Trialogue: A Perspective from the Netherlands, and from Israel 

                                                                                     Simon Schoon

Introduction
In the north of Israel near the Lebanese border, is a Christian village located, called Nes Ammim. That name means ‘Banner of Nations’, a phrase derived from a text of the Bible: Isaiah 11: 10. I lived with my family in this ‘Christian kibbutz’, from 1974-1981. I was the pastor, as well as the director of the study and dialogue programme. At that time, 150-200 people were living there; they had come from Europe and the United States.  The village was founded in 1963 by pioneers from Switzerland and Holland, committed Christians who were motivated by what they had experienced in Europe during the Shoah (the Holocaust). They were convinced that the anti-Judaic teaching of the churches shared responsibility for what had happened to the Jews in the dark time of Nazi-Germany. They wanted to turn a new page in the book of Christian Jewish relations, and to promote dialogue instead of mission. I was happy to be able to add my own contribution to writing that new page. From 1981 till 2007 I lived and worked in the Netherlands. I was, as theologian of the Protestant Church, responsible for Jewish-Christian relations in the Netherlands, was the founder and first chairman of the Dutch Council of Christians and Jews (1981-1992), was pastor of the Reformed Church in the city of Gouda (1991-2007), and professor for interfaith relations at the Thological University of the Protestant Church in Kampen (1996-2007).
After my retirement in 2007 I returned with my wife to Nes Ammim in Israel, to serve the village anew, in the function of director of the ‘Centre for Meeting and Dialogue’. The original motivation of Nes Ammim has been adapted to the present situation; the aim is now to further Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue, and to help Jews and Palestinians come together in seminars and encounters. They then explore the ways  and the implications of living together in the same land.

In this lecture/article I will attempt to evaluate in short my experiences in the Netherlands and Israel; I will describe the status questionis of the so-called ‘trialogue’ and draw some cautious conclusions. The situation in the Netherlands is very different from what is going on in Israel. Yet, some tensions are comparable, like the growing emphasis on “exclusive truth” claims and the rise of political and religious extremism. The recent internet film Fitna of the Dutch rightist parliamentarian Geert Wilders, showing Islam as an extremist religion, is an example of this development. In Israel and Palestine the political conflict is, on the one hand, a barrier for interfaith dialogue, on the other hand a stimulus to try to build bridges between the different segments of the population.  But dialogue, let alone trialogue, is still a very rare phenomenon.

The word ‘trialogue’
Let me first comment on the vocabulary in using the word ‘trialogue’. Dialogue, when it includes a third party, is sometimes referred to as a ‘trialogue’, but this pre-supposes, incorrectly, that ‘di-’ in ‘dialogue’ means ‘two’. In fact, the whole word dialogue denotes ‘discussion’, without indication of number. At the same time, it is of course in the nature of language that new words may be coined for specific needs, and often through false etymology. So, we can decide to speak about ‘trialogue’ and mean with this neologism a trilateral dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims. The word ‘trialogue’ has already entered both popular discussions and scientific studies. A ‘trilateral dialogue’ between Judaism, Christianity and Islam goes beyond both bilateral dialogues – Jewish–Christian, Muslim–Christian and Jewish–Muslim – and a general dedication to multi-religious encounter.

Not ‘one’ Jewish-Christian tradition
The afore-mentioned parliamentarian Geert Wilders likes to speak about the one Jewish-Christian tradition in Europe. But it is a myth that there is one Jewish-Christian tradition.[1] There is a growing resistance on the Jewish side to all attempts to annex Judaism for Christian identity needs and to harmonize Jewish and Christian tradition. No less a person than the post-modern philosopher Jean-François Lyotard has expressed the opinion that there is an insurmountable difference between Judaism and Christianity. Because of that he raised fundamental objections against the popular trend to link the adjective Jewish-Christian with nouns like ‘culture’ and ‘religion’. The hyphen between Jewish and Christian suggests, according to this philosopher, a non-existent continuity and harmony.[2]  Without accepting his view that there is no real dialogue possible between Judaism and Christianity, I support his protest against any form of harmonizing the two religions.[3] With Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of Great Britain, a defender of the importance of Jewish-Christian dialogue, I prefer to emphasize ‘the dignity of difference’[4]. In the context of both the Jewish-Christian dialogue and the so-called ‘trialogue’ his observation is explicit: ‘Those who are confident in their faith are not threatened but enlarged by the different faiths of others. In the midst of our multiple insecurities we need that confidence now’.[5]

The present situation 
One thing may be beyond dispute: The need for dialogue is today more urgent than ever. But what, in real terms, is the situation of the dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims? There are many urgent calls to meet each other and enter into a concrete dialogue, but the reality is poor. There are conferences on religious dialogue, ‘trilateral dialogue’ and inter-religious encounter, where one hears often the same background noise, the same words like ‘tolerance’, ‘peace’, ‘respect’, ‘human dignity’, ‘human rights’, etcetera. There are always enthusiastic keynote lecturers, who will stress the same topics. Sometimes, it seems, they are preaching to the already converted. It is not my intention to underestimate these encounters or even make light of the meaning behind these words ‘dialogue’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’. But, yet, we have to question ourselves: Are these dialogue meetings not far away from the daily reality of ordinary people who are not able and not willing to attend dialogue conferences of the experts and ‘hobbyists’?
There are some hopeful attempts to enter into a new kind of trialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims. After Nine-Eleven, after the Iraq War, after the Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, many feel the need and the urgency. But these attempts are only very fragile beginnings of a trialogue, and it is not yet clear if these limited efforts can be regarded as a kind of promise for the future of the encounter between the three Abrahamic religions. For almost all people, including the ‘dialogue experts’ it is a totally new challenge. The adherents of the three religions have scarcely started to do their own ‘homework’ in an internal theological reflection on ‘the mysterious other’. Nevertheless, we have to do both: Our own theological ‘homework’, and to start a new kind of trialogue. The situation in our world does not allow us to delay the beginning of a trialogue until we have finished our internal reflections and solved all our own theological problems.

After 9/11
Times have changed, indeed. On November 14, 2000, a symposium was held at the Theological University in Kampen on the theme ‘Creating space for each other. A theological challenge’.[6] It was about a year before the terrorist attacks in September 2001 in Washington and New York. It would be interesting to investigate if the dialogue language has changed since that shocking event. My lecture in 2000 was rather optimistic. I had just attended some wonderful conferences, one in Andalusia in Spain where in a Seville symposium Jews, Muslims and Christians studied and discussed in an open-minded atmosphere. After 9/11 many questioned themselves: Were we not too friendly and naïve before 2001? Should we just go on saying the same nice things, after that day of horror, after all the suicide bombings and liquidations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, after the war in Lebanon, and during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I am certainly not the only one who has feelings of doubts and ambivalence.

When we look at the present situation in the Netherlands, we have to ask ourselves:  should we not speak of a paradigm shift in thinking and in political practice after the killings of politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and of film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004? We have to consider the impact of the Danish cartoons affair in 2006 and the violence that followed it in Muslim countries. There were eruptions of violence caused by the 14th century quotation on ‘Islam and violence’ by Pope Benedict XVI. We have to realize the influence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who arrived in the Netherlands as a refugee from Somalia, and became a liberal parliamentarian. She became a kind of symbol, both a hero and a victim, certainly after the Dutch government fell in June 2006, because of the quarrels surrounding her citizenship and passport. It is too easy a way out to disregard her accusations against Islam by labelling them as exaggerated and the victim-language of a renegade. In a much more offensive and insensitive way Geert Wilders is repeating the same arguments. Many Dutch people are influenced by this and ask themselves: Do we hide ourselves from the harsh realities of our present time, because we like to cling to our multicultural ideals and concept of tolerance? The tone has changed, both in table talks at home and in the debates in parliament. What at the end of the 20th century was absolutely not acceptable language in politics, is now common talk by politicians of almost all political parties. Also most dialogue experts speak in different terms than about ten years ago: some are more careful and sophisticated, others are angry and disappointed.

Naïve?
In Israel there was a serious setback in relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims during and after the Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. In wartime and conflict the old stereotypes live again and become even more aggressive. But it is a myth, or at least a simplistic stereotype, to regard the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as the only reason for all the problems in the Middle East. There are also conflicts between Christians and Muslims, between Jews and Christians, and even more between Muslims and Muslims, between Shi’ites and Sunnis in Iraq and other countries. But who has the expertise to distinguish between political facts and myths and lies?[7] Is it possible to discover historical ‘truth’ or do we always look through the spectacles of our own particular experiences? It is easy to advocate a multicultural society, when we live in well-to-do neighbourhoods and not in the slums of the big cities. It is easy to propose solutions for the conflict in the Middle East, when we never have lived there. My personal opinions are not only collected in polite conferences on dialogue and tolerance, I learnt much more by experiences in the rough daily realities of a lived life between Jews, Muslims and Christians in the Galilee, and in my frequent visits to the West Bank. I do not want and I am not able to propose a political solution for the complicated conflicts of the Middle East. But one thing is quite clear: dialogue is more needed than ever.

Objective?

Is it possible to get an objective impression of what is going in the Middle East? How should we describe and analyze Christian reactions and responses to political developments in Israel and the Palestinian territories? A journalist has already decided for us what we have to believe, when he chooses to show reactions to suicide bombings in Israel or to assassinations and air attacks in the Palestinian territories. Should we listen to the voices of Christians in Bethlehem, of whom many – according Father Pizzaballa, the Franciscan Custos of the Holy Land[8]- feel harassed by the Muslim majority? Or should we listen more to the voice of the Lutheran Pastor of Bethlehem, Mitri Raheb, who wrote the book in 2004 ‘Bethlehem Besieged: Stories of Hope in Time of Trouble?[9] Or should we respect the passionate feelings of some Christian Zionists, who traveled from Holland to Israel in 2005 to join Orthodox settlers in demonstrating against the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza? Should we not listen more intensively to the voices of the Sabeel Institute for Palestinian Liberation Theology[10]? Many people in Holland are horrified by the facts collected in the book of Hans Jansen, published a few years ago, documenting Arab anti-Semitism, with many shocking cartoons[11]? Is this a phenomenon of age-old anti-Semitism or only an angry reaction to the daily news on violence in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Most people lack the information and the expertise to decide, and side therefore with the party they like or have supported in the past. Everybody collects his own facts and own so-called scientific proofs of the facts. The result is a dialogue of the deaf!

Research

We have to continue to study on the question, how we define the religious values in Judaism, Christianity and Islam which underlie political disputes. In order to achieve this goal it is important to consider both past and present conflicts. History shows that the three monotheistic religions have confronted each other in Europe through the centuries. What has often been overlooked is the fact that the members of the three religions have also lived side by side in peace for long periods. Many times it is emphasized that the dhimmi-status for Jews in Muslim society meant a privileged position, certainly much better than the position of Jews in Christian countries in the Middle Ages.[12] The dhimmi status is mentioned as an example of peaceful co-existence. But the Israeli scholar Bat Ye’or presents a totally different view on the dhimmi-status.[13] What is historical ‘truth’ and what is modern political manipulation? We can only urge for the continuation of careful scrutiny and research. There is no escape from the challenge to study religious dialogue and pluralism, and to research into theologia religionum, cross cultural theology and the theology of dialogue. 

After 2001 I wrote the entry on ‘Trialogue’ in A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations. I emphasized first that most people are convinced, that the foundation of trialogue is monotheism, that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the belief in one God, and that all three regard Abraham as the ancestor of their faith. But I added immediately, that, despite the challenge to search for a common language and potential symbiosis, there are huge doctrinal and psychological barriers to trialogue within all three monotheistic religions. Collective memories prevent uninhibited dialogue: for example, most Jews think of Christianity in terms of suffering and persecution; while Muslims have not forgotten the Crusades, and see in Western aspirations for world hegemony the old Crusader mentality in a new guise. All three religions have wide experience in polemics and apologetics, but not in real dialogue, for which addressing one’s own theological agenda is an essential preparation.

 

The ‘other’ in Jewish views

For Jews the traditional assumption that Judaism constituted the only fully authentic expression of divine revelation had been modified by the 3rd century CE to accord the status of ger toshav (‘resident alien’) to individuals who abandoned idolatry, a recognition formalised in the Noachide Laws. In Jewish philosophy there were several attempts – for example by Sa‘adia Gaon (882–942), developed by Judah ha-Levi and Maimonides – to find ‘theological space’ for the other: Islam and Christianity were ‘in error’, but could be accommodated as part of the divine design to bring the nations gradually to God. A further step was made by the Yemenite philosopher Netanel ibn Fayyumi (died 1164), who asserts the authenticity of the prophecy of Muhammad, as revealed in the Qur’an, and at least the possibility that there are additional authentic revelations: ‘He sends a prophet to every people according to their language.’

Judaism has formulated its conception about ‘the others’, i.e. about non-Jews and members of different religions, most explicitly in the concept of the Noachide laws. Among scholars, Jew and non-Jew alike, there are many differences of opinion on almost every aspect of these laws, not least on when this notion arose, but also on the specific number of the Noachide laws, and on the influence and the purpose of this idea. One of the first listings of these commandments, only preceded by a passage in the Tosefta, is from the Babylonian Talmud. Adjudication, or the creating of justice in courts, is mentioned as a positive commandment, and the following prohibitions are listed: idolatry, blasphemy, sexual immorality, bloodshed, robbery, and the eating of a limb torn from a living animal (bSanhedrin 56ab). The developing concept of the Noachide laws was the outcome of an internal Jewish process. The resulting theory served originally to define the borderlines between Jews and non-Jews in the first centuries. That made it possible for Jews to decide, when they could cooperate with non-Jews and when not. The formulation of these commandments was an instrument in the hands of the Jewish people to assist their survival in a non-Jewish environment, through always changing and often threatening circumstances. When in the course of history the Noachide commandments as norms were abandoned and betrayed by non-Jews, it became almost impossible for Jews to live and to survive in such a society. Only in a much later period were the Noachide Commandments regarded and sometimes propounded as an invitation to non-Jews to accept them as ‘universal moral law’. There were attempts in the recent past, in the United States at least, to acknowledge the Noachide commandments as universal law. In 1986 a correspondence was conducted between the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson and President Ronald Reagan. On March 26, 1991, U.S. president George Bush signed into law a congressional resolution on the Seven Laws.

The ‘other’ in Christian  views

What about ‘space for the other’ in Christianity? In Christian circles anti-Judaism has not yet been banished entirely from church and theology, and Islamophobia is a widespreadphenomenon. Of the three monotheistic religions it is Christianity which has most consistently excluded others from ultimate salvation. Jews may regard Muslims and Christians as ‘sons of Noah’; Muslims may regard Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’. For many centuries, however, Christians have adhered to Cyprian’s tenet extra ecclesiam nulla salus (‘no salvation outside the Church’) and interpreted his saying in an exclusivist way. To find space for the other, attempts have been made in recent years to develop a more dynamic covenant theology, and to emphasise a theology of the Holy Spirit[14]. It is asserted that the promise to Abraham has been widened and confirmed to all peoples by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. This belief might accommodate the theological question whether Muhammad can be seen as a special envoy of God. Some theologians regard it as a special work of the Holy Spirit that the Name of the God of the Bible has been brought to the lips of the Arabic and many other peoples by means of the prophet Muhammad. For other theologians this supposition is unacceptable, because they are of the opinion that in the New Testament the Spirit always is connected with Jesus Christ and his words.

No harmonization
It must always be remembered: Trialogue does not mean looking for a harmonising common denominator, because the core beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam cannot be harmonised. The place that the Torah holds for Jews is for Christians held by Jesus Christ, and for Muslims by the Qur’an as the infallible and literal revelation of Allah through Muhammad, the seal of all the prophets before him.[15] Differences can not and must not be denied. Although there are some promising new approaches, where dialogue partners are looking at the fruitfulness of theological differences between religions, there is still a tendency to look for a common ‘ecumenical’ heritage.

One may ask, if the attempt of Kuschel, seven years before 9/11, 2001, to find such a heritage[16], is not looking dated now? He tried to disconnect - by historical–critical exegesis - the biblical image of Abraham from the later interpretations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And presened three remarkable paradoxes: the process within Judaism of halachisation and judification of the non-Jew Abraham; the process within Christianity toward a Christianising and ecclesiastic framework of the non-Christian Abraham; and the process within Islam of Islamizing the non-Muslim Abraham into a paragon within Islam. So, all three religions find back in their holy books their own image of Abraham and are convinced that their view is the only right one. A dialogue about Abraham between the three religions seems out of the question if each of the three separate religions maintains its absolute claim on Abraham. To universalize Abraham seems historically and theologically an impossible road, which leads to a kind of syncretism, which would not be acceptable to any of the three religions.

No alternative
Attempts for dialogue are regarded by many as utopian and unrealistic, too far off from the daily reality of the confrontations between the three monotheistic religions. Yet, there is no alternative. Dialogue must confront the harsh realities of our world and not try to create an isolated island with a peaceful atmosphere. A dialogue is never a real ‘dialogue’, when it finishes as soon as somebody dares to mention certain facts or opinions, which another does not want to hear or to know. 

There are only small beginnings of a ‘trialogue’. And the question can not be answered whether these small attempts will survive the tensions of the present time. Since 1967 the Fraternité d’Abraham in France has tried to work for better relations between religions in the spirit of the pioneer Louis Massignon (1883-1962). An example in Germany is the long-established annual meeting of the Standing Conference of Jews, Christians and Muslims in Europe, always held in Bendorf am Rhein, in which members of the three religions participate. In Great Britain the Three Faith Forum is active in the field of ‘trialogue’. A few more examples could be mentioned but the obstacles seem to be great.[17] In Israel there are several organizations active in bilateral dialogue, namely the Interfaith Encounter Association, the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel. Also in the place, where I live and work, in Nes Ammim, a lot of dialogue events are being held. In the Netherlands there is very little organised effort to give space to the trialogue. 

Will it be possible in the nearby future to overcome the mainly polemical and apologetic approaches of the past, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam[18], and to change these into a real dialogue situation? Can this be done without simplistic harmonization, but in deep respect for the differences and connections between the three religions? But who are able and willing to conduct such a dialogue? Can we also invite into the dialogue, and include in our conversations, those who have mainly fundamentalist or partisan views? Could, for example, Christian Zionists be able to enter into a trialogue? It is very doubtful if their frame of thought allows them to listen also to the experiences of the Palestinian Christians, as these are for example expressed in the Sabeel Institute in Jerusalem for Palestinian Liberation Theology.

Conclusions and questions
1. There is too much idealizing and harmonizing when we speak of the three Abrahamic faiths or religions. Kuschel wants to call the three religions to acknowledge the presence of Abraham in the other religion.[19] But dialogue does not mean looking for the lowest common denominator.

2. The integrity and particularity of the other is not to be violated. The Jewish philosopher David Hartman, from Jerusalem, is of the opinion that God has entered into a series of covenants with different peoples and communities. From that perspective he may call his fellow Jews ‘to celebrate the dignity of the stranger in our midst’[20]. It is dangerous to universalize love for the other who is a stranger. ‘Love is always particularized; those who seek to universalize it make it empty and meaningless’, Hartman writes.[21] In dialogue the particularity of the other may be celebrated and one may look for the theological fruitfulness yielding from differences between religions.[22]

3. Trialogue is an urgent task, but can not and must not replace the bilateral dialogue between Jews and Christians, between Muslims and Christians, and between Jews and Muslims. They all have their specific value and their own theological place.

4. When I speak especially for my own Christian identity, I want to emphasize that  Christians have still to do a lot of ‘homework’. They have to be prepared to enter into an open dialogue by means of questions posed by the other. Could questions from Jews and Muslims about (for Christians) central themes, such as the Incarnation and the Trinity, spark theological reflection that goes beyond polemic and apologetics? Or is it a foregone conclusion that these themes will leave the Christian identity unchanged forever?[23] Or can other monotheistic believers help us frame our minds about ourselves and God in ways, which we could not have reached without their help? In other words: are we, in dialogue, principally open to change? There are many testimonies of people, who have been shaped or even radically changed by entering into a dialogue with others.[24]

5. The emphasis on ethics does not need to preclude a spiritual dialogue and a dialogue of the heart. Further research must be done to create space for dialogue on spirituality and mysticism, and to find forms of inter-religious prayer, that are acceptable to participants of different religions.[25]

Simon Schoon is since 2007 Emeritus Pastor of the Dutch Protestant Church in Gouda, Netherlands, and Emeritus Professor Interfaith Relations of the Protestant Theological University, Kampen, Netherlands, and presently working as Director of the Dialogue << Lezingen