In the last four months, I have been participating in the Boston Bridges Fellowship Program for interreligious dialogue. My experience with my dialogue partners from other religious and nonreligious traditions challenges my Presbyterian Christian faith. At the same time, it is an enriching experience that has prompted me to ponder more on the diverse nature of the religious landscape of our postmodern world. My focus here concerns the principle and purpose that is to guide our interreligious dialogues, and it brings me back to my own cultural roots—the Chinese tradition, which itself is an outcome of over two thousand years of religious-cultural dialogue.

Can the dialogical nature of the development of Chinese culture be of any referential value to the religious dialogue in our time?

The three major components of the Chinese civilization—Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism—differ in their origins and are distinct systems in their theories and practices. In the long imperial history of China, they competed with each other for the royal support and for greater influence over the souls of the Chinese people. However, by and large the three traditions coexisted in peace most of the time. Despite their conflicting worldviews, they borrowed from each other and influenced each other in their historical interactions. The end of this long historical process saw them greatly intermingled, and together they forged into one greater Chinese culture.  

Can the dialogical nature of the development of Chinese culture be of any referential value to the religious dialogue in our time? I believe the Chinese experience can help us to articulate our goals for interreligious dialogue and find the best way to do it. I will focus on Confucian tradition for the moment, since it functioned as most Chinese dynasties’ official state ideology and was most influential in the Chinese society.

In Analects, Confucius says, “A gentleman aims at harmony, and not at uniformity.” I believe that the Confucian notion of seeking harmony, not an abstract truth, can help different religious traditions coexist peacefully in spite of their conflicting truth claims. The Confucian way of thinking is relational. In the Confucian understanding, a person’s existence and its meaning and value can only be found in one’s relations within one’s family, community, and the nation at large. The concept of an individual as defined in the modern Western tradition is absent in Confucianism. In today’s social landscape where religions intermingle, if each religion takes a relational view and strives for harmony together with other religions, this can make our world a better place to live.

Confucian wisdom also provides advice for how to conduct interreligious dialogue. To seek common ground while maintaining differences, Confucianism emphasizes, shall be the guiding principle in our social interaction. I see the principle is already operative in our interreligious discussions for the last four months, even if it is not explicitly stated. Among the Boston Bridges participants, our religious convictions—and our convictions about religions—are varied, and the vast differences could have inflamed a confrontational debate. However, this has never happened. Hardly a moment during our discussions has been spent on debating the differences of our religious beliefs and practices. On the contrary, the differences were acknowledged and accepted as they were. Anchored in our own religious traditions, each of us spoke from our own perspective, while at the same time respecting the other people’s traditions. My impression was that the religious diversity in our cohort was appreciated and cherished. We were curious to know and try to understand our dialogical partners’ religious beliefs and customs. Nobody was trying to persuade his/her conversation partners of the superiority of his/her own religious tradition.

Confucianism believes that our shared common humanity is wide enough to bridge any cultural gaps. One neo-Confucian doctrine says, “The hearts of the human beings everywhere feel and reason by the same rule.” In our small group discussions, we opened our hearts to share with dialogue partners some of our most intimate personal stories. It only surprised me how well I understood my partners at a deepest level. I could identify with their feelings despite the wide cultural gaps between us. In the coming semester, I look forward to more dialogues with my colleagues to explore the depth and width of our common humanity.

Image of the Temple of Confucius at Qufu.