IT WILL not have escaped your notice that you are reading this article during a time of intolerance and violence, of the proliferation of war, notably in Eastern Europe and the Middle East; of the rise of the far-Right, demonstrated in many European countries; of the highest number of refugees the world has ever seen, more than 110 million people; with protest and counter-protest on our streets. My own country, the UK, has given demonstrations of these tendencies as adversaries are locked in deadly combat, each convinced they are wholly right and that the other is not only wrong but must be ignominiously defeated. And in the ‘Land of the Free’, a US president willfully pursues a policy of division and discrimination. How do we reflect on this global epidemic, which respects no boundaries and subverts public life, both political and religious? How can we live peaceably together in a violent, angry and divided world? Imagine a critic asking: “How do you solve the problem that has led people to kill one another in the name of God since the birth of human civilisation? At the end of the day, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim to be true. They conflict. Therefore, they cannot all be true. At most, one is. If Christianity is true, Judaism is false. If Islam is true, both Christianity and Judaism are false. It follows that these religions are bound to conflict whenever their followers take their truth claims seriously.” “For my part,” my critic continues, “I take this as sufficient evidence that all three are false. How could the God of all humanity command his followers to deny the equal humanity of those who conceive Him differently? I would rather live with the uncertainty of doubt than the certainty of faith, for it is that very certainty that leads people, convinced of their righteousness, to commit unspeakable crimes.” Dialogue – the key response I have come to realise that genuine dialogue is a key response to the challenges posed by our critic. Dialogue is good news in a world fractured by abrasiveness and aggressiveness. It is one way to be holy in the face of an unholy combination of religious fundamentalism, nationalistic chauvinism and political demagoguery. Why? Because dialogue means being genuinely open to different points of view. It requires listening to the other with compassion and respect for their humanity and God’s love for them, whatever our tribal fears. How then should we respond to fanatics, grounded in their fundamentalism, who are a major reason for today’s intolerance and violence? You know the type: people who have the unshakeable conviction that their sacred texts, or in their economic theories of socialism or capitalism, possess the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so that that their side is always right and those who oppose it invariably wrong. Aggressive chauvinism has grown in the religious sphere as much as anywhere else. In the assertive nationalist Hinduism of India and the consequent marginalisation of Indian Muslims and Christians; in the shrill Christian nationalism of central and Eastern Europe, not to forget the USA; among Muslim radical jihadists who express hatred of Christians and Jews. And in my faith too, in the threats posed by Jewish religious extremists, especially in the West Bank, who spew anti-Islamic and anti-Christian hatred as well as attacking Palestinians and denigrating Arabs more widely. These extremists are convinced they possess the truth while you’re sunk in error; they may then try to persuade you, but if you refuse, they may compel or even conquer you, imposing their view by force in the name of religious “truth”. The way forward What can we do under these circumstances? Is there an alternative to megaphone monologue? To start, if a few more of us were willing to stand up and speak out, we’d be better able to withstand the dogmatic extremists growling on TikTok, Instagram or X. What else can we do? We can, indeed must, dialogue. Over the years, I have learnt the value of saying, “Tell me your story” and then staying quiet. This prompts many to say how the world looks to them. I can then say how the world looks to me. I have found that it is possible to have a dialogue and so come to understand different views, bridging the distance between our perceptions to see the world for the way it is – an irreducible multiplicity of perspectives. I have learned from family and friends, students and colleagues, doubters and my opponents, that we must face the future together. Without togetherness I very much doubt we could have achieved what we have and more importantly, what we might yet set out to do. One of the great successes of Jewish-Christian dialogue is the recognition that we have learnt to make space for one another, letting go the self-assurance that endangers the search for mutual understanding. Genuine dialogue requires taking the ‘Other’ as seriously as one demands to be taken oneself, as the 1974 Vatican Guidelines to Nostra Aetate outlined. And we need to observe what the Lutheran Bishop, Krister Stendahl, taught, “Don’t compare your best to their worst”. Hamas, Israel, and the war in Gaza Nowhere is this more evident than in discussions today about Israel and Palestine – whether they take place in synagogues, churches and mosques, on college campuses or during marches. Speakers tend to be advocates of one side or another, pursuing a strictly partisan agenda. The atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel on 7th October 2023, including the deaths of 1200 people and the taking of 250 hostages, as well as the horror of the Israeli war in Gaza resulting in the deaths of nearly 70,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children, have resulted in terrible suffering and existential crises in the region, but also brought huge pressures on communities away from the conflict. In the UK alone, there has been a 12-fold increase in antisemitism, culminating in the Manchester synagogue attack in October,...
