My Friend and colleague, Paul Raushenbush, Religion Editor at the Huffington Post, published a fascinating piece on the difficulty of intra-religious dialogue. Yes, intra-religious, not inter-religious. As Raushenbush acknowledges, the conversations we have with those within our respective spiritual communities are often far more difficult than those we have with members of other communities.

As the article acknowledges, it is precisely because we are more connected to those who share our religious affiliations that we seem to struggle harder when differences arise. To paraphrase Raushenbush, when it comes to religious conversation, our expectations of sameness or difference are at least as determinative as the degree to which we actually agree or disagree with one another. In other words, precisely because we expect to agree with those within our community, we find it especially painful when we discover that we may not in fact do so.
The article observes that “We will continue to have tension among Christians until we all agree on everything or Jesus comes again — and I am betting on Jesus.” Does that mean that when Jesus comes, the expectation is that people, or at least all Christians, will agree? Is the messianic expectation one of all differences resolved, or could it be a heightened capacity to sustain genuine difference, even within a given tradition, and to do so with civility, respect and love?
While the author has since told me that his reference to when “Jesus comes again” is, for him, a reference to a distant future so far off as to be irrelevant, my question remains for anyone who believes in a future time when all will be perfected.
The redemptive/messianic expectations of any community shape their present realities and behaviors profoundly. In fact, if you show me those expectations, I can almost always tell you how that community is likely to behave, at least if they have to power and opportunity to do so.
A final observation about the relative ease and difficulty of inter- and intra-faith encounter: a great deal inter-faith encounter isn’t terribly inter-anything. Too often it is people who happen to mumble in different languages while wearing slightly different clothing gathering to celebrate the fact that when it come to “the important stuff”, however they have already defined it, they all agree! Not exactly surprising that they find the conversation quite easy.
The real work, whether inter-religious or intra-religious, begins when those in the room have substantive disagreements about whatever it is they both believe is “the important stuff”. One crucial technique for making that conversation work, as Raushenbush points out in his article, is that all parties to the conversation examine their own shortcomings before analyzing those of their interlocutors. Think of it as sacred self-critique.
Given the state of today’s religious struggles, not to mention those in the contemporary political arena, the future of the planet may depend on our ability to practice it better.