Religious Dialogue: Its Principles and Role in Safeguarding Civil Peace

Professor Michel Abs

The secretary general of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC)

Recently, the media and social media platforms were abuzz over a discussion of a purely religious nature between a person who had converted from one religion to another and someone criticizing that conversion. The discussion sparked a wave of fierce and heated controversy among followers of different religions, to the point that we may describe it as a kind of cyber civil war taking place in the virtual world.

Since the Middle East Council of Churches is one of the pioneering bodies in the field of dialogue, as stated in its founding documents, and since its institutions are active in dialogue at all levels, we find it necessary to reiterate our perspective on this matter, a perspective that is the product of five decades of experience and practical engagement.

Dialogue is a noble human value and a civilized means of communication among people. In pluralistic societies, dialogue becomes an existential necessity rather than an intellectual luxury. Yet the notion of “religious dialogue” carries particular sensitivity because it touches upon what lies deepest within the human person: faith, identity, and sacred beliefs. It is therefore essential to establish principles and safeguards for such dialogue so that it does not turn from a bridge of understanding into an instrument of destruction.

Why is religious dialogue not suitable for the general public?

Opening discussions on complex doctrinal matters to the general public without proper scholarly and ethical frameworks can result in more harm than benefit, for several reasons.

First, there is a lack of scholarly tools. Major religious and theological questions are intertwined with disciplines such as scriptural interpretation, the principles of jurisprudence, theology, and history. The general public often lacks these tools and may therefore confuse a text with its interpretation, a general ruling with a specific one, or clear passages with ambiguous ones. This can lead to distorted understandings of both one’s own religion and the religion of others.

Second, there is the risk of slipping into polemics and fanaticism. When non-specialists debate matters regarded as fundamental or immutable, the discussion can quickly shift from a search for truth to an attempt to defend oneself or one’s community. Emotions are provoked, judgments are issued, and intellectual disagreement can turn into personal and sectarian hostility.

Third, there is the danger of fueling civil conflict. Historical and contemporary experience shows that the spark of many sectarian conflicts has often been an irresponsible statement made in a public gathering or an inflammatory debate conducted from a public platform. The wider public may not possess the necessary mechanisms for restraint and de-escalation when tensions rise, allowing misunderstanding to develop into estrangement and estrangement into conflict.

For this reason, dialogue concerning the core of religious doctrines and theological or denominational differences should remain within the sphere of specialists: religious scholars, specialized researchers, and thinkers who possess the necessary scholarly tools and who understand the methodology of dialogue and the ethics of disagreement.

What, then, is the practical alternative?

It is the “dialogue of life” among followers of different religions, denominations, and communities.

If the “dialogue of doctrines” belongs primarily to specialists, what is the role of ordinary people? Their role is to practice the “dialogue of life”, the kind of dialogue that builds nations and preserves them.

Such dialogue does not ask, “Who is right concerning matters of the unseen?” Rather, it asks: “How can we live together in dignity and peace?”

This form of dialogue rests on three foundations.

The first foundation is mutual respect for beliefs. This means recognizing every person’s right to embrace what he or she believes to be true, without ridicule, contempt, or coercion. Respect for belief means respect for freedom of conscience, which is upheld by religions, divine laws, and civil legislation.

The second foundation is respect for the customs and traditions of every religious community and denomination, each of which has its own particularities in its feasts, occasions, personal-status matters, and social customs. Respecting this diversity is an acknowledgment of the richness of society rather than a threat to its unity. Unity does not mean uniformity; it means coexistence within a framework of diversity.

The third foundation is cooperation in public and humanitarian affairs. This means moving from the question of “what divides us” to the question of “what unites us.” Poverty, illness, ignorance, the environment, security, and the concerns of young people are common issues that belong to no single religion or denomination. When followers of different religions and communities work together in hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations, barriers begin to dissolve and trust is built.

Throughout all of this, we must emphasize that civil peace represents one of the highest objectives of every form of dialogue in our societies, because safeguarding civil peace also safeguards human dignity. We must therefore affirm that not every form of dialogue is commendable. Dialogue that leads to division and discord is harmful and blameworthy. Likewise, silence that leads to isolation and withdrawal is also harmful.

Wisdom requires us to distinguish between specialists and the general public. This means leaving “theological dialogue” to theologians, to be conducted calmly and objectively in scholarly settings, while the rest of us practice a “dialogue of citizenship” in the street, at home, in schools, and in the workplace, in a spirit of love and mutual respect.

Only then can we achieve the difficult balance: protecting our faith from oversimplification and trivialization while protecting our homeland from strife and division. Through disciplined dialogue, we safeguard religion; through respect for life, we safeguard the human person; and through cooperation, we build one homeland spacious enough for everyone.

Here, we must recall the words of His Beatitude Patriarch John X: "Between 'us' and 'you,' the 'and' falls away, leaving only 'us as you' and 'you as us.' For together, we share a common history, with all its ups and downs, and our destiny is one."

It is through these values that Nations are built and preserved.