Classification of Types of Interreligious Dialogue

Abstract

The existing classifications of types of interreligious dialogue have significant limitations and shortcomings and do not allow us to describe this extremely complex, multi- faceted phenomenon in a systematic and complete way. This paper represents original classification of interreligious dialogue, which overcomes the disadvantages of current research approaches in this area. On the basis of the «intention» criterion, i.e. the motivation that encourages followers of different religions to come into contact with each other, four types of interreligious dialogue are distinguished: polemical, cognitive, peacemaking and partnership. These types of dialogue are lined up respectively around the following questions: Who is right?, Who are you?, How can we live together peacefully? and What can we do to improve the world?. In each of the four types of interreligious dialogue using the criteria goal (i.e. tasks headed towards by the participants in the dialogue); principles i.e. the starting points, which determine the interaction), and form (i.e. participants in the dialogue) various sorts of them are identified and described. For example, the following sorts of cognitive dialogue are considered: theological, spiritual, human (Buberian), truth-seeking dialogue, theology of religions, theology of interreligious dialogue, comparative theology. According to the author, the presented classification allows for the first time to describe different types of interreligious dialogue in a complex, systematic and interrelated way.

“Hair for Freedom” Movement in Iran: Interreligious Dialogue in Social Media Activism?

“…According to these authors, there are four different types of IRD agendas that reflect its conceptualization and practice, blended, in which ICD and ICD are framed in equal terms-from discourse to all policymaking and its implementation-without distinctions, explaining religious diversity as part of a whole; disjunct-similar to the previous type-with a disjunctive approach between IRD discourse and its implementation; autonomous, in which IRD and ICD are dealt with as distinctive dimensions; and neglected, in which IRD ignores or does not recognize the religious dimension of ICD. Melnik (2020) supports the necessity of classifying IRD to understand its goals and impacts on society. However, limiting IRD as a dialogue between religious followers, he takes intentionality as a criterion to discriminate what calls people to engage in an IRD and discriminates four types of IRD, polemical, cognitive, peacemaking, and partnership.…”

Discourse from the Perspective of Mohammed Arkoun: An Examination of the Values of Interfaith Dialogue

“…The urgency of religion today is to explore universal issues and reconstruct positive relationships between followers of different religions. Melnik (2020) cited the words of Peter Berger and the majority of scholars in the Types of Interreligious Dialogue, that today's world is highly religious, and modernity does not give birth to secularization but pluralism. Thus, there will be close interaction between adherents with different value systems and worldviews in one society, and it is called interreligious dialog.…”