to the Seventh World Assembly of the World Conference of Religions and Peace, Amman, Jordan

Your Royal Highness, Your Excellencies, Fellow Religious Leaders, Ladies and Gentlemen, may I begin by thanking the Governing Body of the WCRP who, together with the Patron of this Assembly, kindly invited me to speak at this opening session. It is a great privilege and one that I accepted with alacrity. I am very grateful too for the recent invitation I received for my name to be put forward to become one of the Co-Presidents of this distinguished organisation - an invitation which I was also delighted to accept.

As we all know, very shortly the third Christian millennium will begin. Within the celebrations there will of course, be a proper focus both on the birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and on places with which his name is inseparably linked - Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nazareth - places not very far away from where we are today. Indeed, in coming here to Amman I am conscious that I am close to the centre of an area that has been the crucible for three of the World's great faith traditions - Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

As it happens, the mapmakers of Europe understood Jerusalem's importance 1,000 years ago by placing that holy city at the centre of the World. Indeed if you go to Hereford Cathedral in England you can see a quite remarkable medieval map of the world on display. The British Isles hover uneasily on one edge, while the centre of the map and its focus is Jerusalem. And for that mapmaker it was Jerusalem's religious significance that put it there. Faith was at the heart of his understanding of the world.

And part of the task of this Assembly is, I believe, to remind our world of the significance of religious faith to so many of its people, and of its importance to good governance. That theme is, I am delighted to say, being taken up by many at present. The United Nations, in particular, has been seeking to find ways of building closer relationships with the faith communities.

Likewise, the World Bank. Last year its President James Wolfensohn, and I, initiated a dialogue between the Bank and nine of the world's Faith Communities which has the potential to be a force for good in many parts of the world. We were greatly assisted by world leaders like Prince Hassan and the Aga Khan.

Thus, in inviting me here, Dr William Vendley wrote: 'Today as people around the world appear to be captured by old hatreds and seized by deadly conflicts, the importance of mobilising the peacemaking and co-operative possibilities of the world's religious communities has perhaps never been greater.'

I endorse those words wholeheartedly and want to direct our thoughts to those themes of peacemaking and co-operation by focussing on two main questions which I posed in the Upper Chamber of the British Parliament a few weeks ago: First, Do religions cause conflict? And second, Can religions resolve conflict?

First, do religions cause conflict? Some will recall Samuel Huntingdon's now famous thesis that clashes of civilisation are replacing clashes of ideology - that the world's fault lines on the eve of the Millennium are in a broad sense cultural. Others either claim or imply, in this context, that religion, rather than healing conflict, actually adds to it.

It is undeniably true that matters of faith and religious allegiance can have a substantial bearing on the formation and preservation of a sense of communal identity. Paul Tillich's famous statement comes to mind: 'Religion is the substance of culture and culture is the form of religion'. Religion, indeed, is often a potent binding agent for societies and cultures, part of their fundamental sense of self. And in situations where conflicts arise between communities so defined, politicians and others will often use religion as a way of justifying and even sharpening the conflict. It becomes a way of saying, 'This is what makes you against us rather than for us, different from us rather than like us.' This is an attitude not dissimilar from Ernest Renan's sarcastic definition of a nation as 'a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past with a hatred of their present neighbours'. Whilst I regret this negative assessment of nationhood, I acknowledge the glimmer of truth that makes it just plausible. We only have to glance at the darkest pages of history of places like Northern Ireland and the Balkans to appreciate this truth.

Of course, I do not deny that religion, or at least what I would regard as the abuse or misuse of religion, in such circumstances may complicate the problem or be a negative element. Put simply, invoking 'my' religion against another's in the dubious service of a difficult political problem can make that problem still more insoluble.

But against that, those who condemn religion for its alleged destructive power in world affairs should reflect on the evils perpetrated in this so-called enlightened twentieth century by the messianic regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were the result of those who eschewed religion.

If, then, there has been a tendency to over-estimate the impact of religions in situations of conflict, there have also been occasions when their potential for resolving conflict has been ignored. The revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran is a well-documented example. The American Central Intelligence Agency, ignored almost wilfully the evidence that those seeking the overthrow of the regime drew most of their energy from Islam, in opposition to the influence of the West. In so doing, they discounted the religious dimension in favour of a range of other factors - economic, political and social. This example illustrates that a mistaken diagnosis is unlikely to yield the best prescription.

Let me turn now to my second question. Can religions resolve conflict? I believe that yes, in certain areas, religion can make all the difference. Let me then, as succinctly as I can, point to four such areas - areas where religion's over-arching vision of God and relationships still speaks powerfully to the human condition.

1. I think first of the enormous benefit to the 'social capital' of our world that our faiths contribute. The term 'social capital' is derived from the thinking of sociologists who, in contrast to material or financial capital, argue that there is a deeper 'social' capital which is more fundamental and necessary. Social capital refers to that amalgam of goodness, faithfulness, community building, family life and the establishment of moral values and norms that bind us together.

   In this vein, Francis Fukuyama in his most recent book The Great Disruption acknowledges the importance of religion to maintenance of moral values and emphasises the contribution of religion to what he calls 'social capital'. Looking to the future, he writes: 'Instead of community arising as a by-product of rigid belief, people will come to belief because of their desire for community. In other words, people will return to religious tradition not necessarily because they accept the truth of revelation, but precisely because the absence of community and the transience of social ties in the secular world make them hungry for ritual and cultural tradition'.

   This term 'social capital', so popular now in sociological writing, actually points to something churches and other faiths have always offered: that is to say, the power of association, friendship and belonging. In all faiths the importance of family life is stressed, particularly that the union of husband and wife and their children is not merely one form of family life but the bedrock of community life.

   And where such social capital is absent or in short supply, all in community suffer and are left with untold social problems. We might well reflect on the fact that in many developed countries now, the drift away from the commitment to marriage and faithfulness in marriage is leaving many politicians to ponder the social cost of such moral confusion and human misery. The strain on resources and on the fabric of society as a whole is becoming all-too evident.

   Let me quote Fukuyama again: 'It is not clear that there is a good substitute for reproduction outside nuclear families and this in turn explains why changes in family structure have been so consequential for social capital'. The author goes on to explain that fostering the healthy social capital of any community depends upon the health of all those bonds which transcend individualism, namely: love and loyalty to the family, friendship and bonding in church life, and the many associations which form community. And these vigorous forms of community living, he argues, form strong defensive barriers against crime, vandalism and racism by increasing the social capital of virtues like honesty, goodness, kindness and respect.

   In this context I was struck by the words of Cardinal Arinze in his opening address to the World Assembly of Religions held in the Vatican City at the end of last month. The Cardinal described the purpose of that Assembly in this way: 'We would like to work at shaping a common message which we wish to address to the entire world: Let us not forget that religion is the soul of society; it is like leaven that can permeate and transform humanity for the good'.

   The positive influence of religion in this context can take many forms. At the most general level, faith communities help to shape societies and cultures through the core values they proclaim. An ethical framework that includes tolerance and forbearance, repentance and forgiveness is shared and sustained by many different faith communities. The very fact that we own such values together can act as a counterweight to narrow and self-serving objectives and policies.

2. But let me go on to suggest, secondly, that we need to model best practices in inter-faith action in our communities in order to deepen harmony and encourage respect in diversity. In my own country we have seen some remarkable examples of inter-faith co-operation since the last war. For example, the Council for Christians and Jews has proved a significant counter-weight to anti-Semitism. More recently, over the past decade the Inter-Faith Network has brought together members of no fewer than nine faith communities. I am glad to report that in the Dome being built for the Millennium all nine of these faiths will be represented in the Faith Zone.

   Likewise, in addition to national services in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England to commemorate the new Millennium on the first Sunday of January 2000, on the following day there will be an inter-faith cultural event in the House of Lords. Sponsored by the Government, the event will include a number of senior politicians, as well as a member of the Royal family. Together we will express the moral values we hold in common and then will commit ourselves to working together in the future. I am sure there is plenty of good practice going on in your countries too, AND we need to celebrate these events, make them widely known and accepted as part of the rich tapestry of diversity held together by common values and moral norms. Yet, a commitment to seeking and sharing common ground does not mean compromising or disowning what is distinctive and special about our individual traditions. The recent words of the Iranian president Ayatollah Mohammed Khatami come to mind: 'The aim is not to eliminate differences between human beings, but to preserve and strengthen them as a source of joy and strength. That is the work ethic we need: a framework of shared values - a sense of our common humanity - within which different traditions can co-exist.'

   These hopeful signs are not the only way in which new things are happening. Often real advances take place in particular and comparatively small-scale schemes. Only two weeks ago I was visiting one of the Church of England's Colleges, the Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education. Recently the College was asked by the Association of Muslim Schools to form a partnership to help train teachers for the increasing number of independent Muslim Schools. I am delighted to report that the College leadership has gladly taken up that opportunity and challenge.

3. This leads me to another area where religious communities can make an effective contribution. I believe that there is a role for faith communities not only as ambassadors of positive values and good practice, but on occasions as something approaching diplomats themselves: as mediators, as go-betweens, as conciliators. And that may especially be the case when it comes to conflicts within rather than between states -precisely the kinds of conflict, in other words, that have so scarred the last part of this century, and that could disfigure the next. Indeed it is that dangerous prospect that lends special relevance and urgency, I believe, to conferences like this one.

   In the past, there has been a marked reluctance within international diplomatic and government circles to contemplate or permit this kind of entanglement of religion and politics. All the same, it is not difficult to point to instances in which the active involvement of religious leaders and communities has been extremely effective, if not downright indispensable. Take the example of Mozambique, where the Roman Catholic lay community of San Egidio and the Anglican Bishop, Dinis Singulane, have played key roles in brokering a peace deal. Or think of the role of the Lutheran evangelical Churches in Germany on the eve of the toppling of the Berlin wall over ten years ago. Or, Bishop Belo in East Timor, whose vision, courage and remarkable spiritual leadership is universally admired and was recognised with the Nobel Peace Prize.

   And of course one must remember the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King, all of whom were all remarkable figures, with a charismatic power of personality and vision that undoubtedly would have stood them in good stead in many circumstances. But the influence these men wielded was not political power in any conventional sense; indeed they represented the dispossessed and powerless. And that, I believe, is significant in itself. In a sense they had influence precisely because they lacked power. Gandhi, Tutu and King could not be viewed or dismissed as simply representing one or another of the usual political suspects or vested interests at the negotiating table.

   The same holds true, I believe, for the potential impact of other religious communities and leaders on conciliation and mediation efforts. They owe allegiance to and derive authority from a moral and spiritual constituency beyond the scope (and therefore at times beyond the suspicions and limitations of) conventional politics. Such leaders can play precisely because they are not players. They are not part of the game.

   In sum, faith communities and religious leaders have distinct and distinctive qualities in relation to the realm of conflict mediation and conciliation. It is gratifying that there seems today to be a growing awareness of that potential, based upon some significant experience. The important book by Douglas Johnston and Cyntha Sampson, Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft, is, I understand, now studied widely in diplomatic circles.

   Of course there are limits to the scope of possible religious involvement. Religious involvement should be regarded as a useful supplement to more traditional diplomatic activity, not as a substitute for it. Clearly then, for such initiatives to be effective they need to be in concert with conventional diplomatic activity. This leads me to press the case for our religious communities taking up the challenge of forging much closer links with bodies like the United Nations. As I have said, such ties do already exist, but if we in the faith communities are serious about the potential we have, then those links need to be activated and the expertise more widely deployed. Individual governments, too, should be encouraged to draw on that expertise. Indeed it might become an integral part of the training of diplomats.

4. Let me, finally, mention a fourth area where faith communities have a real role to play in resolving conflict: namely, in representing the marginalised and the very poor. It is beginning to dawn on world leaders that where the very poor are to be found, there - among the networks that sustain them -are also found the faith communities. And the poverty that so many people endure has profound implications for international peace and stability. For while the true roots of conflict in the modern world are deep and tangled, many of them are embedded in the soil of poverty, ignorance and debt. Christ tells us the 'poor' will inherit the earth, but at the moment they get more than their share of the world's warfare. At this very moment, about half of the world's poorest countries are involved in conflict.

   Of the six billion people on this tiny planet, 1.3 billion live under one dollar a day; a further 3 billion live under two dollars a day. The human misery reflected in those figures alone testifies to the 'absolute poverty' in which two thirds of our world are sunk. This is a moral and an economic problem and it must be in the forefront of our agenda.

   And the religious communities are there among the 'absolute' poor, loving them, helping them and sharing with them. This is the reason why the World Faiths Development Dialogue that I mentioned earlier was born. Mr James Wolfsensohn, the President of the World Bank, saw the importance of religious communities. He realised that religious leaders are there on the ground with their people, while politicians and economists are often far removed from their communities and do not have the same authority enjoyed by many faiths leaders. This 'World Faiths Development Dialogue' has the makings of a very significant initiative for reducing poverty. We shall see. The potential certainly is there, because we have effective networks for distributing aid; we hear the cries of the very poor; their desperation and despair move us.

   But this World Bank/World Faiths initiative is not only about talk; it is about action - action on behalf of the poor, with a commitment to be advocates and agents of change for them. In this connection I was delighted to read just two weeks ago that delegates of the inter-religious Assembly at the Vatican noted the 'urgent need to confront together, responsibly and courageously the problems and challenges of our modern world- poverty, racism, environmental pollution, materialism, war and the proliferation of arms, globalisation, AIDS, lack of medical care....' The Assembly Report notes also the need to 'create a new spiritual consciousness for all humanity in accordance with the religious traditions so that the principle of respect for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience may prevail'. Renewed spiritual consciousness, hand-in-hand with a united assault on the problems of the world. I, for one, welcome such a striking partnership!

May I note in conclusion that it may not be an accident that we are meeting in Amman, the capital city of Jordan. Jordan is a historic place that has seen the crosscurrents of war and, indeed, has been the crossroad of history in one of the most turbulent and significant parts of the world. As we meet here at the twilight of the old century and almost at the dawn of the new, we know our world is at a crossroads too.

In the end, do we have the courage to confront the very real problems facing the human family and our troubled world?

Are we willing to build new bridges of co-operation across old chasms of bitterness and misunderstanding? We people of faith have an opportunity to show the way because we believe in God, a God who makes all things new.

Let us seize that opportunity and lead the way to a new and brighter future.