Blessed are those who have never had any conflicts, for theirs must have been the kingdom of heaven! To us lesser mortals, conflict is part of the reality of living in a fallen world and, as such, is neither good not evil. Much growth and experience is gained from the proper handling of conflict, where the avoidance of conflict may bring upon its followers death by stagnation. It is my firm belief that the secret lies in the handling of conflict. Hostility and war are the all too familiar manner in which conflicts are handled, or better still, what happens when conflicts get out of hand. On the plus side, we are becoming more aware of how dialogue can bring about a resolution of conflict, be it infra-personal (conflicts within oneself; cf. Jas 4:1) or inter-personal, be it between individuals or between groups.

Dialogue does not depend on the content of the conflict, but on the manner in which conflict is managed. For example, it is meaningless to preach to people to solve political or social conflicts, when conflicts regarding faith and religious beliefs are not resolved, simply because the parties to such conflicts feel that 'error has no rights.' It may seem easier to wage a war, and many are fooled into thinking that it its cheaper. Yet, "starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out." (Pr 17:14)

This does not mean that dialogue is cheap. Rather, it is a time consuming exercise, and those sold out to it place everything on a line, even their life. And is it not God's willingness to keep the dialogue with humankind that meant death for Jesus Christ, "who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame... Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3) Dialogue is all about not growing weary and losing heart; it is also about patience, love, hope, faith, mercy, forgiveness, sincerity, loyalty, truth...

What are the main components of effective dialogue? Dialogue (i.e., talk between two [persons]) obviously requires that there be at least two persons engaged in the talk.[1] What is not so obvious is that much of our dialogues are at best two cross-monologues. For there to be a dialogue it is important that a person communicates his or her self; it is just as important that when one is communicating something, the other is listening. I would say that attentive listening is a better way of putting it; attentive listening requires that one be wholly present to the other.[2] The other is the other, i.e., the other is not an extension of oneself. The other is radically other, with all that this may imply: a different person, with a different make-up, history, world view, etc. And yet, also, a person with a God-given intrinsic worth, dignity, right and capacity to exist alongside oneself.

The presence of the other needs to be acknowledged at all points of the dialogue. Where one is forced out of the dialogue, or engulfed by the strong party, then dialogue has ceased. The other is usually hardest to acknowledge and accept at the beginning. Hurts, unforgiveness, animosity, whether real or perceived, are but some of the obstacles to such an acceptance. Why should I speak to that person? He/she is the cause of my present state of affairs, so why should I be the one to forgive and be reconciled? Acceptance of the other is, in fact, an implicit acceptance of difference. Conflicts exist because differences exist. Better still, conflicts exist when the differences are perceived as being the cause of discomfort, pain or some other harm to the person, or to others. In dialogue, differences are not denied or played down, but are brought into the wider picture. There is a search for common ground, or for ways in which differences may be reconciled, or allowed to exist without the accompanying discomfort. I do not deny the actuality of evil. Simply put, evil actions aim precisely at creating schisms, divisions, enmity, separation; that is why evil activity is dia-bolic. But it is also the reason why, in dialogue, there is need for love, mercy, forgiveness, trust...

Assuming the above, in dialogue parties need to be willing to accept and commit themselves to change. It is very tempting for one to insist on holding one's ground whilst maintaining that the other needs to change. A number of issues are at stake here. First of all, it will help (objective, third-party mediation is most essential at this point) to ensure that, as far as is possible, one brings one's house in order before trying to right the wrongs of others. Secondly, in matters of truth, one can start by sorting out the 'facts' from the fiction, and then, to check how the facts are being perceived by all parties. The truth is often so clear that it blinds us. Our ideas and language may help or hinder the clarity with which truth[3] is expressed-and perceived. It may be the case that different persons are seeing different facets of the same truth, all the more so, when the so-called facts regard concepts, beliefs, ethics and other areas pertaining to largely intangible matters.

It has often been said that error is truth over stressed. Even when making statements that regard truth, be it dogmatic, psychological, ethical, etc., one needs to bear in mind that, because of the paucity and incompleteness with which such expressions are garbed, and also because of the depth of truth touched, such statements, once made, become themselves the object of change. I think it is K. Rahner who said that such statements (he had particularly in mind dogmatic statements) are self-transcendent, and therefore, go beyond the very words and expressions used, as if beckoning us to search at a deeper level than the truth stated. It is in this sense that truth over stressed becomes error; a rigidity in one's truth affirmations can lead one to an overemphasis on this or that expression of truth to the detriment of the larger and deeper reality of which such a truth statement is but a humble pointer.

You might say: but surely relativism is not acceptable; surely, one cannot compromise on the truth just for the sake of dialogue! To which I will reply: No, the issue is not one of relativism. Kierkegaard is noted for having said that 'truth is subjectivity' (in Concluding Unscientific Postscript), difficult as the dictum may sound. It seems that he means to say that truth is arrived at in a dialogic process, within the [personal] relationship between the speaker and the listener. Subjectivity is not subjectivism, but it is an admittance that one can only see the world as one sees it. When one's insights and intuitions are related to the other, and the other relates back his or her equally unique point of view, the cross-fertilised ideas produce something new. The 'old' is not lost because it is present in the new!

And speaking of things old and new, I cannot fail to mention that all-important word: Love. Love is all about dialogue; the language of love goes beyond words to the communication of one's whole being. Love too has its tensions and conflicts, until the two become one. 'Becoming one' does not mean that either party is annihilated; it could hardly be so, for love requires the existence of the other-and love keeps the other in existence. In love, the self is discovered in the clear face of the other: "now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor 13:12) The ultimate life-transforming love is that between the individual and God. The author of the first letter of John has these beautiful words to say to all of us: "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 Jn 3:2)

We are dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants. What we have today is the result of all that has been handed down to us, transformed, renewed, rebuilt, and handed down again. And this applies equally to our faith and to our science, our arts and our music, our culture... our world.

In conclusion, I might say that even this short essay has been to me an exercise in dialogue. There are things I said and things I did not say, things I could have said, and things I should have said. It is not my intention, however, to close this chapter on dialogue. To you, dear reader, I hand the baton.

Notes:

1 In a sense, even infra-personal conflict can be solved through dialogue. As humans, we have the capacity to dialogue with our self. Such a dialogue can also be opened up to include God, and others.

2 If one is not present to one's self, how can one be present to others? It is perhaps in this sense that we can see the relation between the need to resolve internal conflicts and the need to resolve inter-personal conflicts.

3 It needs to be made clear that it is not the truth per se that is 'dialogued' but our notions and expressions regarding that truth.