Deep calls to deep APRIL 06

I have just read a paper written by Ben Quash called ‘Deep calls to deep: the practice of Spiritual Reasoning’, which I enjoyed immensely. (the Paper is on the Doha website in pdf form) I read it in the context of having been stimulated by David Ford’s paper at the Fulcrum ‘Gospel in Context’ Day Conference on Friday ( the text is already available online ‘Gospel in Context: Among Many Faiths, by David F Ford www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=101)

He presented a vision of interfaith interaction that had a depth I have not yet encountered. Beyond the normal 'tea, samosas and smiles'. I caught a glimpse (an escatological one !?) of the possibilities of a very different place in interfaith engagement.

This in turn was in the context of the interfaith gathering that I attended in Doha , along with Canon Ben Quash and many others. At one level it was the peak of its field - a gathering of a rich variety of people and experiences, but it a context which, when I reflect on it back home, I experienced as stale and in a strange way very secular. This was to do, I feel, with the environment - a modern, luxurious, 5* star hotel, and a mode of operation, based on the scientific conference paradigm. This positioned me as a passive (and exhausted!) listener, rather than a co-locutioner in an ongoing conversation. Obviously it had its moments of surprises and genuine interaction. There we were a lot of ‘real characters’ there. At times some of the under-the- surface-issues also emerged, which was I felt helpful. (conflict and difference is not something to be avoided but welcomed and embraced) And as always these gathering are an opportunity for rich networking. I gathered a good handful of business cards to add to my collection!

It was after all an event hosted by the Qatar Government and was dialogue or ‘trialogue’ ( a new word I learned at the conference!) on a different level - official, diplomatic, politically correct, - and as Ben put it in his paper ‘justified on the basis of a thin and generalised notion of ‘tolerance’. I long for something not quite so ‘thin’, but much ‘thicker’ or deeper.

Hence, in contrast I really liked the idea in the SR papers of the 'tents of meeting' of ‘peoples of the book’, Jews, Christians and Muslims, from their different traditions or ‘houses’, which moves the conversation from the official discourses generated by the institutional ‘Temples’ into more interrogation and mutual struggle. More ‘wrestling’ with texts. But I think I prefer the word dialogue or conversation to ‘debate’. Maybe the concept of debate conjures up for me, images of oppositional, polarised argument (our Houses of Parliament and Law Courts are a prime examples, where seeking after truth does not seem to be on the agenda)

But the concept of SR resonated with my own experience of sitting and talking together in Pakistan, with Muslims, Christians and Hindus (usually all addicted to Heroin – or in various stages of recovery - and hence somewhat neutralised from their religious Temples!) But these were genuinely interfaith ‘trialogues’ - In particular the way they encountered the scriptural text of the story of the prodigal son was deeply moving. They found their own story reflected in the Scriptural story. This was obviously on a very different level from Scriptural Reasoning where religious leaders encountering their own text. It was much more grass roots - more a Scriptural story telling or Scriptural encounter, but when I read of SR it felt ‘strangely familiar’
I’m not sure how much actual ‘reasoning’ there was in our groups of recovering addicts – certainly a lot of reacting / responding and story telling/sharing. And it was very much ‘hosted’ by one ‘house’ - in this case our Christian drug rehabilitation project - although we tried to make it ‘neutral’ ground it did not achieve the level of ‘mutual’ ground.

My Masters thesis, ‘Faith Conversations’, I felt also resonated with what Ben and David have outlined in the SR approach. Well it resonated for me. I would be interested to know if others discover synergies or not ! It also comes from a different starting place. I wrote it for a course in Systemic Management and Consultancy - which is rooted in a systemic, social-contructionist approach, But the common denominator is the concept of ‘interrogation of texts’. In my case ‘stories as text’ generated through a process of ‘faith conversations’ which we engaged in, over a period of about year in CMS.

I always had in mind for these conversations to be fundamentally interfaith, but the starting point was very much intra-faith’, drawing on our own wide network of CMS contacts. This has lead to an ‘in-house’ (ie within the Christian ‘house’) online discussion group called simply ‘faith conversations’, which currently has 75 very interesting and varied members, all of whom are academics and/or practitioners who seek to engage with the ‘house of Islam.’

I myself, am interested in going deeper (‘deep calls to deep’) and would be interested in exploring a SR group in London some time. Apparently one such group meets at St Ethelbergas. It maybe something we could eventually duplicate in Woking to take our own interfaith encounters to a new, deeper level.

London   29 April 06

An earlier Dialogue - Reflections at the end of the Doha Conference

Sitting here towards the end of an official dialogue I am reminded of another favourite Nasruddin story about an earlier dialogue.[1]  

Some 10 centuries ago the Pope declared that all minority faiths should leave Jerusalem. This created uproar among the Muslims. Acknowledging their difficulties the Pope agreed to a religious debate – if the Muslims won they could stay; if they lost they would have to leave Jerusalem
Since their wisest most learned member all backed down, Mullah Nasruddin was selected as their representative. He agreed as long as neither would be allowed to talk – they could only communicate by mime!

The Pope and Nasruddin faced each other. The Pope began by raising 3 fingers; the Mullah looked back at him and raised his middle finger.
The Pope then waived his hand in a circle around his head but Nasruddin pointed to the ground and stomped his feet furiously.
The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. The Mullah pulled out an apple from his coat pocket and started biting into it.
At which point the Pope stood up and admitted the Mullah was too good for him and that the Muslims could stay.

Afterwards the cardinals flocked around the Pope to ask what happened
When I held up 3 fingers, he said, to indicate that God is known to us in the Holy Trinity, the Mullah showed one finger to show that there is only one God, common to both religions. Then I waived my hand in the air to indicate that God is all around us everywhere, he pointed to the ground and stamped his feet pointing out that God is also right with us, here and now. Then I took out the elements to indicate the body and blood of Christ, whereby God absolves us from our sins. But the Mullah pulled out an apple suggesting the very fist sin of Adam and by biting into it showed how we are all guilty of sin. I just had to give up. He had an answer for everything I said.

On the other side of town the Muslims had crowded around Nasruddin to find out how he had won this sensational victory. Well, he began; first the Pope told me that the Muslims had three days to get out of Jerusalem. I told him ‘up yours’, Then he told me the entire city would be cleared of Muslims, I told him that we’re staying right here and none of us was leaving this land, which belongs to us too.
Then what happened? they asked ‘Oh nothing, the Pope just took out his lunch, so I took out mine!

*****************************

I suspect there have been a number of such misunderstanding, especially given that so much has to be translated. We talk of having so much in common, but inevitably we interpret even the same words differently according to our culture and understanding (our world view) - especially when it is something so dear to us as our theology. Interestingly there were times when the underlying issues came to the surface – the issue of ‘the Land’ came up many times and there was almost stamping of feet and certainly raised voices. Palestinian voices wanting to be heard by the Jews present.

Lord Hylton, who had called for reciprocity in defending the rights of the other to enjoy freedom of worship, also spoke of being last year in Israel/ Palestine and described it as the ‘most urgent situation in the whole world’. Unless an agreed solution can be found, he suggested they will be in despair and will be motivated to turn into suicide bombers and terrorists.

A Rabbi from the US spoke of his own pain at the situation in Israel ‘No one can love God who does not love his neighbour’, he insisted. Post 9-11 he had been accused in the USA of being an Arab lover. And his response was to say ‘Yes it’s true and its worse than you think - I love people of all colour, of all nations’ He shared a Jewish proverb ‘there’s nothing more whole than a broken human heart’.

In a sense the Nasruddin story is based on a premise of a clash of civilisations, certainly a polemic, confrontational approach – more debate than dialogue.
A Jewish filmmaker, Jacob Bender, talked about a Documentary film project ‘Reason and Revelation’ (reasonrevelation@aol.com ) which looks at the lives and influence of 3 men in medieval Spain: Averroes (the Muslim - ibn Rashid 1126-1198) Malmonides (the Jew - Rambam 1138-1204) and Aquinas eh Christian 1225-1274) This is modelling an alternative to the clash of civilisations more ‘a dialogue of civilisations’ and a modern spirituality – whether Jewish Christian or Muslim – that is compatible with science , reason, tolerance, pluralism, democratic values and human rights’

But it is in sharing food maybe not the Pope’s bread and wine, nor Nasruddin’s apple, but in our case a Lebanese Meze, It is by talking and eating around a table, that we are brought closer together. The Rabbi had earlier talked of the home as a small sanctuary and as the table in the home as an altar The Table becomes a central meeting place.

All the speakers expressed gratitude to the host of our Table – The emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani who initiated the Conference. It was indeed brave, avant-garde, and groundbreaking to host this type of ‘trialogue' on Muslim soil. The resolutions for the conference are part of what is needed in this part of the world to encourage more openness, less confrontation between the various branches of the Abrahamic Tree. I will certainly be quoting them next month in Kabul.

Hubert Jacques, from the Religious Dialogue Society in Paris, chaired one session and shared another proverb (almost Nasrauddin-like in its simplicity) from Africa:

‘In the jungle when the branches quarrel, the roots embrace each other’

from your own correspondent 
Doha   27 April 06

[1] The Funniest Tales of Mullah Nasruddin selected and retold by Clifford Sawhney (Unicorn, New Delhi 2004)

Conversations and connections April 06

I received 2 comments after what I wrote the other day about the '4th Doha Conference on Religious Dialogue' - one hoping that is 'not just a talk shop' (Bassi) and the other describing the event as 'the red carpet inter-faith scene' (David M)

TALK SHOP

In each of the 2-hour session, there are 6 speakers, all at least 10 minutes each, chaired by a timekeeper who then opens it up for comments (c 2 mins each) from the participants and final summing up from speakers. The speakers are evenly balanced between Muslims, Christians, and Jews - the’3 heavenly religions’ as they are frequently referred to as here.  Timekeeping is an issue. How to cram so much into so little, with a tendency to talk faster, to get it all in. The sessions are conducted in Arabic and English, with occasionally some French. Of course we are hearing it mainly through translation (headphones) and interpreters have such a difficult task.
But so do listeners. It is very tiring hearing such a bombardment of thoughts - with little opportunity to process it all. Note talking is one answer, a way of processing.

The open discussion and questions from the floor, rather than real dialogue, is more an opportunity for others to add their comments. Mini speeches, which add to the density of thought. All in all, 8 hours of solid listening in one day! I have discovered that passive listening is exhausting.

MEETING PLACE

There is a great deal of variety here. A wide array of dress - The uniform Arabic Alb (like Priests wear) complete with turban and prayer beads. Women in Hijab, or scarf covering heads. Various ecclesiastical dress (like a Wimple’s catalogue) - men in black or purple or white. The almost universal western suit. Some wearing the Jewish skullcap.    The people I have met are as varied as the dress. A rabbi from Tel Aviv; a Belgium Muslim Professor Yahya based at the Islamic Centre in Oxford; a Pakistani from Blackburn, chair of the Lancashire Council of Mosques; Takayasu Ogura a Japanese Journalist, who used to be Bureau chief for Cairo; an Egyptian reporter working in Kuwait for Arabic Newsweek. A Greek Orthodox Priest from the Jerusalem Patriarchate looking after the flock in Doha; the Ambassador of Cyprus; three Algerian Muslims living in Geneva Switzerland. Giovanni, a Journalist from Rome working for ‘30Giorni’ / 30 days a monthly Catholic magazine. An Argentinean, middle-eastern Rabbi working in New York. Salahuddin from Sidon in Lebanon working in Leeds. A lovely, gentle Iranian, Dr Tabarraian of the ‘world forum for proximity of Islamic schools of thought’ (How ironic that he is from the so called ‘Axis of evil’)

CMS CONNECTIONS

There are also a number of people I have met before in CMS circles an dfor me conferences are all about meeting people:
Bishop Munir of Egypt - a key CMS partner - with a deep commitment to dialogue with Al Azhar University in Cairo..
Sheik Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain, who came to Partnership House for the launch of the CMS Dialogue pack
Serhiy Hovorun from Russia (I met him with our regional manager for Eastern Europe - in a restaurant in Moscow. He works with Metropolitan Kiril at the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate.
Metropolitan George Saliba, the Archbishop of Mount Lebanon who I met in Saidanayya, Syria at the feast of the Holy cross on the occasion of he Patriarch’s birthday.
Bishop Sarkassian of the Armenians of Iran - he was on a CMS scholarship at Selly Oak - met in Isfahan, Iran c. 5 years ago on my one and only visit.
Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi is the chair of the Islamic University in Islamabad which hosted the archbishop on his recent visit to Pakistan - his speech (the archbishop’s) to students on the Trinity is available on Lambeth website (ref)
What is most refreshing is hearing Moderate Muslim voices, which normally are not reported in the Western Press. It is also good to see all three Abrahamic faiths together - in the past the dialogue started as a Christian-Muslim one. Now it is more of a ‘tri-alogue’. A Rabbi made the point that if he punched a Mullah on the nose, it would be reported in the press, but if he talks of tolerance and forgiveness and faith working together then it is not newsworthy ‘ No good news makes the headlines

RED CARPET

This is indeed the red carpet of the interfaith scene - a dialogue that is polite, official, tolerant, and diplomatic and politically correct. Tea and smiles, which create an official academic governmental narrative. But real questions are lurking under the surface - proclamation and proselytism, religious persecution, ‘Religious freedom’ conversion, the apostasy issue.
Unfortunately the only opportunities to connect with others are during tea breaks and during meals. Some photos and card sharing. And not enough time to really connect and hear each other’s stories.
There is a lot of agreement on what we have in common - But we need to explore the differences as well. To be challenged by ‘proximate others’ who are like us – people of faith - but also different from us - people of different faiths - For it is in the exploration of the difficult differences that we are able to be the deepest challenge each other. It helps us explore our own blind spots.

I am reminded of one of my favourite Nasruddin Stories:

Asked why it is that in the morning people go off in all different directions. After thinking for a moment Nasruddin replied: ‘if everyone went in the same direction the Earth would lose its balance! ’

from your own corresponent
Doha 26 April 06

The Fourth Doha Conference on Dialogue between Religions 25th – 27th April

I'm sitting in the business lounge on LHR ready for departure. 2 people from Cambridge are travelling with me Dr Ben Quash (also like Tim Dakin of CMS, he is a Canon theologian at Coventry Cathedral) and Catriona Laing who was recently in Iraq for a year. They are both involved in setting up an interfaith centre in Cambridge - under auspices of David Ford who is speaking on ‘the gospel among many faiths’ at the fulcrum conference ‘gospel in context’ on Friday back in London.

 

I've just seen a list of participants at the conference -135 of them from UK, UAE, Turkey, Tunisia, Switzerland, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Palestine, Morocco, Malaysia, Libya Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, Japan, Italy, Israel, Iran, Indonesia, India, Germany, France, Egypt, Denmark, Croatia, Bahrain, Algeria, Ukraine, USA. Mainly Muslim and at least 25-30 Christians and about 15 Jews
If you want to see more look  the conference website

They have been down as an archbishop, but don't worry there are 8 others ! I think maybe that is a little confusion around designating Rev (but maybe Rowan should watch his back with all these pretenders around!)

**************************

I’m now in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Doha which is airconditioned luxury on the edge of what appears to be a dusty, hazy building-site known as Doha.

About 30 of the delegates are here; the rest are in the ‘Four Seasons’, where the conference is being held.
I have just seen the programme and learned that it starts this evening, not this morning as I had originally been informed. I’ve also just learned of the website with all the details on it – including the previous 3 conference - Archbishop Rowan Williams really was at the Building Bridges Conference in April, 2003   You can read his speach 

The programme seems modelled on a scientific symposium with an introductory session tonight, hosted by H.E. Ahmed Bin Abdulla Al-Mahmoud, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs followed by official dinner. Then 6 sessions over the following day and a half. These cover:

1. Religion and Globalization; Religion and Enhancement of Moral Values;
Values and interest are the base of relations between ‘Ibrahimc Faiths’ (sic)
2. Freedom of Expression and Religious ‘Sacramentals’; Religion Women and Family.
3. Religious Pluralism and respecting the other; peacemaking and Religious Education
4. Religions and Environmental Protection
5. Religions and Civil Rights
6. Religions and Contemporary Scientific Developments

Some interesting typos in the draft programme:
Sir Iqbal Sacrane British Moslems Council and Lord Hilton of House of Lords are here. (no typos there, just names I recognise)
Metropolitan George Saliba Bishop of Orthodox, Surrealism of Mount Lebanon; (maybe a ‘school of painting’ should be Syrian! )
Dr Marwan A’zar Secretary of Pontiff Theological College Holly Spirit University Lebanon (sounds a bit prickly)
Prof Jacob Pender expert of Religions in MIDEST (between highest and lowest?)
Rabbii Krantz Douglas – Religious Man, USA (maybe they only have one religious man in the States)Prof Zagluol Al Najjar Islamic Thinker, Egypt (ditto Egypt)
Prof Jospeh Borraad Dean of College of Theology and Call (a high calling)
Bishop John Broadhurst is down as Bishop of Full Am (reminds me of Narnia

 and the ‘Land of War Drobe’)

But now I have to go. They still think I’m an Archbishop and I have just had a hand delivered letter – from the ‘Permanent Committee for Organising Conferences’ (sounds like an idea of hell to me) - with the seating plan for tonight and they’ve put me on the main stage ! Ooops ! Now where did I put my robes and purple shirt !

from your own correspondent 
25 April 06