Archbishop of Canterbury

3 November 2001

I am very pleased to address such a distinguished company in this celebrated building. I am grateful for your kind invitation to do so. The theme of my address 'How Far Can We Travel Together?' must be seen in the context of the events that have occurred since September 11th and even more recently the murder of 18 Christians of the Church of Pakistan last Sunday. As you may know, the Church of Pakistan is a constituent part of the Anglican Communion and we grieve therefore the loss of eighteen of our own brothers and sisters. The murder of people simply because they belong to a different religion from that of the majority is a shocking crime against a minority faith. I know that such acts are of course condemned by the vast majority of Muslims. But at the very least such events demand of those of us who worship God, yet are divided in our understanding of him, that we should seek to resolve as a matter of the greatest urgency the question 'Can monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam live in harmony on our overcrowded little planet?' If we can't address this question satisfactorily the future is bleak for us all.

First, a personal reminiscence. This visit to the Gulf States is not my first visit to the area. When I was 18 years old I did my national service in Egypt and Iraq. Fifteen months of that period I spent near Basra. During that time I came into contact with Islam. Indeed, I started to learn Arabic and I remain sorry that when I returned to England I let it drop. The man who taught me was a devout Iraqi Muslim whose love for God was transparently real. I was a young evangelical Christian whose devotion to Jesus Christ was no less committed than the faith of my Muslim friend. That friendship led to an awareness that we have nothing to lose from honest dialogue and the objective evaluation of the strengths of another faith.

Neither should we resist appreciating the worth of leaders of other religions. I can say unreservedly that Muhammad was clearly a great religious leader whose influence on millions has been for the good. We can acknowledge too the ways in which his teaching and that of Jesus Christ and of the Hebrew scriptures have so much in common. Or again we can point with admiration to the uncompromising devotion to God found in Islam. Who has not seen Muslims praying publicly without admiring their profound commitment to their faith? The ethical monotheism of Islam may seem austere to some people, but there is so much in the teaching of the Qur'an which is gentle and compassionate, showing Muhammad's generosity towards his enemies, his commitment to almsgiving and his care for the weak and unfortunate.

Christians and Muslims, whether we like it or not, are on a journey together and we live in a world where different faiths jostle side by side. We are able to choose to walk together in harmony or to jockey for position and so add to the chaos and troubles of our world by treating one another as enemies rather than neighbours who should be friends. In my view interfaith dialogue is not an option but a necessity - neither is it an impossibility - but we must acknowledge that the answer to the question 'how far can we travel together?' cannot be answered at the outset of the journey. It is something we shall only discover as we set out boldly on the way. At the risk of over simplifying, let me describe to you some of the well-meaning people we can expect to meet on this journey.

First, there is the Syncretist. Whilst many of the other positions I shall outline will be represented amongst those of us who are here this evening I suspect that few, if any, would see themselves as syncretists - by which I mean people who seek to select and integrate parts of the various religious traditions in order to make a faith that is distinctively their own. For them the key question to be answered - and the goal to be achieved - lie in the realms of personal satisfaction and self-fulfilment. Clearly those elements are present in each of our faiths, but they are much more pronounced, I would suggest, for the syncretist. As I say, few here would adopt this position for we meet as members of our own faith communities.

Yet, in my own nation, and throughout the Western world, syncretism has many adherents. I have spoken on a number of occasions of the growth of Do-It-Yourself moralities where people choose whatever bits of various moral codes happen to suit them. The same is true, of course, in terms of religion, and many who are fascinated by a variety of New Age philosophies based on a 'Pick and Mix' approach to faith are thoroughly syncretistic. Indeed we should be in no doubt that syncretism is flourishing at present.

Such a conclusion is also mirrored in the thinking of the Pluralist, who reaches it, however, by a much more thoughtful and complex route. I think, for example of writers such as the eminent Christian theologian Professor John Hick, who has argued strongly and with profound sophistication that we must move beyond the parochialism and triumphalism of exclusivist theologies to a more modest recognition of a common search for Reality. This viewpoint rejects the exclusivism of traditional Christianity and, very properly, recognises the value of other religions, but puts them all on the same footing.

Different again from John Hick and his colleagues is the one I shall term the Christian Universalist. In this context I think of some of the early writings of the Catholic writer Raimundo Panikkar and, in particular one of his early books The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Starting from the Catholic doctrine that there is "no salvation outside the Church", he attempted to widen the boundaries of the Church in this context by differentiating between the human Jesus and the Logos or the Word. According to Panikkar, salvation is present in all religions and God uses all faiths to reveal himself. But those with eyes of faith will perceive that it is the Christ or Logos who is present in other faiths. Although Panikkar's approach was essentially irenic, his thesis was attacked for appearing to require other faiths to recognise the presence of the Christ. Nevertheless, Panikkar believed at that stage that he had found a way for religions to relate to one another by finding essential truths within each and his understanding of "the Christ" was much more subtle than some critics recognised. He has, of course, developed his thinking in significant ways since that book was written.

It is not difficult to see the attractions of these approaches. How good it would be to find such harmony among the faiths that we could agree on a common faith and worship fully together! And yet, the differences cannot be satisfactorily met by such an approach. While there is indeed a striking commonality in so many ways there are also significant differences that, as I shall touch on later, cannot be reconciled at all easily.

Another traveller whom we might, perhaps, view from afar is the isolationist. Locked into his own world, he does not expect or seek much contact with others, leaving them to get on with their own travels. His message is a clear one. 'I belong to a distinct community and we shall have nothing to do with you'. Groups like this exist within many of our faith communities. My wife and I once visited a Christian group in Alberta, Canada, known as the Hutterites. They do not proselytise; they do not welcome converts; they are distinct and are proud to be so. They are religious and social isolationists and are content with that.

My next traveller is difficult to define, but I think the word 'Dogmatist' comes closest to an accurate description. Fundamentally, such a person believes both that his faith provides the only true way to God and that there is no point in even listening to his fellow travellers. I think of some I met a few years ago when I attended a UNESCO Conference in London. They were a group of young Muslim students who were outside distributing their evangelistic literature. I was recognised and they started shouting at me: 'You will not be saved unless you believe in Islam'. I started to reason with them: 'I am just about to take part in an important dialogue with some distinguished Muslim scholars'. I was shouted down: 'Dialogue, no. You must believe in Islam'. The story has a familiar ring to it. It could equally well have been young Christian students with banners pronouncing that 'Jesus is the answer' and brooking no discussion whatsoever about that statement. No doubt too we can think of parallel groups in all our communities.

The next traveller shares a great deal with the dogmatist. He too believes very passionately in the Christian or Muslim faith and he wants to communicate that faith to others. He differs from the dogmatist in that he believes in dialogue and recognises that there is a considerable overlap between these two faiths and, very probably, between all great faiths. He knows that he cannot communicate without knowledge of the other and indeed he respects and values the faith of the other. We might call this traveller 'the irenic missionary'.

There is of course, a traveller I haven't mentioned and he needs to appear on this journey. He is the thoughtful agnostic who may be repelled by people of all faiths and regards religion as a barrier to progress. We have to recognise that he too has a right to travel and to live with questions. We may regret his lack of faith, but we should also recognise that sometimes religion is a barrier to believing in God.

Well, it might seem that so great are the differences between us on life's journey that there is simply no way we can ever agree. I disagree with this counsel of despair. In my opinion the journey has hardly begun. There is much to hearten us and much to challenge us. Let me first address the positive aspects and then go on to consider the barriers on our way.

First and foremost is the theological basis of a common humanity. Both Islam and Christianity have a very high view of what it is to be a human being, made in the image of God. We have a shared sense of the sheer wonder of our creation by God, and also of the dignity of our vocation as human beings. Both faiths resist racism and all other attempts to deny the equal dignity before God of all people. From this base other things can develop. Indeed, from this flows our common spiritual quest. Our journey is a shared one because the God whom we worship extends beyond and across our limited human boundaries of community and belief. Jews, Christians and Muslims should never believe that the God whom they worship, the Creator of all, has no concern for those beyond the folds of their own faith. Indeed, in my own tradition of Christianity, it is a very important point that God does not limit his love to the boundaries of the Church. God's love and compassion extend to people of all races, classes, and indeed creeds.

Working from this understanding of the breadth of God's concern that is present within our own traditions the good news is that we have made hopeful progress together. Through such organisations as the World Congress of Faiths, the World Conference for Religion and Peace, the Council for Christians and Jews and the Interfaith Network, barriers of suspicion, prejudice and intolerance are being questioned and broken down. Along with several colleagues in Britain - both Muslim and Christian - I am currently seeking to develop a significant new national initiative in Christian-Muslim dialogue. As countries like my own receive more and more members of different ethnic cultures so many have come to realise that rather than representing a threat these make a creative and valuable contribution to our common life. In other words we are beginning to find that we are meeting as friends.

There are some wonderful lines that challenges us all in one of R.S.Thomas's poems where the poet writes somewhat sarcastically:

'They listened to me preaching the unique gospel
Of love, but our eyes never met'.

For what sort of good news is it if people never meet as friends and eyes never meet and smile in friendship?

I am sure we can all think of moments, which Christians describe as 'sacramental', when we have had contact with someone of another faith that has changed our whole outlook, or perhaps led us to think of the other believer in quite a different way. My mind flashes back to some ten years ago when my wife and I were invited by one of the Muslim staff at the Tantur Ecumenical Institute near Jerusalem to visit his family home in Hebron. We were delighted to accept because it denoted that trust had built up between us as Christians and himself as a practising Muslim. Although our friend's family could not speak a word of English, his mother and sisters waited on us and fed us with delicious food that spoke of many hours of preparation and cooking. It was an honour to be at the receiving end of such genuine hospitality, and the time we had with that lovely family was precious beyond words. The conversations I had with that man that day about Islam were as deep as any I have ever had. We were able to speak of real issues which divide Christianity and Islam - and to do so as part of our friendship, not as a barrier to it.

Then, alongside our shared humanity, spiritual quest and capacity for friendship, I would also place our common longings for peace, acceptance and love. Ordinary people of all faiths simply long to live in peace and tranquillity with one another, building up their homes and raising their children in conditions that lead to the flourishing of community. These values can only be secured by a true spirit of tolerance. At present that word 'tolerance' is, I feel, over-used and mis-used. For instance it is, on occasion, equated with indifference. But then it is easy to be 'tolerant' of those things which we did not care about in the first place. Equally, it can be used in ways that imply we should not seek to uphold any rules or standards, other than that of tolerance itself. As the philosopher Professor Bernard Williams wrote, toleration is both 'necessary and impossible'.

Necessary because minorities require protection; but impossible as a philosophical ideal because in any society not everything can be tolerated. After all, there is a legitimate intolerance which reacts against such things as injustice, exploitation, crime and victimisation of the vulnerable and weak. Modern society's commendation of tolerance as the most important value in life is at best questionable; indeed the survival of tolerance depends upon other virtues and values having greater importance in human life than tolerance itself.

There is a test case we can introduce when the question is put: 'Can there be toleration when there is incompatibility of beliefs?' Can I as a Christian, for example, live side by side with devout people of other faiths whose doctrines and practices I cannot share?

Thankfully history allows us to respond positively to these questions. We have only to consider the many parts of the world where minority faith groups have worshipped freely while living harmoniously for centuries alongside dominant religions. Of course, history also offers many examples when this hasn't happened - when Christians, Muslims, Jews and others have been reviled and persecuted. We have to recognise the dark moments in all our histories. Nevertheless history does not force us to conclude that people of different faiths cannot live together in peace, and we can take heart from that.

Yet dialogue also means facing those obstacles which friendship cannot obscure, including issues that challenge us today.

For instance there is the issue of reciprocity. This is a theme I have spoken about in many addresses during the last ten years. All minority religions, which expect the freedom to express themselves in worship and in the nurture of their young, and to be able to make converts must, as a matter of human justice, encourage the same freedoms to be exercised in those parts of the world where they are in a majority. I must express the deep worries of many Christians in our country who see their Christian brothers and sisters in many parts of the world unable to practise their faith with the same freedom that peoples of other faiths enjoy in the West.

From Indonesia, through to Pakistan, northern Nigeria, Sudan and elsewhere, Christians are more vulnerable than they have perhaps ever been. Their faith is precious to them but so is their country. They need their Muslim brothers and sisters to speak up for them and, when extremists threaten, they need support and friendship. This, surely, is an issue we must address together.

Or again, there is the issue of cultural differences, which may, or may not, be aspects of a religion itself. As we know, specific cultural and historical traits tend to get associated with particular religions at times, so leading to confused perceptions and problems for dialogue. In truth it is wrong, for example, to equate Christianity with the attitudes of extreme loyalists and republicans in Ireland. Or again, it is wrong to equate Christianity with the sexual licence and relativism found in so much of the West.

Equally it is wrong to equate Islam with some of the policies we have recently witnessed in Afghanistan, for instance, in the repressive measures being taken against women. But because faith gets mixed up with other ideological and political influences, religious understanding and perception becomes distorted. We must challenge these distortions and never settle for simplistic cultural or religious stereotypes.

Or again, there are elements within our faiths which lead to intolerance and suspicion. Christians have great worries about words like 'Jihad' and so-called theologies which lead young Muslims to kill others as well as themselves with the promise of paradise. Doubtless, there are Christian zealots who in their own way trouble Muslims. The answer is surely not simply to address and examine those concerns and criticisms within our separate constituencies, but also to place such difficulties on the agenda of dialogue.

Or, yet again, there is the issue of freedom to choose.

An area that is clearly very contentious, especially perhaps to Muslims, is religious conversion. Should people of one faith be free to choose another - Christian to Muslim or vice versa? If one says that it is perfectly acceptable for someone who is a Muslim or a Christian to change to 'our' religion we have to ask what is the moral basis for objecting to a person changing allegiance to a faith different from the one we hold? Clearly this will always be a tension between two missionary faiths such as our own, both of which see their beliefs more in absolute rather than relativistic terms. Furthermore, the picture is made more complex by the fact that Christianity has tended, at least in recent times, to lay more stress on individual rights, while Islam, historically, has put the greater emphasis on the cohesion of the community.

But even though such tensions exist that is no reason why, in the name of justice, we should not support our fellow human beings if they wish to convert from one faith to another. Of course we may want to explore gently with them their intentions - indeed they may want to share them with us. But we should also find ways of supporting their liberty to exercise this freedom of choice should they wish to do so.

We live then in challenging times. I have no doubt whatsoever that Muslims and Christians must as a matter of urgency deepen the dialogue between us and strengthen those bonds of friendship that exist at present. For the sake of peace and harmony we have a moral duty to walk together and to keep walking especially when the road becomes uneven and rough. It requires from us all fresh humility to recognise the integrity of other faiths and their genuine contribution to the well being of human kind. One can, I believe, be a Christian, as I am, wholly convinced of the uniqueness of Christ and his abiding relevance to human kind, and still affirm that other faiths possess value, significance and integrity. That recognition sets us on the path of dialogue, a dialogue which is not just a matter of trading ideas but of sharing our deepest convictions and concerns, and opening our hearts to one another. Christians and Muslims engaged in that kind of dialogue may thus approach their own faith in a new way, a way which opens up new and exciting opportunities - to engage with the living faith of another and, in the process, to have one's own faith enlarged and deepened.

I would like to leave you with a reflection drawn from that dreadful tragedy on Pakistan last Sunday, when Christians were murdered while they were worshipping God in their church. That community was being guarded by a Muslim man who also lost his life trying to protect people whose faith he did not share. The newspapers in Britain this week were full of reports of how Muslims and Christians were in sorrow, side by side, mourning this great tragedy. How great it will be when, one day, Christians and Muslims will join together in laughter and celebration - and indeed pride - at the distance we have been able to travel together.