Interfaith Dialogue: Assessing Theories

of Change
by Reina C. Neufeldt
Interfaith dialogue garnered considerable positive attention and derision
after September 11, 2001. This article critically examines expectations of
interfaith dialogue by clarifying explicit and implicit suppositions of how
and why things will change because of dialogue. Three broad approaches
to dialogue are identified: theological, political, and peacebuilding.
Hypotheses about change within each approach are identified and
explored through case examples. The article argues that while interfaith
dialogue can contribute to personal, relational, and structural change, each
of the three approaches does not do so equally. The article concludes that
proactive reflection on theories of change within dialogue is necessary for
interfaith dialogue to achieve its potential to build peace.

Samuel Huntingtons controversial theory of a pending clash of civilizations elevated the role of religion as a fault line for civilizational
conflict and a matter for public debate in the 1990s.1 The tragic
Al Qaeda attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, and
Osama bin Ladens call to holy war confirmed this view for some;
others argued that religion resurged because of the failures of modern
secular political ideologies.2 Empirical evidence for the role of religion
in contemporary violent conflicts supported such concerns.3 At the
same time, scholars and practitioners saw tremendous potential for
religious leaders and communities to transform conflict. Interfaith
dialogue, with its broad engagement between people of different faith
traditions communicating about faith and issues of common concern,
gained particular notice. In 2007, the United Nations (UN) held sessions on interfaith dialogue, and the Assembly President suggested,
Promoting a true dialogue among civilizations and religions is
perhaps the most important political instrument that we can use to
reach out across borders and build bridges of peace and hope.4 This

PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 36, No. 3, July 2011

 2011 Peace History Society and
Peace and Justice Studies Association

344

Interfaith Dialogue

345

UN-sponsored dialogue marked unprecedented international attention

in the secular halls of diplomacy.
While interfaith dialogue garnered considerable positive attention,
it was also clear many were pessimistic about the degree to which it
mitigated or transformed violent conflict. As John Micklethwaite
notes, If you gather together a group of self-professed foreign-policy
expertswhether they be neoconservatives, realpolitickers or urbane
European diplomatsyou can count on a sneer if you mention interfaith dialogue. At best, they say, it is liberal waffle; at worst it is
naive appeasement.5 When interfaith dialogue fails, it reinforces
arguments that religious-based actors have no bearing on peace processes and religion is more effective at mobilizing people for violence
than for peace. When it succeeds, it is seen as a minor footnote to a
major political peace process.
There is surprisingly little analysis of the influence and consequences of interfaith dialogue in research literature to justify either support or derision. There are preliminary efforts to systematically analyze
dialogue as a conflict resolution intervention, but few attempt to speak
about its impact. Some identify dimensions of and views toward interfaith dialogue as well as map initiatives underway and even suggest
ideas for evaluation.6 However, authors are unable to speak to the longterm and broader social effects of dialogue. Impact remains elusive.
This article identifies three dominant large-scale theories of
change that are embedded in current approaches to interfaith dialogue.7 That is, it clarifies the implicit and explicit suppositions of
how and why things will change because of interfaith dialogue as
articulated by practitioners and clusters them into three broad perspectives on change. The three general approaches to change are mapped
and presented along with sub-theories or working hypotheses of how
change occurs and sample cases.8 The article argues that while
interfaith dialogue can contribute to building peace in significant
ways, not all types of dialogue will produce the sought after changes.
One perspective may contribute to individual and relational changes
within and between religious communities but does not contribute to
structural and socio-political change. The second perspective may contribute to socio-political change but does not produce deep individual
or relational changes. The third perspective may generate individual,
relational, and socio-political changes but at a cost of over-extension.
The article concludes with a proposition for integrated, proactive
reflection on theories of change within interfaith dialogue activities to

346

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

establish a concrete learning process to help dialogue organizers and

participants articulate and pursue their otherwise under-articulated
ideas about how interfaith dialogue can and will contribute to peace.
RELIGION, CONFLICT, AND PEACE

It is helpful to begin by clarifying the central concepts grounding

this analysis. Religion refers to the various forms of thought and
behaviour around which people coalesce to become aware of or relate
to Ultimate Reality.9 Religions are commonly composed of four
broad elements: theological beliefs and values, religious practices,
behavioural norms, and a confessional community.10 Together these
elements create living cultures, which affect personal and social identity, behaviour, and thought. Interfaith dialogue often occurs between
representatives of formal religions but not always.
The relationship between religion and conflictthe perception of
mutually incompatible goals between groups11is generally understood in three ways: as a cause of, an inspiration for, or an exacerbating factor of violence in inter-group conflict. Some argue religion
causes violent conflict when religion defines end-goals, such as establishing a religious legal state, or when it inspires repression against
people of other faith traditions and reinforces exclusive identitygroup boundaries.12 Others suggest religion inspires violence by providing absolute ideologies and texts that support holy war; here, holy
warriors engage in a cosmic struggle between good and evil, which
provides meaning and prevents compromise.13 Yet, other researchers
suggest that religion exacerbates conflict when political elites manipulate religion to rally supporters, legitimate an insurgency, recruit
and motivate fighters, identify sacred objects or holy sites for protection, discount physical survival, and provide tangible benefits to disadvantaged potential insurgents.14 As Scott Appleby observes, given
the links between religion and violence it seems fair to ask how
right-minded people could possibly consider religion also to be a
source of diplomacy, nonviolent conflict transformation and peacebuilding.15 Nevertheless, he and others argue religion holds seeds
for peace.16
Religious peacebuilding refers to actions taken by people acting
with an expressed religious mandate (individuals or institutional
representatives) to constructively and nonviolently prevent, reduce or
transform inter-group conflict. It therefore includes and goes beyond

Interfaith Dialogue

347

interfaith dialogue. Research on religious-based peacebuilding began

in the 1990s with Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampsons work
on the potential for religious actors to transform identity-based
conflicts in international affairs.17 A variety of subsequent works
articulated roles for religious actors and institutions in building
peace.18 Examples of activities listed as part of religious peacebuilding include efforts by trusted and respected religious leaders to provide good offices or religious leaders and lay groups directly
mediating disputes.
Interfaith dialogue gained scholarly attention in the late 1980s
based upon work by theologians and religious practitioners.19 While
intensive ecumenical and interfaith engagement began earlier (e.g.,
Roman Catholic bilateral dialogues began with Nostra Aetate in the
1960s), scholarly attention to the nature and content of interfaith dialogue remained largely limited to religious studies into the 1990s.
When world events thrust religious dimensions of violence to the forefront in 2001, there was extreme disappointment for those already
engaged in dialogue.20 In contrast, the events sparked new and sustained attention to dialogue amongst many.
THREE PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE

In reviewing research and practice, three basic orientations regarding how change occurs through dialogue emerge: theological,
political, and peacebuilding.21 These orientations are framed by
assumptions embedded in areas of scholarship that affect the theories
of change operating in each stream of thought: the first being theology
and religious studies, the second political science and international
relations, and the third conflict transformation and peacebuilding
scholarship. Interfaith dialogue efforts emerging from these respective
areas of scholarship demonstrate divergent views of the intersection of
politics, religion, and conflict and generate very different formats as
well as expectations of outcomes.22 For example, those engaging in
dialogue from a theological perspective are less likely to see religion
as a cause of conflict than those operating from the political and
peacebuilding perspectives. The role of actors engaged in dialogue,
therefore, also vary, with the political and peacebuilding perspectives
geared more toward engaging with secular peace processes than those
operating from a theological perspective. These differences are summarized in an abbreviated comparison of the three orientations in

Theology and Religious Studies

Religion does not cause violent

conflict; its resources can inspire
violence if the faith is perceived
in danger

Religious actors and institutions

operate outside of political and
legal structures

Increase understanding of
doctrines, beliefs, values and
practices. This can include
establishing common values.
Develop relationships of mutual
respect. Active theology

Individual. Relational amongst

dialogue group members

Scholarship roots

Religion and violent

conflict

Religion and
formal
peace processes

Purpose of
interfaith
dialogue

Focus of
change

Theological

Table 1 Comparison of Interfaith Dialogue Perspectives

Broad-based relational (media

outreach). Structural (political
process)

Educate the other. Increase

legitimacy of political processes
and or actors and de-legitimate
violent religious actors. Expand
political options

Political Science and International

Relations
Religion causes conflict (defines
end-goals, inspires repression).
Religion exacerbates conflict
(rally supporters; legitimate,
motivate insurgents; identify
sacred objects and holy sites for
protection; discount physical
survival)
Religious leaders and religious
institutions support secular peace
processes

Political

Multiple roles for religious actors

and institutions in peacebuilding
(lead or support; formal and
informal; multi-layered)
Transform attitudes and
perceptions of the other. Access
deep spiritual resources for
meaningful peacebuilding.
Broaden participation in
peacebuilding processes. Develop
platform for joint action to
address roots and consequences
of conflict
Individual. Relational (within
dialogue and broader-based).
Cultural (culture of peace).
Structural (political processes,
exclusionary structures)

Conflict Transformation and

Peacebuilding
Religion causes and exacerbates
violent conflict. Source for
identity and value conflicts

Peacebuilding

348
PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

Interfaith Dialogue

349

Table 1 (below). The three sections that follow explore the purposes
and propositions for change embedded in each of the three streams of
change. The purpose and sub-theories of change are presented in
generic form and then explored with a single case to provide context
and nuance. Interestingly, participants in the same dialogue process
may hold different theories of change, and the purpose of the dialogue
may shift over time as evident in the Mindanao example provided in
perspective three.
PERSPECTIVE ONE: THEOLOGICAL

The first perspective is rooted in theological and religious studies.

Interfaith dialogue here is primarily an opportunity for exchange and
understanding between clergy, lay religious leaders, and theologians.
Exchanges have a variety of foci from theology and doctrine to world
views and personal experiences. The dialogue may be structured as an
exchange of papers, thematic panels, discussions, or participants may
engage together in religious practices.
There are a number of purposes for interfaith dialogue within this
approach. One broad purpose is to increase understanding of the
other. The term understanding covers vast ground. At an introductory level, understanding means gathering and assimilating information on the others religious practices, belief system, doctrines, and
so forth. It can include establishing points of theological or value convergence. At a deeper level of engagement, understanding involves a
sensitive awareness of how the other sees her or his own religious
beliefs, practices, and community. Understanding is a prerequisite for
a second goal: the development of relationships characterized by
mutual respect. A third, somewhat contested purpose of interfaith dialogue is variably termed dialogue as active theology, mutual enrichment, or the joint pursuit of Ultimate Reality.23 This purpose involves
a transformation of ones own beliefs while engaging with someone of
another faith. There are some who fear this goal may produce negative syncretism.24 Those who pursue active theology argue that people
who engage in dialogue and do not expect to alter their own perceptions of their religion and beliefs engage in superficial double monologues.25 Often, theological dialogues occur in places where there are
religious dimensions to intergroup conflict and religious actors are
motivated to overcome divisions and re-interpret the tradition but are
not structured to address political issues.

350

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

Sub-Theories of Change
Several components of the larger theological approach provide
insight into how change is to happen within dialogue. The first is that
verbal and nonverbal exchanges based on theology, religious scriptures, and or religious practices will lead to the aforementioned goals.
That is, the content and format of the exchange will necessarily produce increased understanding and knowledge, positive perceptions and
opinions, positive relationships amongst participants, and potentially
deepen each participants faith. Sharing based on ones deepest beliefs
and spirituality is qualitatively different from other types of sharing
and reaches a transcendent level. The outcomes noted above are
achieved as participants develop greater compassion, empathy, and
trust through sharing personal stories, religious insights, and theological interpretation, and directly engaging in spiritual practices such as
prayer together. Religious practices may be particularly critical for
transcending into the spiritual realm as well as nurturing an important
affective dimension of dialogue.26 Mutual respect is rooted in spirituality, love, and a sense of God.27 Deep and genuine encounters
produce profound relationships that suggest communion between
peoples going far beyond mutual respect. An example of this sort of
transformative experience is captured by a participant recollecting a
Jewish-Catholic dialogue in Rome:
What happened was a spiritual event, inexplicable on purely
pragmatic grounds. Neither side conceded, nor was asked to concede anything.... leaders were able to cut through the rhetoric of
outrage and defensiveness to touch, for a moment, each others
hearts.... But how, save through poetry, can those of us who were
there, whose hearts were touched and changed, explain an essentially spiritual encounter?28

This type of spiritual encounter is important and a necessary

element of building relationships.
A second set of sub-theories loosely connects the individual
experience of transformative dialogue to larger possible impacts. First,
participants can produce a common language on ethical issues from
which they jointly address differences (theological or other), which
can be more broadly used by coreligionists. Second, the spiritual
energy generated through the encounter inspires participants to engage

Interfaith Dialogue

351

further and share their experiences intra-communally. Greater

tolerance for members of the other religious group is generated
when participants share their insights with coreligionists in the forms
of sermons, writings, joint theological statements or declarations. To
maximize intra-communal reach, participants may be chosen because
of their legitimacy and grounding in their own tradition, as well as
their ability to transfer knowledge and attitudes to their respective religious communities. Finally, coreligionists listen to and are influenced
by religious leaders or theologians perspectives on the others
religious tradition and beliefs and develop new more accepting
attitudes that will detach religion from conflict.
Within the sub-theories or hypotheses, there are a range of levels
of change suggested. To make this clearer, it is useful to draw upon
the conflict transformation typology suggested by John Paul Lederach,
which articulates four levels of change: personal, relational, structural,
and cultural.29 The theological approach emphasizes the importance
of personal change for participants in interfaith dialogue: participants
gain new knowledge and understanding and, in the process, may reexamine and strengthen their own spiritual beliefs. Participants also
change their attitudes toward their dialogue partners, becoming more
empathetic and trusting. Personal change is accompanied by relational
change as new patterns of relationship are established through dialogue amongst participants. Taken together, people hope that personal
and relational change will contribute to larger-scale changes amongst
coreligionists when participants spark further personal-level changes
within members of their faith tradition through sermons and relating
their new knowledge and experiences. As the example below highlights, there are significant assumptions within these sub-theories that
need to be assessed particularly regarding the process of diffusion and
large-scale change.
Example: Thinking Together
A relatively sophisticated example of theological interfaith dialogue
is the World Council of Churches (WCC) Office on Interreligious
Relations and Dialogue Thinking Together series. Unlike many
theologically inspired dialogues, this series of events brought together a
relatively small group of core participants to consider difficult questions
and issues from their respective theological perspectives. The meetings
grew out of a stand-alone workshop in 1999 based upon the desire to

352

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

further consider issues of common concern.30 The small group included

Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist participants from
countries as diverse as Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sweden, and Israel.31
Annual and bi-annual engagements involved reflection, prepared presentations on particular issues from a number of traditions, and discussions
of issues raised in the presentations, with each participant representing
his or her personal perspective. The group concluded its meetings in
2009 and produced articles for the WCC journal Current Dialogue, a
book in 2005 and a forthcoming book.32
Thinking Together became known as an interfaith think tank
and expert group that worked on difficult issues (e.g., religious violence, religious conversion) independently and collaboratively within
other WCC fora.33 For example, at the 2006 General Assembly meeting in Porto Alegre, members of the group hosted a workshop entitled
Invitation to an Interreligious Thinking Together, and in 2006 and
2007, collaborated with the WCC Pontifical Council on Inter-religious
Dialogue regarding the issue of conversion. In 2006, the overarching
goal articulated for the Thinking Together project and three other
WCC interfaith projects was: To explore through bilateral and multilateral encounters issues of hope; common concern and friction with
people of other faiths so as to develop cooperative relationships.34
An earlier articulation of the groups specific goal was to provide
inter-religious considerations for living in dialogue adapted for local
congregations, bringing together material on themes discussed, such as
religious plurality... into a multifaith publication.35 These goals are
clear articulations of commonly held aspirations in theological
approaches to interfaith dialogue.
Thinking Together discussions expanded beyond theology and
included personal sharing as well as experiential dimensions. M.
Thomas Thangaraj summarized their discussions on religious violence
as involving textual references, specific instances of violence or resistance to it, and sharing of experiences; he noted that conversations
continued informally over meals and outings and that, We were not
simply talking, either; we prayed together and meditated together.
Every morning persons in the group, in accordance with their own
religious traditions, led us in prayer meditation singing.36 This multimodal engagement aided their efforts to discover whether or not it
was possible to theologise together intentionally on difficult issues.37
A brief internal assessment indicated that members of Thinking
Together thought they had reached new depths on very difficult

Interfaith Dialogue

353

issues but wondered how to make their experiences available to others.38 The WCC report also noted that other church representatives
indicated some churches were suspicious of the work. These two
observations suggest a common challenge and under-developed aspect
of theological interfaith dialogue: the problem of transferring or diffusing personal-level insights and transformations from a select group
to larger denominations and further outward into larger-scale changes.
There were limited mechanisms in place to support a process of
change that expands outwards from the core group even in a large
interfaith institutional body. In the Thinking Together series, efforts to
collaborate with other WCC groups and to produce written materials
were undertaken to promote transfer, but the impact unassessed. The
challenge of diffusion is a great weakness in this theory of change and
delimits impact; the processes by which dialogue amongst theologians
and other participants will generate broader understanding and
responses within their faith traditions are simplistic and need further
development. The approach does not suggest it will contribute to
structural or cultural changes, nor affect the socio-political context.
In 2009, Dr. Shanta Premawardhana spoke to the goal of active
theology. He summarized: If Thinking Together has taught us anything, it is that Christians, together with other religious leaders, need
to realize that our theologies must be subjected to the testing, sharpening and refining that comes from interaction with other religious
scholars.39 This comment and the jointly published works by Thinking Together participants suggest that the goal of active theology was
successfully achieved. Participants identified and explored theological
concerns and differences utilizing the languages and methods of their
respective traditions and were able to develop new insights. It appears
that this was facilitated by the ongoing nature of the engagements and
the bonds of friendship that developed. Here, there is evidence of a
great strength of theologically based interfaith dialogue and its theory
of change. Participants were committed, transformed, and produced
new understandings on concerns that were and continue to be very
divisive between members of different religious communities and can
spark violent conflict, such as religious conversions.
PERSPECTIVE TWO: POLITICAL

As noted above, concerns regarding religion and the intersection

of religious extremism and politics were foregrounded in the West in

354

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

2001. State-sponsored interfaith dialogue forums emerged internationally, as well as within countries such as Jordan, Macedonia, and Iraq,
which were often sponsored as part of political peace efforts.40 Events
typically included political leaders convening or sponsoring events,
and often making speeches. International examples range from multilateral UN-sponsored meetings such as the UN General Assembly
High-level Dialogue on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding
and Cooperation for Peace to bilateral affairs such as the meetings
that Karen Hughes, former US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy
and Public Affairs, held with religious leaders between 2005 and
2007.41 National-level exchanges also occur, hosted by political officials or figureheads within a given country. Political representatives in
the dialogues vary from those who speak on behalf of political and
religious communities to those who convene religious leaders and
discuss faith but not political issues, to those who convene religious
leaders to discuss political issues.
The political approach to interfaith dialogue possesses several
higher-level aims. One purpose is to produce social coexistence or
harmony. This typically involves educating the other who may be
a partner in negotiations and diplomacy, or the larger religious constituency of those involved in a conflict. Interactions often center on
particular social or political problems. A second purpose is to
increase the perceived legitimacy of a political process and actors.
Government leaders or state institutions convene religious actors in a
high-profile manner and broadcast positive messages that emerge
from the interaction to generate support for political processes or
negotiated agreements, address political concerns, and so forth. It is
simultaneously hoped that religious leaders will delegitimize actors
who suggest that using violence is an appropriate means to an end. A
third, less frequent goal is to use interfaith dialogue to expand the
options for political processes. For example, religious leaders can
proffer new religiously nuanced suggestions for political negotiations
such as the use of the truth and reconciliation commissions, or by
participating in negotiations they may enable additional actors to
come to the table.
Hypotheses of how and why things will change because of interfaith dialogue in political fora begin with the basic assumption that
religious interventions augment, enhance, or support official negotiations and political processes. The approach suggests that religious
actors are therefore important but not critical to political solutions to

Interfaith Dialogue

355

conflicts. Diplomats and politicians may also believe that religion is a

threat to secular national or international order and stability.
Sub-Theories of Change
Three sub-theories of how and why change will happen because
of dialogue are particularly evident from the practices of state actors.
First, participants in politically oriented dialogue are religious leaders
because they are deemed credible, trusted, and represent their communities in public fora. They are therefore capable of representing followers within interfaith discussions.42 Participants are therefore often
high-profile archbishops, influential muftis, rabbis, or leaders of wellknown religious and inter-religious institutions. This category sometimes includes theologians and academics. The format of exchange is a
purposive double monologue, intended to give space in the public
sphere for religious figures to state their beliefs to a wider audience
and increase awareness and knowledge about their respective faith
communities.
A second set of hypotheses frames how religious leaders change
the opinions of their constituency. Leaders catalyze support for coexistence after they participate in dialogue and provide common statements and a high-profile model of cooperation. This is because of the
influence of their legitimate and expert power based on their moral
authority, knowledge of sacred texts and traditions, and their leadership positions. It is anticipated that statements of peace, harmony, and
coexistence effectively counter messages and exhortations to violence
by radical, extremist elements within faith groups as well as rally the
faithful to peace. Statements are reinforced by the cooperation religious leaders model on public stages and are intended to stimulate
similar behaviours among constituents. It is anticipated that media
will broadcast the statements and events because of the high-profile
participants. Often, a common vision or collective statement is generated to provide the content for news releases. Messages shared
through broadcasts and articles are vehicles to generate awareness and
support among adherents. It is also expected that when politicians give
space for religious concerns in the public sphere, religious adherents
will be less likely to engage in religiously motivated violence.
An under-developed hypothesis of change is with respect to influence on political processes. Interfaith dialogues sometimes produce
particular ideas to enhance political processes on focused issues. For

356

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

example, religious leaders may suggest government-supported interfaith grassroots fora to enhance post-war reconciliations. Politicians
and diplomats then choose to act upon the ideas for peace generated
by religious actors if deemed appropriate.
The political sub-theories of change do not articulate explicit personal-level changes during dialogue. The primary focus is on relational
and structural change and hinges on transfer. Relational change here
is a broad-based change in the way religious adherents react toward
the other; messages by religious leaders, transmitted through the
media are to change the way people behave in relation to the other.
Structural change occurs if political leaders implement ideas generated
by religious leaders. Both types of transfer occur via a top-down
model of influence. Top-level religious leaders generate support for
harmony and particular policies or courses of action, which are then
enacted by political leaders. Religious authority supports and enhances
secular processes.
Example: Regional Summit on Interreligious and Inter-Ethnic
Dialogue, Tirana
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) began sponsoring inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue events in 2002. A foundational event was the two-day Regional
Summit on Inter-Religious and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue in Tirana, coorganized with the Presidency of Albania in 2004. This event brought
together approximately 145 participants, including six heads of state
from South East Europe, political delegations from eleven European
countries, representatives of international and regional organizations,
as well as participants ranging from professors to politicians to directors of faith-based institutions.43 In the participants list, only six
clearly identified as religious clergy, two of whom were presenters.
Participation was therefore heavily skewed toward political actors.
The Summit was a carefully organized one-time meeting which
concluded with a public declaration, the Tirana Declaration. The
organizers stated purposes included sharing experiences regarding interreligious and inter-ethnic relations, raising public awareness of the
positive impact of ethnic and religious coexistence and harmony, promoting further dialogue and countering intolerance.44 Koichiro
Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, hailed the meeting as a
ground-breaking event in terms of addressing at the highest level the

Interfaith Dialogue

357

importance of interfaith dialogue and its contribution to the broader

dialogue among civilizations, cultures, and peoples.45 The meeting
agenda included seventeen statements by heads of states, political
delegations, and international organizations. It also included three
panel presentations on inter-ethnic dialogue; contributions of interreligious, inter-cultural, and inter-ethnic dialogue in South East Europe;
and South East Europes experiences in a global context. Panels were
followed by short, half-hour discussions.
The final Tirana Declaration placed interfaith dialogue within the
context of broader political freedoms. It stated: We hold that dialogue must be conducted on a platform of democracy, the rule of law
and respect for human rights and dignity of the individual.46 It also
emphasized religious commonality, stating: All faiths convey a message of peace, justice and human solidarity based upon which religious leaders should exercise moral and positive influence on how
people in society understand each other and interact. It is evident
here that religious leaders and faith are at the service of peace efforts
occurring within a wider political context.
The strongest element of the political approach to dialogue
appears to be its emphasis on transfer: if participants are policy makers themselves or directly connected to policy makers, recommendations produced out of dialogue will likely be embraced by government
bodies. For example, the Tirana Declaration is referenced in subsequent UN fora, including a General Assembly resolution on interreligious dialogue and cooperation for peace47 as well as later UNESCO
summits. The media outreach from the Tirana Summit also supported
the transfer of ideas to a broader audience as the UN press releases
were designed for easy pick-up by national media outlets. Media
releases highlighted the participation of several religious figures from
the Balkans and host country Albanias inter-religious coexistence as
models of successful inter-religious cooperation.48
Elements of transfer nevertheless remain underdeveloped. In particular, it is unclear whether participation inadvertently undermines
the legitimacy and influence of religious participants as representatives
of their faith as leaders may be seen as compromised or used instrumentally to quell violence. Very few religious leaders participated in
the Tirana Summit, which suggests they may have been loath to participate. The political approach to dialogue relies upon a top-down
model of transfer based upon the credibility and authority of religious
participants, and if the religious leaders are not deemed credible the

358

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

approach may be ineffective. It is also not clear whether the lack of

attention to individual and relational change is problematic. In contrast to the theological approach, participants are unlikely to have
undergone a transformative experience. Questions therefore remain as
to whether or not participants in dialogue need to be transformed,
whether or not followers need to be transformed, and the degree to
which media messages stimulate broader changes in behavior amongst
religious adherents.
PERSPECTIVE THREE: PEACEBUILDING

The third approach to interfaith dialogue builds upon elements of

the previous models. Interest in interfaith dialogue in the field of conflict resolution and transformation surged during the 1990s. Prior to
this point, the secular lenses of political science and psychology placed
religion as an important component of culture in ethno-political conflicts and thus implicated in value and identity conflicts.49 In the late
twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, it became clear religion was
also a resource for conflict transformation interventions and peacebuilding.50
Interfaith dialogue from a peacebuilding perspective tends to have
four primary aims. One purpose is to alter attitudes and perceptions of
the other. This has two interrelated components. First, negative
stereotypes and dehumanization of the religious other are to be eliminated; second, mutual understanding and respect are to be developed. A
second broad purpose is to access and build upon peoples deep spiritual
beliefs and motivations. These are seen as important resources for
practitioners when confronting difficult moments and reaching out to
those whom they fear. A third purpose is to broaden the participation of
people building peace. A final purpose is to develop a joint platform
for actions to address the root causes of the conflict as well as its
consequences. Examples of efforts with these aims include activities
linked to development, such as those undertaken by the World Council
of Religions for Peace in Liberia, and those supported by foreign aid
offices such as the US Agency for International Development.51
The peacebuilding perspective is marked by an assumption that
violent conflicts are due in part to misunderstandings and the lack of
constructive options.52 This means that actors tend to approach dialogue as a way to enhance communication and expand the available
options for conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts.

Interfaith Dialogue

359

Sub-Theories of Change
The peacebuilding approach to dialogue entails sub-theories of
change that are somewhat more detailed than the two previous
approaches. This should be expected given the conscious development
of intervention techniques. The sub-theories focus on transforming
individuals, transfer, and sustainability of peace efforts through interfaith dialogue.
Peacebuilding efforts suggest interfaith dialogue is effective at transforming individuals because of a series of interacting elements. Interfaith dialogue allows participants to plumb the depths of their identity
by tapping into deep beliefs and values. This can alter exclusionary
dimensions of religious identity as well as spiritually motivate and
encourage workers for peace. Dialogue and transformation require safe
spaces in which participants develop mutual respect and caring, as well
as increase their understanding of the other. Safe space is developed
through processes that include empathic listening, sharing of perspectives and experiences (theological and personal); a balance of power
amongst participants; clear ground rules; discussions about positive and
negative stereotypes and perceptions; use of multiple forms of communication, including religious symbols, stories, and text. Efforts appear
to address personal change and relationship-building by addressing
points of conflict directly. Participants may establish common understandings and common values through dialogue. Finally, engagements,
such as inter-religious councils in West Africa supported by Religions
for Peace, tend to be ongoing rather than one-time meetings.
There are two sets of ideas around how and why the effects of
dialogue will transfer to larger constituencies and contribute to sociopolitical change. First, participants are strategically chosen based upon
an analysis of groups identified as critical in the conflict and may include
youth gang members, village elders, or womens groups in addition to
religious leaders. Interfaith dialogue is frequently paired with intra-faith
dialogue rooted in the understanding that religious communities contain
multiple constituencies that need to be addressed intensively. Transfer is
further promoted by fostering conflict resolution and peacebuilding
skills amongst participants to help participants directly engage conflicts
in their respective communities. Interfaith dialogue efforts strive to use
media as an outreach tool to build broad-based support for changes
promoted through dialogue. External individuals or religious bodies are
often engaged to support local efforts by increasing pressure on political

360

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

or religious leaders, raising the profile of efforts, and providing resources

to expand outreach activities.
Interfaith dialogue from a peacebuilding orientation aims to spur
activities at multiple levels of social organization to support diffusion.
This is deemed necessary to ensure dialogue does not remain an elite
activity. This means involving grassroots actors as well as higher-level
influential leaders. Multi-level engagement is to generate momentum
for peace and develop a culture of peace.
A third sub-set of ideas focuses on the importance of direct action.
Peacebuilding interfaith dialogue forums aim to establish a base network of people who act to mitigate conflict or address root causes of
conflict. Participants mitigate conflict by continuing to communicate
when conflict escalates and maintaining some degree of humanization
of the other. Participants prevent conflagrations by sharing information, checking rumours, mediating conflicts, and meeting with spoilers.
Participants are to model and catalyze activities within their communities such as grassroots dialogues, vigils, peace workshops, zones of
peace, peace education activities, peace concerts, and interfaith development projects. Such activities may include agricultural ventures,
infrastructure projects, or psycho-social programs that respond to economic and social needs.
The peacebuilding approach to interfaith dialogue is ambitious. It
strives to achieve greater impact than the previous two approaches
and possesses more detailedalthough still nascent sub-theories of
personal change, relational change, and broader cultural and political
change through dialogue.
Example: Mindanaos Bishop-Ulama Conference
An example of interfaith dialogue that spans more than a decade
and is heavily influenced by the peacebuilding perspective is the
Bishop-Ulama Conference (BUC). It is an effort of Catholic Bishops,
Protestant leaders from the Philippines National Council of Churches,
and Muslim Ulama from the Ulama League of the Philippines who
have engaged in dialogue since 1996. The BUC focuses on the longrunning Bangsamoro conflict and is located in Mindanao, southern
Philippines. The full BUC consists of approximately seventy people,
who meet three times per year. It is led by an organizing body called
the tri-partite commission and supported by a permanent secretariat. The BUC has received financial support from the Office of the

Interfaith Dialogue

361

Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process (OPAPP) as well as from

nongovernmental organizations.53
The BUC began as a high-level interfaith dialogue that, over time,
transformed into a broader peacebuilding-infused effort. Initially, it
focused on leaders providing moral and religious grounding to generate support for cooperation and dialogue within their respective communities.54 The ongoing structure of the dialogues and continuity in
participation allowed participants to discuss numerous theological and
religious issues, such as views on the role of Mary or Maryam in
Christianity and Islam. The format also enabled participants to deepen
relationships and build trust. Participants responded to delicate political situations because of the pressing conflict context. For example, in
November 1997, the fifth dialogue was disrupted by the kidnapping of
the Apostolic Administrator of Marawi, and two key participants
assisted in ultimately successful negotiations.55
The BUC quickly sought to broaden its contributions to peace.
BUC participants first built their own capacity in conflict transformation by holding a workshop in 1998 and sending a delegation of six
participants to attend peacebuilding training in the USA, who relayed
their learning back to the BUC. In 1999, at the tenth forum, the BUC
issued a statement that recommended a broader peacebuilding
approach that included supporting outreach to the local level; grassroots participation for peace; working with allied NGOs; starting
relief and rehabilitation efforts themselves; and modifying their deliberative structure to be more inclusive. The BUC thus catalyzed and
supported dialogue and activities within communities. Additional dialogue bodies included the Episcopal Commission for Interreligious
Dialogue, the Archdiocesan Center for Ecumenical and Interreligious
Dialogue, and the Ustadz-Priests-Pastors-Imam Forum. Together, these
groups engaged in dialogue as well as training, focusing particularly
on culture of peace workshops and peace education in schools, and
they work with youth, academics, grassroots groups, and church
workers. A recent case study noted that interreligious dialogue in Davao
is particularly extensive in parishes and Catholic seminaries.56 The
grassroots dialogue groups initiated activities that responded specifically to community needs, such as developing small income generation
projects (e.g., communal duck farming). Some suggest that the most
important impact of all of the interfaith dialogue in Mindanao is at
the local level where it promoted constructive engagement that has
improved peoples lives and their community as a whole.57

362

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

Over the years, the BUC generated numerous public statements,

purposive projects, and participated in behind-the-scenes interactions
between government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) representatives.58 In 2006, BUC members convened NGO, government,
and MILF representatives to restart stalled talks. The BUC also
expanded media attention for peace efforts in Mindanao, which
enabled the peace movement to gain a greater profile elsewhere in the
Philippines. A case in point is the BUCs role in raising awareness of
the Mindanao Week of Peace, which it began co-sponsoring in
1999.
The BUC peacebuilding approach to interfaith dialogue goes
beyond the theological and political approaches, seeking to build upon
the moral and spiritual base of religious traditions and peoples faith
and engage political-level processes. In this way, it hopes to draw on
fundamental motivations and connections between faith communities
and leverage interfaith dialogue to stimulate change from politicallevel engagement to grassroots-level livelihood projects. The degree to
which it is able to effectively bring these elements together requires
further exploration, although the successes to date are suggestive that
different levels of dialogue can work together and engage in complementary types of programming. The broadening of participation in
peace processes is seen as particularly important for sustainable
peace.59 A concern in this theory of change is whether or not it instrumentalizes religious leaders and religion in the service of peacebuilding.60 It may be that focusing too heavily on action and outcomes
undermines the theological and spiritual grounding which is necessary
for personal and relational transformation.
A particular strength of the peacebuilding theory of change
appears to lie in the needs-based orientation of grassroots efforts.
These efforts appear to enable dialogue groups to expand their focus
and reach, addressing dimensions of conflict otherwise unaddressed in
dialogue, such as economic inequality. This approach also articulates
specific mechanisms by which change happens within the dialogue
process itself and the process of transfer, which can be monitored and
reassessed over time.
There are a number of gaps and weaknesses in the peacebuilding
theory of change. It is, for example, unclear to what degree intergroup dialogue must be accompanied by intra-group dialogue. In some
situations in Mindanao, extensive interfaith work has undermined a
persons credibility within his or her own faith community.61 There

Interfaith Dialogue

363

are within-group divisions in each of the umbrella religious communities that have not yet been bridged and may undermine the work in
the future. It is also unclear how and to what extent any one network
can sustain change. While networks possess expansive capabilities,
hubsand the people who comprise those hubsoften need to be
more strategic in focus to prevent overextension. It is further unclear
whether or not groups need to undertake a complementary or ad hoc
approach to respond to both immediate and longer-term needs.
A significant oversight in the peacebuilding interfaith dialogue theory of change as it applies to the Mindanao conflictwhich is also
not addressed in the theological and political approachesis the
degree to which interfaith dialogue addresses and transcends fissures
based in other identities, such as ethnic or clan identities.62 In Mindanao, there are ongoing challenges dealing with inter-clan feuds (rido)
that frequently contribute to larger political violence.63 People have
multiple identifications, and interfaith dialogue, by its nature, emphasizes only one aspect of peoples identities. Dialogue that moves into
collaborative development may imply other dimensions of identity,
such as Muslim and Christian farmers, however religious identity
remains central. Interfaith dialogue may thus be constrained in its
ability to overcome other identity affiliations and fissures which
simultaneously result in social, economic, and political exclusion and
violence.
A CALL TO REFLECT UPON THEORIES OF CHANGE IN INTERFAITH DIALOGUE

The theological, political, and peacebuilding approaches suggest a

variety of ways interfaith dialogue contributes to peace. They are
based on different assumptions of what is important in interfaith
dialogue work, emphasize different aspects of change, and suggest
different relationships to the political context as well as the conflict.
As summarized in Table 1, the theological approach is largely apolitical in content, although often spurred by experiences of violent conflict. The theological approach focuses on individual and relational
change within the dialogue group, and it aims to increase understanding of beliefs, doctrines, practices, and values, perhaps even establishing areas of common values. It also aims to develop relationships
characterized by mutual respect and mutual enrichment that can support a process of active theology. Experiences such as that of the

364

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

Thinking Together group suggest this approach can be effective in

pursuing these outcomes, but it is challenged in achieving larger-scale
outcomes. There is unfortunately limited evidence that dialoguerelated changes translate into larger-scale changes without explicitly
developed actions and activities to facilitate the transfer.
The political approach to interfaith dialogue is stimulated by the
political context, often politically motivated, and even political in content. The political approach suggests elements of structural change,
such as peace agreements, public statements, or particular political
processes, may be shaped by religious leaders. Religious leaders may
be able to use their legitimacy as moral leaders to increase the profile
and perceived legitimacy of a particular political peace processes or
secular leaders. The approach neglects individual- and interpersonallevel changes and focuses on problems being solved within a political
or diplomatic venue. Theological exchanges are limited in this
approach, and the emphasis is on producing social coexistence, understanding, and harmony amongst adherents of different religious faiths.
Again, the evidence is limited with respect to the degree of impact that
this type of dialogue may attain.
The peacebuilding approach to interfaith dialogue reconceptualises interfaith dialogue as an entry point for achieving multiple types of
change. It seeks to increase understanding, mutual respect, and caring,
as well as to broaden involvement in peace processes, and to be a base
from which actions are undertaken at the community level and within
other sectors of society (education, economic livelihoods cooperation).
In this way, it strives for change from the personal to the relational,
structural, and cultural levels. The peacebuilding approach provides
some substance for those who argue that interfaith dialogue can be
effective at transforming conflict if the sub-theories of change bear out
in practice. Research on peace efforts to date suggests that to contribute to peace write large, peace efforts need to produce changes at the
structural level.64 This suggests interfaith dialogue needs to go beyond
developing social cohesion and address itself to structural- and systems-level changes such as ongoing political exclusion or economic
disparities.
While the different approaches to dialogue may be effective at
achieving some of their respective aims, not all contribute to building
peace in the ways that proponents expect. The respective theories of
change and case examples suggest areas where each approach to dialogue may have the greatest influence. The theological approach taps

Interfaith Dialogue

365

deep, profound expressions of faith, but limits its scope and focus to
individuals and interpersonal relations. The political approach connects the contents of dialogue to political processes but at the expense
of genuine, independent engagement. The peacebuilding approach
amplifies the strengths of the theological and political approaches
through deliberate multi-level initiatives but may overextend actors.
While each of these approaches may have particular impacts, there
remain relatively unquestioned assumptions and ungrounded ideas
regarding how their efforts will produce change. This means that critics can continue to deride interfaith dialogue for its lack of effect and
proponents can continue to believe it is going to achieve change, with
anecdotal evidence supporting both.
If proponents of interfaith dialogue want to demonstrate real
contributions to peace, they need to start taking change seriously.
One way to remedy this problem is to develop explicit theories of
change and learn from them during the process of dialogue to both
track the changes that occur and improve upon them. Using theories
of change as a tool for monitoring and learning has good precedent
in peacebuilding.65 It is an approach to program design, monitoring,
and evaluation that involves practitioners articulating how and why
their approach will contribute to the changes they identify as important, and then tracking whether or not their ideas about change
hold up over time. Practitioners ask: which sub-theories of change
are bearing out? Where and under what circumstances? Which subtheories are not holding up and how might we change our activities
or our sub-theories to better match what is occurring? Articulating
and reflecting upon ideas about change can help participants such
as those in the Thinking Together, UNESCO, and BUC dialogues
discover their aims, weaknesses, and strengths and respond
accordingly.
Approaching impact through theories of change fits within interfaith dialogue formats because exploring change requires a commitment to deep inquiry. Reflections are about learning and
understanding rather than searching for quantifiable, predetermined
impacts. Discussing theories of change opens up space for thinking
more deeply about the purpose of dialogue for participants and
organizers. Those who support and engage in interreligious dialogue
can assess their efforts on their own terms and contribute significantly to furthering our understanding of how interfaith dialogue
works, and its capacity to build peace. This type of learning is

366

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

important not only to respond to the critics of dialogue but, more

importantly, to enhance the quality and contributions of interfaith
dialogue itself.
NOTES
I would like to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for Peace &
Change as well as Jean Quataert, Jaime Wadowiec, and Stewart Anderson for
their critical comments and suggestions for this article.
1. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations? in Foreign Affairs
72, No. 3 (1993): 2249.
2. Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of
Violence (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).
3. Religion-related variables now supplement the Minorities at Risk and
State Failure data sets. Findings suggest that religions role in civil conflicts
increased during the latter half of the twentieth century, although not in ways
that supported Huntingtons theory of clash. See Jonathan Fox, The Rise of
Ethnic Nationalism and Conflict: Ethnic Conflict and Revolutionary Wars,
19452001, in Journal of Peace Research 41, No. 6 (2004): 715731;
Jonathan Fox, The Rise of Religion and the Fall of the Civilization Paradigm
as Explanations for Intra-State Conflict, in Cambridge Review of
International Affairs 20, No. 3 (2007): 361382; Marta Reynal-Querol,
Ethnicity, Political Systems, and Civil Wars, in Journal of Conflict
Resolution 46, No. 1 (2002): 2954; Monica Duffy Toft, Religion, Civil
War, and International Order (BCSIA Discussion Paper 200603, Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, 2006).
4. United Nations News Service, General Assembly President Stresses
Value of Interfaith Dialogue in Securing Peace, June 13, 2007.
5. John Micklethwait, In Gods Name: A Special Report on Religion
and Public Life, in The Economist (2007): 22.
6. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Amal I. Khoury, and Emily Welty, Unity in
Diversity: Interfaith Dialogue in the Middle East (Washington, DC: United
States Institute of Peace Press, 2007); Renee Garfinkel, What Works?
Evaluating Interfaith Dialogue Programs (Washington, DC: United States
Institute of Peace, 2004).
7. Theories of change is a term that comes from Carol Weiss, Nothing
as Practical as a Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for
Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, in New
Approaches in Evaluating Community Initiatives, eds. James P. Connell, et al.
(Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 1995).

Interfaith Dialogue

367

8. A variation of critical case sampling where samples are chosen to

identify critical incidents that may generalize to other situations M.Q. Patton,
Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. (Newbury, CA: Sage,
1990).
9. John Hick, A Religious Understanding of Religion: A Model of the
Relationship between Traditions, in Inter-Religious Models and Criteria, ed.
J. Kellenberger (New York, NY: St. Martins Press, Inc., 1993): 2136.
10. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion,
Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc., 2000).
11. Christopher R. Mitchell, The Structure of International Conflict
(New York, NY: St. Martins Press, 1981).
12. Liora Danan and Alice Hunt, Mixed Blessings: U.S. Government
Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings, in A Report of the
Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic
and International Studies, 2007); Fox, The Rise of Religion and the Fall of
the Civilization Paradigm as Explanations for Intra-State Conflict; Daniel
Philpott, Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion, in American
Political Science Review 101, No. 3 (2007): 505525; Reynal-Querol,
Ethnicity, Political Systems, and Civil Wars; Regina M. Schwartz, The
Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 1997).
13. Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and
Reconciliation; Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of
Violence; Vimal Tirimanna, Does Religion Cause Violence? in Studies in
Interreligious Dialogue 17, No. 1 (2007): 519.
14. Danan and Hunt, Mixed Blessings: U.S. Government Engagement
with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings; Fox, The Rise of Ethnic
Nationalism and Conflict: Ethnic Conflict and Revolutionary Wars, 1945
2001; David Little, Religion, Conflict and Peace, in Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law 38 (2006): 95103; Toft, Religion, Civil War,
and International Order.
15. R. Scott Appleby, Retrieving the Missing Dimension of Statecraft:
Religious Faith in the Service of Peacebuilding, in Faith-Based Diplomacy:
Trumping Realpolitik, ed. Douglas Johnston (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2003): 238.
16. Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and
Reconciliation; Marc Gopin, Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of
World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000).

368

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

17. Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Missing
Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
18. For example, see Douglas Johnston, ed., Faith-Based Diplomacy:
Trumping Realpolitik (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); David R.
Smock, Religious Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings
Peace, Not War (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2006).
19. In the 1990s, Studies in Interreligious Dialogue emerged and
numerous volumes on interreligious dialogue events appeared, such as James
H. Charlesworth, Frank X. Blisard, and Jerry L. Gorham, eds., Overcoming
Fear between Jews and Christians (New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing
Company and The American Interfaith Institute, 1993); and J. Kellenberger,
ed., Inter-Religious Models and Criteria (New York, NY: St. Martins Press,
Inc., 1993).
20. Georg Evers, Trends and Developments in the Field of Interreligious
Dialogue, in Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 13, No. 2 (2003): 240254.
21. A thematic analysis of interfaith dialogue interventions was utilized
based on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include: participant
observation of interfaith dialogues in the Philippines, Indonesia, and the
United States; unstructured interviews with dialogue leaders and participants
from northern India, Pakistan, Uganda, Philippines, Israel, and Palestine;
primary documentation produced from dialogues. Secondary sources include:
cases in published volumes, such as Smock, Religious Contributions to
Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace, Not War, David Little and
Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, eds., Peacemakers in
Action: Profiles of Religion in Conflict Resolution (New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 2007); Coward and Smith Harold Coward and Gordon S.
Smith, Religion and Peacebuilding (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 2004). And, cases published independently, e.g., Religious Leaders
Building Peace in Mindanao Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute, (Manila:
2004).
22. These three orientations overlap somewhat with the fourfold
typology (theological exchange, religious experience, dialogue of life, dialogue
of action) created by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue,
Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflections and Orientations on Inter-Religious
Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rome: 1991).
However, the analysis diverges from this typology based upon the assumptions
regarding change underpinning the models.
23. For examples, see Kellenberger, ed., Inter-Religious Models and
Criteria; David Emmanuel Singh and Robert Edwin Schich, eds., Approaches,
Foundations, Issues and Models of Interfaith Relations (Delhi, India: Indian

Interfaith Dialogue

369

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPCK) and Henry Martyn

Institute of Islamic Studies, 2001); R. Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue
(New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1978).
24. For a variety of views, see Mikael Stenmark, Exclusivism,
Tolerance and Interreligious Dialogue, in Studies in Interreligious Dialogue
16, No. 1 (2006); Phan Peter C. Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian
Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004);
Leonard Swidler, ed., Theoria > Praxis: How Jews, Christians, and Muslims
Can Together Move from Theory to Practice (Leuven: Peeters, 1998).
25. Willem Bijlefeld, Christian-Muslim Relations: A Burdensome Past,
a Challenging Future, in Approaches, Foundations, Issues and Models of
Interfaith Relations, ed. David Emmanuel Singh and Robert Edwin Schich
(Delhi, India: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPCK) and
Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, 2001).
26. Paul D. Hanson argues all understanding in dialogue is shaped by
affective experience in the Study and Experience: Two Dimensions of JewishChristian Dialogue, in Overcoming Fear between Jews and Christians, ed.
James H. Charlesworth, Frank X. Blisard, and Jerry L. Gorham (New York,
NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company and The American Interfaith
Institute, 1993).
27. For example, see Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue; or, Hinze
and Omar Bradford E. Hinze and Irfan A. Omar, eds., Heirs of Abraham: The
Future of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Relations (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 2005).
28. Eugene J Fisher, Eighteen Months in Catholic-Jewish Relations
(April 13, 1986-September 11, 1987), in Overcoming Fear between Jews and
Christians, eds. James H. Charlesworth, Frank X. Blisard, and Jerry L.
Gorham (New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, The American
Interfaith Institute, 1993): 148.
29. John Paul Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation
(Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003); John Paul Lederach, Reina Neufeldt,
and Hal Culbertson, Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring and
Learning Toolkit (Mindanao, PH: The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International
Peace Studies and Catholic Relief Services SEAPRO, 2007).
30. Hans Ucko, Thinking Togetheran Interreligious Process, Current
Dialogue 37 (2001).
31. M. Thomas Thangaraj, Thinking Together: A Narrative
Interreligious Meeting on Religion and Violence, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 2002, in The Ecumenical Review 55, No. 2 (2003).

370

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

32. Hans Ucko, ed., Faces of the Other: A Contribution by the Group
Thinking Together (Geneva: World Council of Churches, Interreligious
Relations and Dialogue, 2005); World Council of Churches, Annual Review
2009, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2010).
33. Samuel Kobia, Report of the General Secretary (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 2008); World Council of Churches, Projects Overview,
Programme Plans 20072013 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2006).
34. World Council of Churches, Projects Overview, Programme Plans
20072013.
35. World Council of Churches, From Harare to Porto Alegre: 1998
2006, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2005): 92.
36. Thangaraj, Thinking Together: A NarrativeInterreligious Meeting
on Religion and Violence, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 2002.
37. Ucko, Thinking Togetheran Interreligious Process.
38. World Council of Churches, Report on the Pre-Assembly
Programme Evaluation(Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2005): Sec. 2.3.
39. World Council of Churches, Annual Review 2009: 32.
40. See examples in Abu-Nimer, Khoury, and Welty, Unity in Diversity:
Interfaith Dialogue in the Middle East; Paul Mojzes, Peacemaking through
Interreligious Dialogue in Macedonia, in Religious Contributions to
Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace, Not War, ed. David R. Smock
(Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2006); Canon Andrew
White, Establishing the Premier Interfaith Organization in Iraq, in Religious
Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace, Not War, ed.
David R. Smock (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2006).
41. For example, Karen P. Hughes, Encouraging Interfaith Dialogues,
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State, 2007); or, United Nations,
Media Advisory: General Assembly High-Level Dialogue on Interreligious
and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace, in Sixty-second
session of the General Assembly (United Nations, 2007).
42. Some argue religious leaders are not well placed for authentic
dialogue because of their roles defending particular, mutually exclusive
traditions. See Rami Mark Shapiro, Moving the Fence: One Rabbis View
of Interreligious Dialogue, in Interreligious Dialogue: Voices from a New
Frontier, ed. M. Darrol Bryant and Frank Flinn (New York, NY: Paragon
House, 1989): 3140; Irfan A. Omar, Submitting to the Will of God:
Jews, Christians, and Muslims Learning from Each Other, in Heirs of
Abraham: The Future of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Relations ed.
Bradford E. Hinze and Irfan A. Omar (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
2005): 125141.

Interfaith Dialogue

371

43. UNESCO, Dialogue among Civilizations: Regional Summit on

Inter-Religious and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue; Tirana, Albania, 9 and 10
December 2004 (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, 2006).
44. UNESCO Bureau of Strategic Planning, Regional Summit on InterReligious and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue: Background Paper (Paris: United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2004).
45. UNESCO, Dialogue among Civilizations: Regional Summit on
Inter-Religious and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue; Tirana, Albania, 9 and 10
December 2004, 5.
46. UNESCO, 1314.
47. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution a Res 60 10.
Promotion of Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace (New York:
United Nations, 2005).
48. United Nations News Service, Balkan Leaders Vow to End Bitter
Past through Dialogue at Un-Backed Summit (New York: United Nations,
2004).
49. For example, see references to religion in Sandra Cheldelin, Daniel
Druckman, and Larissa Fast, eds., Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention
(New York, NY: Continuum, 2003).
50. A good example is Appleby, Retrieving the Missing Dimension of
Statecraft: Religious Faith in the Service of Peacebuilding.
51. Religions for Peace, Religions for Peace: A Guide to Building
Inter-Religious Councils (New York, NY: World Conference of Religions
for Peace, 2006); Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, Religion,
Conflict and Peacebuilding Toolkit: An Introductory Programming Guide
(Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development
2009).
52. Abu-Nimer, Khoury, and Welty, Unity in Diversity: Interfaith
Dialogue in the Middle East.
53. Bishops Ulama Conference, Milestones in Retrospect of the
Bishops-Ulama Conference: 29 November 199629 November 2006, (Iligan
City, PH: Bishops Ulama Conference, 2006).
54. Bishop Antonio J. Ledesma, Healing the Past, Building the Future:
Soundings from Mindanao (Manila, PH: Jesuit Communications Foundation,
Inc. and the Episcopal Commission for Interreligious Dialogue, 2005); Bishops
Ulama Conference, Primer: Bishops-Ulama Conference 1996 (Iligan City,
PH: Bishops-Ulama Secretariat, undated).
55. Bishops Ulama Conference, Primer: Bishops-Ulama Conference
1996.

372

PEACE & CHANGE / July 2011

56. Brenda Fitzpatrick, CRS SEAPRO Peacebuilding Church Action

Case Study: The Mindanao Bishops-Ulama Conference (Davao, PH: Catholic
Relief Services, 2007).
57. Ibid.
58. Bishops Ulama Conference, Primer: Bishops-Ulama Conference
1996.
59. An example in the peacebuilding as statebuilding literature is Katia
Papagianni, Participation and State Legitimation, in Building States to Build
Peace, eds. Charles T. Call and Vanessa Wyeth (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Inc., 2008): 4971.
60. For example, Paul Mojzes notes early attempts to generate
interreligious councils in Macedonia produced a reaction against the process
as some felt it seemed too public and too rapid in Peacemaking through
Interreligious Dialogue in Macedonia, 3031.
61. Fitzpatrick, CRS SEAPRO Peacebuilding Church Action Case
Study: The Mindanao Bishops-Ulama Conference.
62. Amartya Sen critiques interfaith dialogue and single-label identities
as a miniaturization of people and fictitious singularity in Identity and
Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, ed. Henry Louis Gates Jr., Issues of Our
Time (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006).
63. Steven Rood, Forging Sustainable Peace in Mindanao: The Role of
Civil Society (Washington: The East-West Center, 2005).
64. Mary B. Anderson and Lara Olson, Confronting War: Critical
Lessons for Peace Practitioners (Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative for
Development Action, Inc., 2003).
65. Cheyanne Church and Mark Rogers, Designing for Results:
Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs
(Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground United States Institute for
Peace, 2006); Lederach, Neufeldt, and Culbertson, Reflective Peacebuilding: A
Planning, Monitoring and Learning Toolkit, Reina C. Neufeldt,
Frameworkers And Circlers Exploring Assumptions in Peace and
Conflict Impact Assessment, Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation
(2007), www.berghof-handbook.net uploads download neufeldt_handbook.
pdf.