Dialogue isn’t improvised” “

Helping the Churches to tackle the challenges of the meeting with Muslims: with this objective, the Council of the European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) and the Conference of the Churches in Europe (CEC-KEK) have published a joint document drawn up by the “Islam in Europe” committee, composed of members of the two church organizations. The text is subdivided into six chapters: the first examines the nature of pluralist society; the second refers to Scripture, while the third analyses the presuppositions for a “Church as sign and sacrament of covenant and brotherhood”; the fourth reviews the many “pioneers of dialogue” throughout history. In the fifth and sixth chapters, the Committee proposes some stages in the dialogue with Muslims and makes some suggestions for the formation of Christians. The document – premise the Churches – is inspired by the Gospel, which “asks us to consider every human being as our brother or sister and to love our enemies. Its aim is to propose a reflection and a code of behaviour: this would have to be adapted according to the context and the needs of Christian witness, in a world that cannot be restricted to a village, city or nation”. Some passage from the document below. Time for openness. Charles de Foucauld, the Reformed pastor Samuel Zwemer, the patriarch Athenagoras and John Paul II, promoter of the interreligious meetings of Assisi. “After the time of the pioneers – says the document – there’s the time of the ecclesial institutions; this spirit of openness now needs to be assumed and brought to completion by all Christians. The whole Church must attract the support of the majority, so that the time of opening to others in respect for the conviction of each may be achieved in the interreligious field”. Stages of dialogue. But this opening to others cannot be improvised. It needs to be achieved in stages. The document takes into consideration some of these stages. First, the Churches point out that we cannot “stretch out our hand” to the other person, unless we have first gained “an awareness of our injuries” and recognised that “God alone can heal” our memories and “inspire us to look without prejudice at the faith and life of others”. Entering into dialogue does not mean “considering as valid everything that the other person does, still less taking as ‘gospel’ everything he says. Vigilance is necessary to evaluate differences in faith and religious practice. Anyone who finds everything in the other community good is either ingenuous or scared. The aim of dialogue is not to suppress differences, but to remove the psychological barricades erected between us”. Another stage to enter into dialogue with Islam is “having the courage to no longer defend the past at all costs, but to consider truthfully whether in that past we were as perfect as our history books told us and sometimes continue to tell us”. Lastly, being “brothers and sisters in humanity” and “believers in the one God” does not mean being equal in our way of believing. “The refusal to accept differences – stress the CCEE and CEC-KEK – has led groups of believers to despise each other and even make war. Recognising diversity is easier once we have understood that it’s not necessary to believe in the same way to go forward together”. By accepting diversity “we curb aggressiveness… towards other believers and also avoid the trap of syncretism or the levelling of faith to the lowest common denominator”. Meeting others in truth. “To meet others in truth – write the Churches – we need to make an effort to get to know them so as to be able to reach them in what they are and what they want to be”. So, another presupposition for dialogue is formation. The Churches invite the Christian communities to commit themselves to a form of catechesis that is “neither offensive nor defensive” but that is able to consider others “with esteem”. The document invites us to “listen” to those persons within the Christian community who are averse to an approach to Muslims, having experienced the difficulties and suffering caused by relations with them. A paragraph of the document is dedicated to interreligious marriage, which is “inescapably” destined to increase: “perhaps – the document suggests – we would do well to take a positive attitude to such couples”. “If we had less fear of each other – the document concludes – we would be able to do great things”.