into doubt in contemporary religious discourse, a sort of a Western imposition and not really applicable to all, um, maybe analogous phenomena in, uh, in other religions. So just using the term religion isn't necessarily sufficient. So there has to be a point where believers have the faith that other religions are relevant for their own. And what we see often in interreligious dialogue is that the point of connection between religions is often sought in external causes. So religions will get together over questions of peace, or, uh, economic development, or ecological issues, or other questions of, uh, virtue, uh, or social, uh, justice issues. But rarely, uh, do religions look within themselves for their, uh, resources to connect with other religious traditions. And that's what's necessary, I argue, because if religions or if dialogue is dependent on external causes, then it will only last as long as the external causes are there. So my point is that religions have to find the point of interconnection within themselves. Um, and, and, you know, in in the dialogue between religions, it's often spirituality that's seen as a point of connection. All religions connect in an ultimate reality which is beyond, uh, any religious tradition, or in the mystical experience which is, lies underneath any particular religion. Um, and, and I think spirituality is a very, um, important and fruitful resource, but often, uh, spirituality can also be a type of flight from the concreteness of religion. So it's easy to say, well, the mystical experience that no religion can express, that's where all religions meet. But then if, once that is established, then the particularities of religions don't matter anymore. And the same with a kind of transcendent reality which is beyond any particular religion, if that's your connecting point, then the particularities don't matter anymore either. So my alternative is that you, you have to find within the particularity of every religion, the resources for recognizing the importance of dialogue with, uh, with other religions and for recognizing the interconnection. So, for example, in Christianity, um, the notion of the Trinity has often been invoked, and in particular, the idea that, uh, the spirit of God blows where it wills, or is present beyond the boundaries of the institutional church. All those kinds of notions, uh, you can say, drive Christians beyond themselves to finding the Holy Spirit in other religious traditions. So that's, I would argue the point of interconnection from within Christianity to other religious traditions. It's a kind of driving impulse, I would say, to establish the link with other religions. You know, and other religions will, of course, have to have their own, uh, internal resource. So we cannot impose the Holy Spirit on other religions as a resource. It has to come from within themselves. But, um, all I say is that, is that, uh, it, one has does not have to find a resource beyond all religions or outside of a religion, uh, it's enough, uh, to find the point of interconnection within one's own conception of of reality or of ultimate reality.
[11:42]So that's, uh, the condition of empathy, and then the last, the last chapter of the book is on what I call hospitality.
[15:51]Uh, which is maybe not as clear as it could be, but it fit well with all the other virtues. Uh, but what I try to, uh, talk about there is the fact that, finally, when all the other conditions are established, dialogue will only happen if, uh, there is a recognition that there really is, uh, truth in the other religion. And not only truth that I already have in my own tradition, but distinctive truth in another religion. You, you don't have to a priori believe that, that there is, that such truth, but that there is at least a possibility for distinctive truth in another religion. Uh, that is what is necessary to drive believers beyond their own tradition into a study of another religion and an attempt to really learn from the other tradition. And that's probably, you know, the most, uh, the most difficult condition to recognize distinctive truth in another religion. You know, it's easy to recognize truth in beliefs that are already the same as my own, you know. It would be contradictory not to recognize such truth, uh. So that's easy, but to recognize truth in beliefs and practices that are different from my own might, uh, threaten a religion in in its own self-sufficiency and claim to absoluteness and completeness and so forth. So that requires what I call a lot of hermeneutical effort, you know, a lot of attempt to find resources in in one's own tradition that, through drive into the possibility of recognizing truth in another. It also rejoins, of course, the first condition of humility, where if you recognize that you don't have the fullness of truth, at least, uh, that's the beginning.
[17:48]Then to recognize that there might be distinctive truth in other religious traditions, um, but in Christianity, for example, I talk again, I refer back again to the idea of the Holy Spirit and Christian Trinitarian thought as the basis for recognizing the presence of the spirit in distinctive teachings of other religious traditions. Um, I mean, when I talk about distinctive teachings, I, I don't go all the way to necessarily recognizing teachings that are in contradiction with my own. I, I don't think any religion will ever be able to recognize contradictory teachings as being truth. Uh, but that still leaves open the door for a whole array of teachings that are not in contradiction with my own, but in continuity, uh, with my own, uh, faith, um, and which may come to enrich my own religious tradition. So, that's basically a summary of the book, um. It's also, I mean, when I talk about these conditions for dialogue, it would seem like they all have to be fulfilled a priori for a dialogue to be possible. That's also not really what I try to say. I mean, often one enters into a dialogue and then, as one goes along, some these conditions become fulfilled, you know. It's in in really recognizing suddenly that there really is truth in another religion that one then maybe searches for ways in which one can make sense of that theologically from within one's own tradition. So, it's not the case, I mean, these conditions are also never perfectly fulfilled. But, um, I think they help us, I mean, my purpose at least was to offer a kind of heuristic tool to help us understand why dialogue is so difficult, why certain religions are maybe more inclined to dialogue than others. Uh, what precisely the obstacle is in any particular religion that keeps them from, uh, engaging in dialogue, and then hopefully, also how religions may find resources within themselves to, you know, help them move closer towards interreligious dialogue. The book is mainly, uh, geared, I think, towards, uh, I suppose graduate students and, uh, peers in, uh, the study of, uh, religion and interreligious dialogue. So it's a little bit of a reframing of the discussions that have taken place in theology of religion. So a lot of the authors that I use in the book are people who have, uh, you know, played an important role in, uh, theology of religions, but I use their theological points in a, uh, to show or to fill in, uh, arguments that are also applicable to other religious traditions. So it's a kind of reshuffling or re-envisioning of the discussion on interreligious dialogue in a more phenomenological form, uh, at least, um. So something somewhat more generic and ideally applicable to other religious traditions. So, uh, I've been happiest so far when I've heard people belonging to other religious traditions who say that they are writing books using my categories and applying them to their own tradition. That that's really the biggest, uh, compliment in terms of, uh, how the conditions are used. I've also been happy, uh, to see the book used in more conservative circles, uh. Because I think interreligious dialogue is often conceived of as something that only very radical sort of left-wing, uh, theologians are doing, who are really in the margins of their tradition. So, I think what the book allows or tries to explore is how one can be really firmly rooted within a religious tradition and open to dialogue with other religious traditions. So, you know, I've, uh, seen references to the ways it has been used at conservative Christian universities, for example, which also has been interesting and, uh, very, uh, you know, I've been very happy about that. I would hope that, um, readers are, um, challenged on the one hand by the difficulty of interreligious dialogue, but also that they have some hope that it really is possible and that, but that it really does require a lot of internal religious, uh, critical self-reflection before it's possible. And that it's something that, um, has to be a communal, uh, exercise or effort, that no single theologian can do it on their own and that, you know, interreligious dialogue really does have the promise of enriching religious traditions, but that it has to be done, you know, in a, in a joint effort or within a dialogue within a particular religious traditions. So going out and coming back and really enriching a tradition which with what has been happening, um. So, I think, I hope people, uh, recognize the challenge, but also realize the possibilities of, uh, of interreligious dialogue.
