‘Trialogue’: Dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims

Simon Schoon

Trialogue

Harry Mintjes[1] wrote the Foreword for the Dutch translation of the book of Karl-Josef Kuschel, Streit um Abraham.[2] He rejected ‘the current trend to speak - on the basis of a reorientation towards Judaism - of one Jewish-Christian tradition, which is seen as being opposed to every other religion, including Islam’.[3] He also pleaded for the acceptance of Islam as the ‘indispensable third party’ in Jewish-Christian dialogue.[4] In this article I want to try to evaluate this position, describe the status questionis of the so-called ‘trialogue’ and draw some cautious conclusions.

First, I want to 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

It is a myth that there is one Jewish-Christian tradition.[5] There is a growing resistance 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-existing continuity and harmony.[6]  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.[7] 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’[8]. 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’.[9]

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 static 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 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 2001, after the Iraq War, after the War in Lebanon, many feel the need and the urgency. In the past the different offices in the churches, that dealt with Christian-Muslims and Christian-Jewish relations, saw each other quite often as rivals. Every office defended its own dialogue-priorities. A huge number of studies were published on the respective bilateral dialogues.[10] Times have changed. We need each other urgently as partners. But there 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’. 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 till 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’.[11] 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 Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and of 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 Arab countries. Recently there were eruptions of  violence caused by the 14th century quotation on ‘Islam and violence’ by Pope Benedict XVI. And, of course, we have to realize the influence of the statements of the liberal parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who arrived in the Netherlands as a refugee from Somalia. 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 around her citizenship and passport. Is it possible to disregard her accusations against Islam by labelling them as exaggerated and the victim-language of a renegade? Do we hide ourselves from the harsh realities of our present time, because we like to cling to our multicultural ideals and tolerance-concept? 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?

Is there a route to steer between naïve optimism and depressing pessimism? Is it feasible to remain hopeful, with eyes open for the realities of our day? We have, anyhow, to continue to study, to do research on the past and the present of the relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Nowadays polemical and religious confrontations occur throughout the world in violent eruptions. Some people think that the main reason for all this violence is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which in recent times has also strongly impinged on the social problems in Europe. 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 are alive again and are becoming even more aggressive. But it is a myth, or at least a simplistic stereotype, to regard the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians as the heart of 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 Sunni’s in Iraq and other countries. But who has the expertise to distinguish between political facts and myths and lies?[12] 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, in 1974-1981, with sometimes violent confrontations, but also in peaceful neighbourly relations. 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 and selects different 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[13]- 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?[14] 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? Or could we better support the stand of a recent resolution of the Episcopal Church in the United States, which advocates an end to the isolation of East Jerusalem and Bethlehem from the West Bank, removal of the Wall, assurance of human rights for Palestinians, and so on? Should we listen to the voices of the Sabeel Institute for Palestinian Liberation Theology[15], or should we be horrified by the facts collected in the recently published book of Hans Jansen documenting Arab anti-Semitism, with a CD-ROM with 1500 shocking cartoons[16]? 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!

Need for 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 these three religions have confronted each other in Europe through the centuries. What has often been overlooked is the fact that the members of the three monotheistic religions have also lived side by side in peace for long periods. But even these periods of symbiosis are disputed. Was there a ‘Golden Age’ and a real convivencia in and after the 12th century in Andalusia, Spain, or is this supposition a myth?[17] And how do we interpret the dhimmi-status of non-Muslims in Muslim societies in the past? Many times it is emphasized that the dhimmi-status meant a privileged position, certainly much better than the position of Jews in Christian countries in the Middle Ages.[18] Often the dhimmi status is mentioned as an example of peaceful co-existence. Or is this position perhaps also part of the too rosy picture of dialogue enthusiasts? That is what the Israeli scholar Bat Ye’or would have us believe.[19] Recently this Israeli scholar was invited to the Netherlands to express her  totally different and controversial view on the dhimmi-status. But what is historical ‘truth’? Of course, we can easily use the argument that victims like Hirsi Ali and Bat Ye’or tend to exaggerate, but we do better to urge for the continuation of careful scrutiny and research.

Nobody could disagree with this observation that it is important to do more research both on the peaceful encounters and the polemical confrontations of these three religions, in order to discover the sociological and historical explanations for their occurrence. Such knowledge can increase the mutual understanding of the believers in these religions and is useful in political attempts to encourage them to live together in peace. Or does this sound too naïve and too optimistic? Perhaps it is, but the situation demands t hat we try. 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. My language in this article is less utopian and more realistic than at the Kampen Conference of 2000.[20] I emphasized first that most people are convinced - what is theologically not so self-evident - , 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 add 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’.

So, could it occur to me, a few years ago, that I was the object of a kind of ‘Noachidic’  approach, in a bookshop of the Lubavitch movement in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. In a Jewish environment this was for me a unique and peculiar experience. I was invited to become Noachide, and was offered several books and sermons on cassettes. Finally, I was given a bumper-sticker with the slogan 'Keep the seven, go to heaven'. 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’). 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[21]. 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.[22]

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.[23] 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[24], is not looking dated now? He presents 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. 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.

I agree with the criticism of Harry Mintjes, who, with appreciation for the approach of Kuschel, yet questions, if the author does justice to the ‘otherness’ of Abraham.[25] Does not Kuschel picture too much a ‘Christian’ and ‘modern-Western’ Abraham, whom he sets against the views of Jews and Muslims? Is it theologically possible to disconnect - by historical–critical exegesis - the biblical image of Abraham from the later interpretations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? All three religions will find back in their holy books their own image of Abraham and will be convinced that their view is the right one

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. It must be, for example, faced that there is today a virulent anti-Semitism in the Arab world, as Piet van der Horst intended to mention in his farewell speech at the university of Utrecht in 2006, but was prohibited to express, for fear of violent repercussions.  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 Israel the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel (ICCI) and the Israel Interfaith Committee are active in the field of trialogue.  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.[26]

Can the mainly polemical and apologetic approaches of the past, in Judaism, Christianity and Islam[27], be overcome and change 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 should join into 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?  Or are evangelicals only able to speak with Muslims, even with members of the Hamas movement in Gaza, if they see a chance to convert them to Christ?[28] Do Christian-Zionists also listen to the experiences of the Palestinian Christians, as they are for example expressed in the Sabeel Institute for Palestinian Liberation Theology? Are voices like those of Bernard Reitsma, who worked in Beirut, immediately  silenced in those circles and regarded as traitors?[29]

Conclusions and questions

1. Perhaps 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.[30] 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’[31]. 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.[32] In dialogue the particularity of the other may be celebrated and one may look for the theological fruitfulness yielding from differences between religions.[33]
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. Are Christians prepared to enter into an open dialogue by means of questions posed by the other? Can questions of 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?[34] 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 changed by entering into a dialogue with others.[35]
4. The emphasis on ethics does not need to preclude a spiritual dialogue and a dialogue of the heart.[36] 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.[37]