Page 1
FROM DIAPRAXIS TO DIALOGUE. Christian-Muslim Relations by Lissi Rasmussenin
"Dialogue in Action - in honour of Johannes Aagaard." eds. Lars Thunberg, Moti
Lal Pandit, Carl Vilh. Fogh-Hansen New Delhi 1988
Dialogue only becomes meaningful when rooted in a common praxis. Dialogue is
disclosed in 'diapraxis'. It is only by sharing our lives, struggles, and pains
together, by working together creatively and changingly that we can deal with
our theological differences meaningfully. This is what eight years of experience
with Christian-Muslim dialogue in Africa and Europe have taught me. Dialogue as
a necessity of life. Dialogue has become a jargon word, a cliché often used and
abused. It has so many definitionsthat one hardly knows wich one to consider. It
is a very theoretical and almost mechanical term. It is used here in its
original sense indicating a two-way communication, undertaken in mutualtrust and
respect. Understanding is the key word: dialogue is the willingness to
understand theother as she/he understands her/himself. In John V. Taylor's words
dialogue is "a sustainedconversation between parties who are not saying the same
thing and who recognize and respectthe differences, the contradictions, and the
mutual exclusions between their various ways ofthinking."1It is not a question
of placing people in categories but being ready to listen and be challengedby
them. It is our relationships with people rather than our concepts about them
that count.Dialogue is readiness to set forth what we have in common without
neglecting or hiding thedifferences. It is to accept a common understanding of
faith without which our divergent beliefshave no relevance or meaning.Thus the
question of dialogue with Muslims is not a question of how we perceive
Islamicdoctrines but whether we see Muslims as our fellow human beings with the
same kind ofquestions, problems, and hopes as we have as Christians.Given the
world situation, there is no other way than dialogue in relation to Muslims.
There isneither the time nor the resources to do anything else. We need each
other. Dialogue is necessarynot only because of what we have in common but also
because of our differences. We cannotcontinue to fight each other but we have to
stand together and do what is God's will in the world.S.Wesley Ariarajah has
said that very clearly:"We have no choice in this matter.Either we learn to live
in mutual acceptance, openness and inbrotherhood with our neighbours or miss the
mission of God ofbringing all things under His love."2Muslims and Jews stand in
closer relation to Christians than do other religious people becausewe are
united in a relationship of loyalty and obedience to God - an historical God who
hasrevealed himself (herself or itself) and wants to be believed through his
word.3We are the1The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue, Reprints No.209,
Apr. 1980 (Gaba, Kenya).2Faith in the Midst of Faith, WCC Geneva 1977, p.57.
Ariarajah is leader of the WCC department ondialogue and has his background in
the Methodist Church in India and Sri Lanka.3I shall not go into the question
(mainly asked in Europe) of different concepts of God in Christianityand Islam.
The Qur'an is very clear that there is only one God for Christians and
Muslims:"Our God andyour God is One;and it is to Him we bow." (S.29,46) See also
S.42,15;10,94. Qur'an references are madeto A.Ysuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an. The
Islamic Foundation. London 1975.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2children of Abraham. Therefore Rev. Peter Jennings, a Methodist, director of a
mission in theEast End of London has gone as far as to say "we should stop
calling Muslims people of anotherfaith and start calling them other faithful
people."4We are all muslims with a small m, i.e. humanbeings who have given
ourselves to God. This is the destination of all human beings according toIslam:
we are created to be God's servants (Ar.abd) - we are created towards God. We
are humanbeings who have responded to God's call. For Muslims this call is
clearest in the Qur'an, forChristians it is clearest in Christ. We have a common
ground, however, on the basis of which weare able to tackle these differences in
a better way. The two different understandings of revelationmust be seen in this
context of God's whole revelation, the love of the Creator embracing thewhole
human being and all human beings. Besides, God is always greater than anyone's
under-standing of God.Dialogue is a necessity of life. "We need to build up our
relationships expressing mutualhuman care and searching for mutual
understanding."5Approximately 800 million people in theworld build their lives
on the Qur'an as God's address to people. Islam gives something to thesepeople
and demands something from them. If we continue to live with charicatures of
oneanother, in opposition to each other, our relationships will suffer. The
experience of dialogue canbreak these narrow convictions and perhaps challenge
us to change them. Furthermore, throughdialogue, through understanding the
convictions of another person, one is better able tounderstand oneself and to
relate critically to one's own tradition. If one is able to listen withempathy
to what the Muslims want to tell about their faith it can be an enrichment to
one's ownfaith.Critique of dialogue.There have been various objections to the
idea of dialogue and the way it has been expressed inVatican II and by the World
Council of Churches (WCC). Some people see dialogue as a liberalwatering down of
Christian doctrine. Others see it as a betrayal of the Gospel or of Mission -
athreat to their own faith. Then there are those who use an invective like
"syncretism" againstthose who involve themselves in dialogue.There are
Christians who in their "dialogue attempt" tend to construct a Christianized
form ofIslam, tend to interprete the Qur'an in a Christian way paying little
attention to what the Muslimsthemselves see or experience as central or
peripheral. This is based on a tendency withinourselves that we only want to be
sympathetic when we recognize in others what we like inourselves. The ultimate
expression of this is the term "anonymous Christians"6which indicatesthat we can
only express our approval of others by claiming that they are like us,
althoughanonymously. What is at stake in dialogue, however, is a clear
recognition that the other who isnot like oneself can be right and even
righteous in the eyes of God."Dialogue is the ability to accept the other in his
or her otherness. If we cannotaccept others as God's children until they believe
as we do, then we do not act4Newsletter of the Office on Christian-Muslim
Relations, Hartford Sem. Jan. 1987, No.34 p.7.5Guidelines on Dialogue with
People of Living Faiths and Ideologies. WCC Geneva 1979, p.10.6The theory of
"anonymous Christianity" was originallyproposed by Karl Rahner as an attempt to
break through Christian exclusivism. It became a modelaccepted by most Roman
Catholic theologian though later refashioned and expanded by some. See
forinstance Schlette, Küng, Rahner, Anonymous Christianity: A Disputed Question.
Theology Digest 24(1976) pp.125-31.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3or speak from within the message of the gospel."7To use the invective "syncretist"
is a derailment of the dialogue. For what is syncretism? Is notevery faith
syncretistic in nature? Faith, if it is to be relevant to one's life as a
holisticinterpretation of reality, changes constantly in relation to one's
experiences and is therebysyncretistic in the literal sense of the word.In the
west the systematic concept of dialogue, however, has in practice become
apreoccupation with abstract theories. Dialogue has come to take place among
theologians andscholars at conferences without many results on a grass root
level. This critique of dialogue asbeing too cerebral was put forward first of
all by the WCC.The WCC began (from 1974) to turn to "community" as a focus for
dialogue.8Dialogue wasnot only to be a theoretical discussion but a way to live
- a form of life. Whereas the Vaticanexpresses more theologically the very open
attitude to Islam, the WCC dialogue takes place moreon the ethical level, in
order to improve the ways we live with each other. "Dialogue beginswhere people
live together" is one of the WCC mottoes. Dialogue is not only activity of
meetingsand conferences but a way of living one's Christian faith in relation to
one's neighbours.Later the recommendation from the Mombasa conference for
theologians sounded that"Christians and Muslims spare no effort to live and work
with each other, andwith others, towards reconciling conflicts and helping local
communities to actupon their own choices in self-development towards a more just
andparticipatory society."9This critique has been useful as a counteraction to
the intellectual approach to dialogue in thewest. It reminds us that dialogue
must take place from below (in the communities) and not fromabove (in
conferences). It seems, however, that the WCC has not really come to grips with
thistheme. No concrete dialogue-model has come out of it, a model to be used in
practice in, forinstance, Europe. Concensus statments have been produced at
various conferences but withoutthe sense of human passions and frailties bound
up with a daily practical struggle by Christiansand Muslims, separately and
together, for social and political justice, for recognition and dignityas
individuals.Dialogue and diapraxis.Against the background of my experiences in
Africa and Europe, I see dialogue as a livingprocess, a way of living in
co-existence and pro-existence. Therefore I want to introduce the term"diapraxis".
While dialogue indicates a relationship in which talking together is central,
diapraxisindicates a relationship in which a common praxis is essential. Thus by
diapraxis I do not meanthe actual application of dialogue but rather dialogue as
action. We need a more anthropologicalcontextual approach to dialogue where we
see diapraxis as a meeting between people who try toreveal and transform the
reality they share. From there theological questions can be asked anddealt with.
Out of a diapraxis may emerge a deeper meeting, a dialogue.Diapraxis is to
question the status quo. For instance in Europe this might involve a
religiouscritique of processes and structures in society, with reference to a
changed future. Christians andMuslims must not only wait for religious
prejudices and misunderstandings to disappear but mustbegin to remove the social
differences that contribute to keeping these prejudices alive.Both in the Bible
and in the Qur'an God's word is not understood as a conceptualcommunication but
as a creative event, a history that requires obedient participation - whether
inaction or in suffering - in God's active righteousness and mercy. As far as
Christianity is7Ariarajah, The Bible and People of Other Faiths, WCC 1985
p.32.8This is clearly outlined in Guidelines on Dialogue.9Unpublished conference
paper 1980.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4concerned, "a careful reexamination of the life and teachings of Jesus shows
that Christian faithis primarily about relationships and not about beliefs,
about human fellowship and not about aninstitution to preserve doctrines."10If
we want to stick to the example of Jesus and the Qur'an our life must be lived
inidentification with others in their concrete life conditions. This
identification was for Jesus (andfor us Christians) connected with the cross,
whereas in the Qur'an (and for Muslims) it isconnected with the destination of
human beings as God's servants. The opposite of diapraxis -working against Islam
and Muslims - would be, in Kosuke Koyama's words, to "carry the cross inthe
handle", to control others and control the power of God.11It would be to neglect
what wereally are as human beings, submitted to God, to cover reality, our own
nature. In Ariarajahswords:"Christian theology should allow God to be God; it
should not own God, as we own a piece ofprivate property. We cannot fence God in
and say:"Well, if you want to know God, come throughthis gate". We do not own
God; God owns us, and God owns the whole of creation. This is themessage of the
Bible."12This is very much in line with Latin American liberation theology: in
the same way as theologyis only authentic as a history so also dialogue becomes
authentic when rooted in a history ofdiapraxis - a history that comprises a
response to the reality God has shown us. Doing comesbefore knowing in
liberation theology. It is practice that illuminates theory rather than praxis
thatis predetermined by theory.13In this way interreligious dialogue serves as a
hermeneutic ofpraxis.14Diapraxis is not an idealist matter but rather, unlike
most dialogue approaches, takes theuneven power relations between Christians and
Muslims seriously. A power relation alwaysarises when two individuals or groups
of individuals meet and talk. These relations are bothhistorical and actual and
have been a hindrance to Christian-Muslim dialogue. Muslims oftenfind it
difficult to understand the interest of Christians in dialogue - Christians who
often findthemselves in a position of power. This power relation is not taken
into account in most dialogueattempts.It is our ethical attitudes to human
beings rather than our concepts about them that count. Theseethical goals are
the concern of some Muslim theologians who advocate dialogue.15People whobelieve
in one God (Christians, Muslims and Jews) have a duty to realize God's will on
earth - amission to resist the evil and godless in the world. Some of them
advocate Christian-Muslimcooperation in the struggle for liberation from
political, social and economic oppression, inspiredby Christian works on
liberation theology exploring its relevance for the Islamic community andits
relation to the world. To enter the struggle for peace is for them more
important than beingstuck in dogmas about salvation of individual souls. Asghar
Ali Engineer is one such theologian.According to him, the Christian view of God
and human beings is not only tied to a Christianview of God but is also in
profound accord with Islamic "stewardship" (Ar.khilafah) of God'screation. This
is an area where Christians and Muslims could come together:10Ariajah in Faith
in the Midst of Faith p.56.11Koyama, No Handle on the Cross. London
1976.12Ariajah, The Bible... p.11.13Paul E.Knitter, No Other Name. A Critical
Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the WorldReligions. London 1985
p.205f.14ibid., p.206.15It must be noted that dialogue is only a marginal theme
among Muslims as such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
5"Will Islam, will the other religions petrify into rigid dogmas and
remainmainly exclusively preoccupied with their traditional business of saving
theindividual soul or will they grow into dynamic movements, throwing away
theflotsam and jetsam from their surface and respond to the new constructive
anddestructive forces in their world? Will they, for instance, be able to meet
thechallenge of the atom and the atomic war that hangs like a doom over
mankindand teach people how to live in this atomic age?16Other writers on
Christianity and Christian-Muslim dialogue stress mutual love and enrichmentas
the goal of dialogue. The most prolific and challenging of them all was Ismail
al-Faruqi, whosays:"It is my sincere and humble opinion that the best road to
follow is that ofsharing sorrow for what happened in the past and of choosing
resolutely, all ofus, to open ourselves not only to dialogue and encounter, but
to mutual love."17Also Faruqi pleads for a dialogue on the ethical level:"In the
circumstances in which Muslims and Christians find themselves today,primacy
belongs to ethical questions, not the theological. Dialogue should seekat first
to establish a mutual understanding, answers to the fundamentalquestion, What
ought I to do?"18Ali Merad (from Algeria) Considers that Christians and Muslims
need each other to stimulateand deepen their appreciation of what each has. In
his book, "Charles Foucauld: ou Regard del'Islam",19he attempts to see what the
life of a Christian saint could mean for a Muslim. OtherMuslims in recent years
have explored the life of Francis of Assisi for the same purpose.20For many
Muslims the goal of dialogue is the creation of an atmosphere in which an honest
andopen exchange of views and even critique of each other may take place.
Knowledge about eachother implies that contempt and anger which would otherwise
develop in a bad direction can beexpressed and responded to. The main point in
this critique of Christianity is that Christianchurches still are tools for
North Atlantic political and economical dominance. Christians havesubmitted
themselves to western civilization and by so doing have sacrificed their
religious andmoral values. Western civilization has made Christians different
from the Nasara (originalChristians) who are mentioned in the Qur'an with so
much respect and reverence (S.5,82;57,27).Muslims do not consider these views
about Christians as destructive to dialogue but rather itsessence.The common
basis for diapraxis.The umma (community of Muslims) and the church consist of
human beings who belong toGod. They are God-oriented and therefore have greater
responsibility - a responsibility that must16K.G. Saiyadin, Sanctions for Peace:
Islam, World Religions No.23, p.54-55.17Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths.
Brentwood 1982. p.3-4.18Islam and Christianity: Diatribe or Dialogue? Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 5,1, 1968 p.58.Faruqui was Palestinian, was killed in his
home in the United States last year.19Paris 1975.20Cf. Fuad Allam, 'Islam e
Christiani: conosceri construire la pace', in Francesco: un 'pazzo deslegare.
Assisi 1983 pp.213-22 and Roger Garaudy 'Per un dialogo per un civilta' in
Francesco pp.203-212.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
6be shared together. The common basis for diapraxis is as follows:1) The respect
for God's word which leads to faith and active obedience together with the task
ofbringing human beings near to God. Christians and Muslims are under an
obligation to love theirfellow human beings and to see to it that the image of
God is not made false in the world.2) Human beings are God's creation. They
belong to God - are sacred material. Therefore there isa shared high respect for
human life regardless of race, sex, belief, nationality and social status.Human
beings are created in God's image. According to Islam, human beings share in
theabsolute freedom which strictly speaking only belongs to God. Besides, all
human beings areborn Muslims, i.e. created towards God and thereby totally
dependent on God. They have beengiven special qualities in creation such as
intelligence, free will, speech etc. Finally humanbeings are created to be God's
caliphs (vicegerents) on earth which implies that human beingsare to represent
their creator and reflect the qualities of the creator (S.2,30-39).3) God has
revealed himself in history - as Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob's God. God
intervenedin human life in order to make his message known, in Judea and in
Arabia. Thus God is Lordover history and can change it. That is the intimacy of
revelation between God and human beings- revelation which is a reality in the
Qur'an as well as in Jesus Christ. Both are gifts unobtainablefor human beings
by their own effort.4) Common appeal to serve humanity. Both Christians and
Muslims believe that they are calledby God to fight against structures
destructive of human beings. They believe that God demandsjustice and acts in
all areas of life and that the final victory over evil powers is in God's
hands.This gives us courage and strength to work together. Christians and
Muslims are called to loveGod and the neighbour. The Qur'an especially calls for
taking care of orphans, the poor and theneedy.5) Common responsibility. The
whole of life belongs to God to whom human beings areresponsible for all their
social, political and economic activities. God condemns all kinds ofabuse of
creation. Modern technological developments affect the relationship of human
beings totheir creator and to moral and ethical values. Both religions stand for
freedom, justice and peace.Diapraxis as living and working together.Africa is
the continent where Christians and Muslims have lived together most
harmoniously.Most African Christians would say that they live a life as
Christians in a daily positiveexperience of neighbourliness with Muslims. This
is a harmony that grows out of a situation ofliving and working together. It
also grows out of a tradition of tolerance and togetherness - atradition in
which religion can never be exclusive. The dictum 'I am because we are' as
adefinition of the African experience can not be seen as applying to separate
Christian and Muslimgroups but is all-encompassing. It is not the one or the
other religious affilitation that conditionsthe WE but the WE conditions the he
and the she of the different religious affiliations.This was especially my
experience in two African villages, in Mdandu - one of the moresuccessful Ujamaa-villages
in southern Tanzania,21and in Korot - a village outside Jos in PlateauState,
Northern Nigeria.22In Mdandu the effort to build up networks of production and
contributeto the wellbeing of the village was much more important than the
theological differences thatmay have been there between Christians and Muslims.
The villagers saw themselves first of allas WAJAMAA (Ujamaa-people) and only
secondarily as Christians and Muslims. There was noroom for prejudices and
theological controversies. The common experience of going out with thehoes and
cultivating the land together became experiences of hope and God's intervention
in theirdaily life. Diapraxis came first and led to dialogue, a mutual
understanding for each other's faith.In Korot it was their family tradition that
brought Christians and Muslims together, brought21Mdandu is appr. 50% Christians
and 50% Muslims. I was there in 1980.22In Korot appr. 25% are Muslims and 35%
are Christians. Research was done 1977-81.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
7solidarity to the villagers. It was not Islam that determined the relationship
between Christiansand Muslims. Kinship gave a person his/her place in society.
Similar experiences could bementioned from other African countries where many
families are multi-religious and bothChristians and Muslims are strongly
involved in their ethnic identity. A western understanding ofdialogue, a
constructed dialogue would be absurd and artificial in the African context
wherediapraxis is already existing. Christians and Muslims in Africa do not have
to learn how, but theyjust continue to live with each other. This also applied
traditionally to countries in the MiddleEast and still does in certain
areas.From the African example we can learn that it is by taking our starting
point in our commonlife based on common work that we reach a mutual
understanding. In Europe it is in existingcommunities where families meet as
neighbours and children play together that spontaneousdialogue may develop. It
is in kindergardens, schools, youth clubs, social services, unions,hospitals,
offices, factories etc. where we meet as neighbours in and through our
commonexistence and common work that we can have diapraxis - where we can
struggle together for adaily life that makes it worth living and religion
possible as an interpretation of that life.Diapraxis as co-witness.Diapraxis is
the occasion for witness - concrete common witness in the actual life realities.
It isa witness, never against others, but a witness for others and with others.
It is a mutual witness ofthe hope within us, to each other and to the world. We
have a message for each other and wehave a common message to a world in which
humanity is threatened, and human beings are indanger of being reduced to a part
of an incomprehensible bureaucratic social machine. We haveto be God's witnesses
to a common human existence and dignity before God. This is the
commonresponsibility of Christians and Muslims toward God - a responsibility to
live in service of theworld, in service of each other and in service of God (cf.
S.22,78).For Muhammad Talbi (from the University of Tunis) the very raison
d'etre of dialogue issimply this common witness and service of God on earth. It
is obedience to God's will:"It should be radically disinterested collaboration
without ulterior motive in theservice of God, that is to say, of the Good and
the True. In a climate withoutequivocation, relaxed, cleansing, and serene,
dialogue in the future could becarried out to the profit of all, without
exception or exclusion.23Diapraxis as sharing common experiences and
activities.On the basis of a common life with Muslims and a mutual trust,
diapraxis is to work together incommon projects and activities, to exchange
services and friendship. Christians and Muslimswho share so far-reaching views
regarding the world and human responsibility in it must be ableto work together
in service to the community in areas such as peace, ecology, education,
andhealth and implement them locally.This could be a model for Europe -
Christians and Muslims working together in variousactivites as for instance in
struggling for the rights of the Muslim minority and in meeting thecommon
challenge of the new religiosity - inspired from the East and from the United
States -and of secularization, the vacuum created by the kind of society we have
built up.Both Christians and Muslims have difficulties in maintaining human and
religious identities inour contemporary secularized societies. The power
relation, however, is unbalanced. Christiansare better prepared for this
situation being at home and economically stronger, whereas theMuslims are
strangers and often come from rural areas, i.e. fairly closed societies. They
comefrom a monoculture in which culture and religion are so intimately
intertwined that they can notbe distinguished. In the European situation,
therefore, Islam is used as a defence, as a symbol of23Islam et dialoge:
Reflections sur un theme d'actualité. Tunis 1972.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
8identity. Muslims become insecure when they meet not only European culture but
also otherforms of Muslim culture. In spite of these difficulties we can work
for diapraxis in which wemake room for religious identities.Diapraxis as common
social and political involvement.According to the Qur'an and the Bible, our task
in the world is to be God's stewards, God'scaliphs who must administer life and
property according to God's will, i.e. to the benefit of thewhole community
(S.2,30; 6,165; 35,39; NT Lk.12,45; 16,1-7; Mt. 24,8f.;Eph.3,1-13;
1,10;1.Pet.4,10). As a Muslim one has to be both physically and conscienteously
involved in theworld. Thus the Muslims must fight in order to change her/himself
and the world for the better.This is what the caliph-position implies.Peace and
justice are the two most important ethical values for Muslims and are
intimatelyinterconnected (S.49,9). To "strive in the way of God" is to strive
for peace and justice (S.4,75)against oppression. The Arabic word for "strive"
is Jihad. Jihad does not mean "holy war" whichin Arabic would be "harb muqaddasa",
and this term does not exist in the Qur'an nor in theHadith (the tradition of
Muhammad). Jihad means "to try", "to struggle" or "to right the wrong"and is
normally connected with the expression "in the way of God". Jihad is a double
process,involving the individual's spiritual growth and the growth of human
beings in relation to eachother.Jihad has two meanings: Jihad Akbar (the great
jihad) which is the jihad bi'nafs (struggle ofthe ego). This is the individual's
constant struggle to break down his/her self-centredness andegoism and replace
it with obidience to God's will. Only after success in the Jihad Akbar,
overone's selfishness can one be victorious in the Jihad Asghar (the lesser
jihad) for righteousness,against tyranny and oppression, against those who
attack and threaten human lives. Any struggleagainst circumstances which are in
contradiction to the revealed will of God for human lifecounts as jihad. This
jihad, according to the Qur'an, has nothing to do with "holy war" but israther
the opposite, a progressive struggle to remove conflicts between human
beings.According to the Qur'an, only "tawhidi-religions", i.e. monotheistic
religions have the potentialto differentiate between oppression and justice -
the potential to "strive in the way of God",identify and remove the various
forms of oppression and inequality that exist in the human order.Consciousness
of the roots of injustice is an important part of the God-oriented
consciousness.Thus diapraxis is a common jihad in the Qur'anic sense for peace
as a total elimination ofcontradictions. It is a struggle away from self-centred
life to a life in which God is the centre. It isa struggle within ourselves and
in the world to make it better. "Verily never will God change thecondition of a
people until they change it themselves." (S.13,11)We all bring assumptions drawn
from our own experience of faith to such a struggle.Difference in Christian and
Muslim approaches leads to different answers in areas of war,violence and
peacemaking. All the more reason is there to take care of the forces that unite
us -rather than those that separate us. For it is the forces that unite us which
create unity in our goalsto struggle for peace. "All you who believe, enter into
peace"(S.2,208).Diapraxis and dialogue as common worship, prayer, and
meditation.Sharing together in prayer and meditation is an important part of our
diapraxis and ourdialogue. It is in our prayer and meditation that we make
ourselves open to the work of Godwithin us and among us, and therefore also open
to one another. In our dialogue with each other,God is constantly in dialogue
with us. In our common prayer and meditation our dialoguebecomes more
experiential rather than analytical, something that takes place not only in
ourintellect but in the experiences of our heart, experiences of God's presence.
This means that wewestern Christians have to learn from the eastern tradition,
not only from Muslims but also fromeastern Christianity about intuition,
meditation and silence. We have to learn to be fascinated byGod's greatness and
glory. Our theology must become based less on reason and more on the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
9heart, the experience.Conclusion: From diapraxis to dialogue.Although the
conflicts in the world are not primarily religious conflicts, hostility
betweenChristians and Muslims for instance in Lebanon acts as a hindrance to
peace. Christians andMuslims, who belong to religions that preach peace have
down through history attacked eachother because of misinformation about each
other. They have constituted and still constitute adanger to social harmony and
on the whole to peace in the world. This history must be turned.A turn of
history requires that we look to the situation outside Europe, to Africa and
Asiawhere Christians and Muslims have practiced diapraxis and dialogue. From
Africans and Asianswe can learn that only through diapraxis in and for the world
can we have a meaningful dialogue.Because God is on the move we must be. In that
common diapraxis where we involve ourselvespolitically and socially, it is not
enough to have one perspective. We must have two, united in adialectic
relationship: visions must go together with tenderness, creativity with
attentiveness, andactivity with the hope in God's future.I shall end this
contribution with a reproduction of a poem that originates in South Africa.
Thepoem uses the picture of the rainbow - a picture of God's brother/sisterhood.
All colours arecontained in the rainbow. No colour has a favour or an advantage.
The rainbow is the sign ofhope in God's future. We see God's peace in the
rainbow, and at the same time we see our sistersand brothers in the world. We
are all in this brother/sisterhood although we are different. We arethere each
with her/his colour. We are kept together in the same bow. Where the rainbow
ends, anew situation develops, and there will be no difference between
people.Where the rainbow ends, brotherthere will be a place eventually,where the
world shall sing all its songs,and we shall sing them together, brother,you and
I, although you are a Muslim and I a Christianthough you are black and I am
white,though you are a man and I a woman.It will not be beautiful singing,
brother,for none of us knows the tune.However, we can learn it, brother, you and
I.There is no such thing as a Muslim tune,there is no such thing as a Christian
tune.Only music, my brother.And it is music we shall sing,where the rainbow
ends.2424The original poem is written by Richard Rive, South Africa. Translated
into Danish by H.F.Rasmussen in "Ind Under Regnbuen". Savanne 1983, p.149. From
this translation I have adapted it toChristian-Muslim dialogue.