Interfaith dialogue and religious diplomacy represent different approaches to improving chances for peace where challenging conflicts are influenced in part by religious differences. Interfaith dialogue aims to find common ground on which to build consensus, and it attracts those already committed to conversation and compromise to end conflict. However, adversaries in deep religious and ideological conflicts often are not interested in compromise, and do not see the benefit of interfaith dialogue. The term diplomacy denotes the work of mutual persuasion for change not just mutual understanding of perspectives. Adversaries or rivals can see benefits from religious diplomacy that might convert their critics’ attitudes, beliefs and actions without expecting a compromise of convictions. In recent years researchers have found that interfaith dialogue does not lead to trusting, peaceful outcomes among adamant rivals or adversaries.  Studies by the Wolff Institute, as well as scholars working in the behavioral sciences, demonstrate the need for alternative approaches for improving conflicts influenced by religion. Religious diplomacy shows promise in this effort to engage parties that most need to meet if any change in attitude is to occur. FRD supports scientific research for more understanding of the challenges and more effective approaches to trust and peace building.

Not at all! Interfaith dialogue does build understanding of common values that can lead to collaboration between religious communities. Many humanitarian aid projects with billions of donated dollars and hours are accomplished through joint efforts of different religious traditions. Interfaith cooperation can have strong positive impact on economic and political matters when moral alignment of religious citizens is achievable. However, interfaith dialogue is not the best approach in bringing people resistant to conversations to the table to build enough trust to tackle intractable conflicts. Religious diplomacy aims at reaching such individuals and groups to build trust and goodwill by facing their unresolvable differences and continually seeking the whole truth together.

It can be a challenge, but it is possible. For over 20 years FRD has brought people together to have conversations and build trust despite irreconcilable differences, including Orthodox Israeli Jews and Egyptian Sunnis, Iranian Shi’ites and American Christians, liberal Buddhists and conservative Christians, Satanist atheists and Evangelicals, and more. FRD has found that people who disagree about fundamental beliefs and value priorities can desire to engage in order 1) to learn how to persuade the other to change their negative attitudes or positions, or 2) to convert the other’s religious convictions. In either case there is pressure to change something by means of respectful persuasion since the status quo is not working. They are willing to experiment with respectful engagement instead of suppressing their rival’s voice or engaging violently. In short, changing attitudes about the trustworthiness of an adversary or rival is enough to improve the world a lot without resolving ever-ongoing conflicts over ultimate reality. To build trust, however, conflicts must be faced not evaded. Peaceful tension is thus the goal.

The term “rivalry” has troubling connotations, but this doesn’t always have to be the case. Rivals for power go to war against each other, but there is also a beneficial creative rivalry that is not contentious. It yields exertion for excellence in most forms of competition, in business, arts, and sports. The reality is that rivalry is unavoidable in social life. But we can choose to envy and hate our rivals (and ourselves for not being them), or we can choose to admire and even love our rivals for the good they do. Buddhists call this mudita, the happiness we experience in the good or success of another. On this theme, the Qur’an (Sura 5:48) says Allah might have made all cultures and religions the same, but in order to create a rivalry in righteousness Allah made the world diverse. Righteous rivals might try to out-love each other. That’s a win/win contest!  However, in the realm of religion when salvation is on the line for many, the contest over rival true ways is more serious than material competitions. Seriously, in a world of diverse rival persuasions, we are all converts, “giving our lives” to the way we follow. FRD embraces inevitable religious rivalries and works to build trust and good will between advocates of different persuasions.

This question is related to the terminology in relation to “religious rivalry.” To be clear, FRD does not advocate conflict resolution per se, where the goal is to end the problem with consensus or compromise. When individuals and groups fundamentally disagree over deep beliefs and values, often the way toward peaceful relations is through continual, respectful contestation. In American history Roger Williams (in the 1640’s) and James Madison (in the 1780’s) promoted a lively experiment for social order via vigorous persuasion contests between diverse religious or political rivals. The very foundations of truth were continually subjects for contestation in dynamic America. It’s still an experiment. However, FRD has discovered that prior to a disagreement, good will must be presumed for trust to take root and thrive among rival contestants. In American and anywhere else, this attitude allows the tension of conflict to be digestible, as rivals come to see themselves in each other—only desiring to convert heart and minds by honest persuasion without threat of legal or physical violence. This can sustain enough mutual trust for participants to desire to live in peaceful co-resistance while engaging in cooperative contestation over the common good—even collaborating in full agreement from time to time!

Attempting to persuade others to change is indeed off-limits in traditional interfaith dialogue. In fact, some involved in interfaith work consider it unethical. FRD strongly disagrees with this attitude in the trust and peace-building community. In terms of social psychology, it is unrealistic. We usually directly or indirectly desire to persuade others that our views are right enough, or the best among various options. Many today hold the view that no perspective on truth is better than another, but of course, want to persuade others that! We are all daily persuaders. Persuasion is not just for business marketing; it is fundamental in terms of expressing our desires and preferences, and where the stakes are higher, persuasion is vital to our interpersonal, social, and political well-being. Importantly, ethical concerns over social power differences should be honestly considered whenever mutual persuasion is the goal—as with religious diplomacy. But since inequality of social power is always a factor, it must not keep us from communicating. Religious diplomacy has an agenda broader than mutual persuasion to change—mutual learning and even collaboration are also lively prospects in Heart & Mind Conversations. Nevertheless, converting hearts to care and trust is always a present motive. The aim of mutual conversion of attitudes is thus an overt—never hidden motive crucial to trust-building. In case anyone is concerned about the ethics of FRD’s approach, the foundation has published its pledge and call for others to engage in persuasion that optimizes the goal of long-term trust and mutual benefit. Here is FRD’s declaration of Commitment to Ethical Persuasion.  

For our complete list of responses to questions download our FAQs document.