mgimoruscultureThe Russian Journal of Cultural Studies and CommunicationThe Russian Journal of Cultural Studies and Communication2949-6330МГИМО МИД России10.24833/2541-8831-2022-1-21-62-76mgimorusculture-13Research ArticleRELIGIOUS DISCOURSESReligions for Peace or Religion of Peace? Some Reflections on the Trends in the Development of Inter-Religious Dialoguehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1491-7624MelnikS. V.

Sergey V. Melnik –Cand. Sci. (Philosophy), Head of the Philosophy Department

51/21 Nakhimovsky Prospekt, Moscow, 117418

melnik.s.vl@yandex.ruInstitute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation20221611202211-2122135Copyright © Melnik S.V., 20222022Melnik S.V.Melnik S.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://cultures.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/13

In the increasingly entangled, interdependent, and digital world, religion is still of utmost importance, and for some societies worldwide, it plays a critical role. The new reality poses novel challenges: the issues we face today call for an investigation into current trends in the dialogue of religions. In this way, followers of various religions willing to cooperate to solve major problems of religious diversity would have reference points with which to compare themselves. Regarding the goals and objectives of social development, the conceptual foundations and the most effective strategies for inter-religious dialogue and communication need to be studied. This objective can best be served by conducting a case study of inter-religious contacts and the most recent trends in this area. This paper is devoted to studying the experience of a global inter-religious dialogue, the so-called religion of peace phenomenon, which emphasizes peace and prosperity. One of the most common practices of the religion of peace is joint prayers of members of different religions, which has entered the agenda of international forums on religion. An important source of information for the study was the author's first-hand experience participating in inter-religious events, including the 10th World Assembly of Religions for Peace – the largest inter-religious organization in the world – in Lindau, Germany, 2019. Four main types of interreligious dialogue are described – polemical, cognitive, peacemaking, and partnership. It is noted that partnership and peacemaking dominate modern intercultural dialogue: helping the underprivileged, maintaining moral values and justice, integrating migrants, protecting the environment, etc. At the same time, the significance of polemical and cognitive (theological) types fades. Thus, the author concludes that intercultural dialogue is becoming a tool for the increasingly peaceful coexistence of religions as social institutions and therefore increases their positive social influence.

inter-religious dialogueinterfaith dialoguereligious cooperationspiritualitypeacekeepingreligioninteractionpost-secularReferencesAppleby R. S. 2015. Religious Violence: The Strong, the Weak, and the Pathological. The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731640.013.0002Appleby R. S. 2015. Religious Violence: The Strong, the Weak, and the Pathological. The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731640.013.0002Avdeyeva I. A. 2013. Perspektivy global'nogo etosa. [Prospects of Global Ethos]. Sotsial'noekonomicheskie iavleniia i protsessy. [Social-Economic Phenomena and Processes]. No. 7. P. 164–167. (In Russian)Avdeyeva I. A. 2013. Perspektivy global'nogo etosa. [Prospects of Global Ethos]. Sotsial'noekonomicheskie iavleniia i protsessy. [Social-Economic Phenomena and Processes]. No. 7. P. 164–167. (In Russian)Barua A. 2015. Hick and Radhakrishnan on Religious Diversity: Back to the Kantian Noumenon. Sophia. 54(2). P. 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-015-0459-z.Barua A. 2015. Hick and Radhakrishnan on Religious Diversity: Back to the Kantian Noumenon. Sophia. 54(2). P. 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-015-0459-z.Çatalbaş R., Çetinkaya K. 2015. Interreligious Dialogue in the Views of Turkish Historians of Religions. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 71(3). a2896. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i3.2896.Çatalbaş R., Çetinkaya K. 2015. Interreligious Dialogue in the Views of Turkish Historians of Religions. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 71(3). a2896. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i3.2896.Chaturvedi V. 2016. Philosophical Implications of Religious Pluralism. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. 33(1). P. 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-015-0040-8.Chaturvedi V. 2016. Philosophical Implications of Religious Pluralism. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. 33(1). P. 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-015-0040-8.Clooney F. X. SJ. 2013. Comparative Theology and Inter-Religious Dialogue. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch4.Clooney F. X. SJ. 2013. Comparative Theology and Inter-Religious Dialogue. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch4.De Béthune OSB P. 2013. Monastic Inter-Religious Dialogue. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch3.De Béthune OSB P. 2013. Monastic Inter-Religious Dialogue. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch3.Guinovart-Pedescoll J.-O. 2021. When Fear becomes Peace. Talking Dialogue. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. P. 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110529173-008.Guinovart-Pedescoll J.-O. 2021. When Fear becomes Peace. Talking Dialogue. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. P. 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110529173-008.Hartman L. 2018. That All May Flourish: Comparative Religious Environmental Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190456023.001.0001.Hartman L. 2018. That All May Flourish: Comparative Religious Environmental Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190456023.001.0001.Kim S. C. 2014. How Could We Get Over the Monotheistic Paradigm for the Interreligious Dialogue? Journal of Interreligious Studies. No. 13. P. 20–33.Kim S. C. 2014. How Could We Get Over the Monotheistic Paradigm for the Interreligious Dialogue? Journal of Interreligious Studies. No. 13. P. 20–33.Knitter P. F. 2013. Inter-Religious Dialogue and Social Action. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch9Knitter P. F. 2013. Inter-Religious Dialogue and Social Action. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. P. 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529911.ch9Knitter P. F. 1995. One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.Knitter P. F. 1995. One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.Ladouceur P. 2017. Religious Diversity in Modern Orthodox Thought. Religions. 8(5). P. 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8050077.Ladouceur P. 2017. Religious Diversity in Modern Orthodox Thought. Religions. 8(5). P. 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8050077.Melnik S. 2018. Klassifikatsii tipov mezhreligioznogo dialoga: analiz sushchestvuiushchikh podkhodov. [A Typology of Inter-Religious Dialogue: Analysis of Existing Approaches]. Gosudarstvo, Religia, Tserkov’ v Rossii i za Rubezhom. [State Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide]. 36(4). P. 87–118. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2018-36-4-87-118.Melnik S. 2018. Klassifikatsii tipov mezhreligioznogo dialoga: analiz sushchestvuiushchikh podkhodov. [A Typology of Inter-Religious Dialogue: Analysis of Existing Approaches]. Gosudarstvo, Religia, Tserkov’ v Rossii i za Rubezhom. [State Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide]. 36(4). P. 87–118. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2018-36-4-87-118.Melnik S. 2020. Klassifikatsiia tipov mezhreligioznogo dialoga. [Classification of Types of InterReligious Dialogue]. Kommunikologiya [Communicology]. 8(2). P. 25–51. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2020-8-2-25-51.Melnik S. 2020. Klassifikatsiia tipov mezhreligioznogo dialoga. [Classification of Types of InterReligious Dialogue]. Kommunikologiya [Communicology]. 8(2). P. 25–51. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2020-8-2-25-51.Melnik S. 2021. Periodizatsiia istorii mezhreligioznogo dialoga na sovremennom etapeю [Periodization of the History of Inter-Religious Dialogue at the Modern Stage]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie. [St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series 1: Theology, Philosophy, Religious Studies]. No. 96. P. 95–118. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI202196.95-118.Melnik S. 2021. Periodizatsiia istorii mezhreligioznogo dialoga na sovremennom etapeю [Periodization of the History of Inter-Religious Dialogue at the Modern Stage]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie. [St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series 1: Theology, Philosophy, Religious Studies]. No. 96. P. 95–118. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI202196.95-118.Moyaert M. 2013. Interreligious Dialogue. Understanding Interreligious Relations. Ed. by. D. Cheetham, D. Pratt, D. Thomas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 193–217.Moyaert M. 2013. Interreligious Dialogue. Understanding Interreligious Relations. Ed. by. D. Cheetham, D. Pratt, D. Thomas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 193–217.Olyan S. M. 2019. Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190681906.001.0001.Olyan S. M. 2019. Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190681906.001.0001.Orton A. 2016. Interfaith Dialogue: Seven Key Questions for Theory, Policy and Practice. Religion, State and Society. 44(4). P. 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2016.1242886.Orton A. 2016. Interfaith Dialogue: Seven Key Questions for Theory, Policy and Practice. Religion, State and Society. 44(4). P. 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2016.1242886.Palmer C., McShane K., Sandler R. 2014. Environmental Ethics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 39(1). P. 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121112-094434.Palmer C., McShane K., Sandler R. 2014. Environmental Ethics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 39(1). P. 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121112-094434.Rodionov M. A. 2003. Klassicheskii islam. [Classical Islam]. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-KLASSIKA; Peterburgskoye Vostokovedeniye. (In Russian)Rodionov M. A. 2003. Klassicheskii islam. [Classical Islam]. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-KLASSIKA; Peterburgskoye Vostokovedeniye. (In Russian)Schweitzer A. 1992. Blagogoveniye pered zhizn’yu [Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben]. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian)Schweitzer A. 1992. Blagogoveniye pered zhizn’yu [Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben]. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian)Shokhin V. K. 2004. Gans Kiung i predlagaemyi im proekt global'nogo etosa. [Hans Kung and Global Ethos]. Voprosy Filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. No. 10. P. 65–73. (In Russian)Shokhin V. K. 2004. Gans Kiung i predlagaemyi im proekt global'nogo etosa. [Hans Kung and Global Ethos]. Voprosy Filosofii [Questions of Philosophy]. No. 10. P. 65–73. (In Russian)Swamy M. 2019. Revisiting the Antecedents of Interreligious Dialogue. The Ecumenical Review. 71(5). P. 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/erev.12475.Swamy M. 2019. Revisiting the Antecedents of Interreligious Dialogue. The Ecumenical Review. 71(5). P. 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/erev.12475.Swidler L. 2015. The ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ at the Tipping Point: The ‘Dialogosphere.’ Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 50(1). P. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2015.0004.Swidler L. 2015. The ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ at the Tipping Point: The ‘Dialogosphere.’ Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 50(1). P. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2015.0004.Swidler L., Küng H. 2021. How the Idea of a ‘Global Ethic’ Arose – and a Catholic Christian’s Reading of the Qur’ānic Basis for It. Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 56(2). P. 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2021.0018.Swidler L., Küng H. 2021. How the Idea of a ‘Global Ethic’ Arose – and a Catholic Christian’s Reading of the Qur’ānic Basis for It. Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 56(2). P. 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1353/ecu.2021.0018.Van Schalkwyk A. 2013. A Place Where We All Stand Together: The New Creation Story as Opportunity and Imperative for Interreligious Dialogue. Theology. 116(1). P. 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X12461230.Van Schalkwyk A. 2013. A Place Where We All Stand Together: The New Creation Story as Opportunity and Imperative for Interreligious Dialogue. Theology. 116(1). P. 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X12461230.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.