What is Dialogue
by Ian S. Markham
The word dialogue does not mean ‘two people speaking’. Those who distinguish a dialogue from a trilogue are revealing their ignorance about the etymology of the word ‘dialogue’. This word is made up of two parts: ‘dia’ and logos. So it literally means ‘through words’. This can be both spoken words or written words. So a dialogue is a conversation, which takes place orally or in writing. It can be a conversation between any number of people – from two up to a million.
Conversation is the key to communication. Naturally there are other ways of communicating – body language and non-verbal signals – but the word is by far the most effective. Language has the capacity to impart real complexity. We can take nuanced positions or believe in the very abstract. Conversing is the way to clarify one’s position, to avoid misunderstanding, and to reach a position where co-existence is possible.
In the literature dialogue is often contrasted with mission. Mission occurs when Christians are acting on the ‘Great Commission’ of Matthew 28: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. (Matthew 28:18) The goal of mission is conversion and recruitment. For conservative evangelical Christians, it is motivated by a sense that unless people convert then they will go to hell. Although often misunderstood, there is a real loving concern pervading such mission. And often, at considerable sacrifice, individuals will dedicate their lives to living amongst a people so that these people then come to Christ.
Dialogue on this account is seen as an alternative. Instead of seeking to change the religious identity of individuals, we should seek to understand them. Instead of conversion, we seek to build alliances. Instead of assuming that the other is ignorant and in need of our religion, we seek to learn from them.
In recent years, this contrast has been attacked. It has been objected that the dialogue advocates are simply imposing their liberal North American worldview on religious difference. Liberals, the argument goes, no longer believe in truth. They resort to dialogue because they don’t believe it is possible to know which religion is the truth. Therefore the dialogue agenda is really an imposition of relativist values. And the dialogue movement is a missionary movement: it is deeply critical of anyone who is conservative (which is the vast majority of religious people). And it is desperate to try and convert all conservatives to their relativist, tolerant, skeptical agenda.
It is true that there is a set of values underpinning the dialogue movement; and sometimes these values are contentious. However, at the heart of the dialogue movement is a crucial and simple point: Talking together is much more appropriate than killing each other. We live in a world where religious differences are a source of significant conflict. While traditional mission will continue, we also need to recognize that many people will not convert. The major religious traditions are here to stay on planet earth for a long time to come. Therefore the continuing efforts of mission (Muslims – Dawah; Christians – converting to Christ; Liberals – converting people to relativism and toleration) need to run parallel with a quest to find ways to live together on this small globe of ours. The challenge of our moment is to find reasons why the most conservative of religious people commit to some dialogue and therefore to living in peace with difference.
