Your Excellencies,
Most Learned Scholars,
Most Erudite Teachers,
Most Honorable, dearly beloved, and friendly audience,

It is indeed with great emotion that we take up the discourse at this time responding to an invitation of the Islamic Republic of the glorious and historic Iran to dialogue with you; to express our convictions on the subject of “The Role of Religion in the Establishment of Peace in the Contemporary World;” and thus to contribute in a heartfelt manner to the mutually desirable dialogue between Islam and Christianity on this practical and social topic, without entering into theological and dogmatic questions of faith.

This invitation and this meeting are truly of historic significance, because they confirm the constant persistence of the honorable Government and of the beloved people of Iran to pursue the dialogue as a means of promoting common understanding among peoples and advancement of culture. This initiative of the honorable Government of Iran will be recorded in the annals of history as most important, in the same way as the proposal of His Excellency the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mr. Mohammad Kathami to the United Nations was already recorded, since by virtue of it the past year was declared a year of dialogue. This meeting too is aligned with other similar meetings and discussions, organized by the same honorable Government of Iran and the International Center of Dialogue among cultures based in Iran. This Center constitutes a very honorable achievement for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which we wish many would imitate. There have certainly been other such meetings and dialogues between outstanding representatives of Christianity and Islam, which the more distant and recent history has recorded. Nevertheless, the need for a systematic implementation of dialogues, which are on the increase today, is the fruit of the contemporary efforts of enlightened persons, among whom there is also the aforementioned, His Excellency the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. All these efforts bear witness on the one hand to the free spirit exhibited in all peace-making discussions of outstanding Islamic leaders, and on the other hand, to the truly praiseworthy enhancement of the ability for dialogue which God has implanted in man.

We express, therefore, our deepest joy and satisfaction for this truly historic and most laudable initiative of the honorable Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we extend again our warm thanks to its most honorable members for the precious invitation of our Modesty to participate in this dialogue; to expound to you from this position our views and convictions on the said topic, not of course in order to add anything new and unknown, but to confirm both intensely and officially, that, according to our Christian faith as well, dialogue and mutual understanding constitute God-loving works and obligations of every human person that loves God. Consequently, we all are obliged to listen in good faith to our fellow human beings with attention and sympathy and with a disposition to understand them, and to speak to them the truth sincerely and in a human-loving manner, without arrogance or fanaticism, so that through dialogue we may demolish prejudices and whatever else inhibits peaceful cooperation and coexistence, or leads to spiritual and material conflicts and lamentable bloodsheds and destructions.

At the same time we extend a warm and heartfelt greeting of honor, peace, and love to all of you present and especially to all those whom we meet for the first time today.

And now we turn to our topic.

Man, as we all know and acknowledge, is endowed by God with the ability of reasonable discourse (logos). Reasonable discourse is the means of our communication with our fellow-human beings, and our consultation with each other on this basis is called dialogue. Dialogue is characteristic of persons, and we can say that it constitutes one of the greatest gifts of God to man. If we were to image ourselves forcefully deprived of the ability to dialogue with our fellow-human beings, we would feel the atmosphere to be suffocating and our life to be unbearable.

Nonetheless, there are found people from time to time, who attempt to deprive others of the inalienable and divine privilege of dialogue. This tactic is damaging not only to those who are forced to keep silent, but also to those who oppress them, because they deprive themselves of all those good things, which they could possibly learn, if they would dialogue with their fellow-human beings.

It is known, that the entirety of human knowledge, the secrets of the arts, religious faith, and human emotions, are expressed and passed on through reasonable discourse and dialogue. Hence, the free and self-sufficient person, who is fearless about himself, is usually open to dialogue and selects from whatever he hears what he deems to be right and useful, whilst he rejects what he determines to be erroneous and harmful. He never rejects dialogue as such, since it is the source of his spiritual cultivation. Even when we read a book or pray to God, we are in dialogue with the author and with God respectively. Again, when we observe with an investigating eye the starry sky, or the immensity of the oceans, the flora of the mountains, the infinite multitude of living creatures, we are in dialogue with their creator, on the one hand glorifying him, and on the other hand being taught by him. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims the creation of his hands,” David exclaims, whilst our predecessor St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, adds the comment, that God “is always in dialogue with us.”

Let the above serve as an introductory encomium to dialogue. And let us now turn to the topic of how dialogue is used in practice.

It is a fact that within the soul of every human being various perceptions, viewpoints, desires, and aims are formed, which often conflict with the corresponding perceptions and aims of others. Confronted with this multiplicity of opinion and opposing aims, we find ourselves before two ways. The one way is that of the violent imposition of our viewpoints and aims, and the other the dialogue with those who disagree with us about finding a means of peaceful coexistence.

On matters of scientific or philosophical truth, dialogue is ongoing and acceptable since ancient times, and is conducted sometimes on a high level and sometimes on an inferior one, but almost always with a mutual effort to understand the ideas of the other and, if need be, to oppose them with proper arguments. Nevertheless, the recurring different interpretations among coreligionists of the content of their initial common faith, each of which makes exclusive claims of being faithful to the truth, are not always met with sobriety and proper argumentation, but with disputations and jealousness which oftentimes inhibits sober judgment. Although no one can deny to the faithful the right to be jealous of his faith, no one would also contest one’s obligation to discuss or search with his coreligionists, at least, concerning the truth, so that they can all arrive at a common understanding of their faith. Indeed, it is not reasonable to accept that all opposing views are equally correct. And yet, in spite of the obvious propriety of these things, it often happens, unfortunately, that fanaticism seizes those holding opposing views concerning their religion, that they turn against each other, sometimes shedding blood, as it happened, for example, in Western Europe at the time of the so-called Holy Inquisition or the wars of the Reformation.

On the other hand, the phenomenon of fanaticism appears with greater intensity among the followers of different religions who oppose each other. In this case, dialogue is again more preferable than fanaticism, because it is only by means of it that heterodox can understand the points where their faiths fall in line and the points where they really differ. Many a time, however, ignorance, or (even worse) erroneous and distorted information of the followers of one religion concerning the content of the faith of another, predominates, especially among the uninformed masses, and as a consequence the one party is drawn into thoughtless condemnation of the other and not rarely into fanatical activities and intolerance. Through dialogue, mutual understanding is achieved and also the gain of the necessary knowledge for accepting not the other’s faith, but the other’s person.

We all believe that religion is God’s gift to humankind. The fact that we have many religions and many dogmatic groups within any one religion automatically raises the question whether all of them are equal revelations of God, or whether we need to exclude all the rest of them except one, or some, except certain others, and to accept only one or some? The answer of Christianity to this question, like that of Islam, is that, to begin with, the full revelation of God exists in it, and that many truths are included in the other religions and especially the monotheistic ones, and also exist in all human conscience as a seed of God. This is why Christianity calls these very truths “seminal word” (logos spermatikos), i.e. word of truth sown by God into the souls of human beings.

Knowledge of the divine truth is a process in development, which is indeed endless. Each one of us journeys along this path ceaselessly and at any given moment is found at a certain point, which however is not firm. This is why one never accuses any companion in the journey who is found at another point along this path, either moving ahead or following behind. Not judging one’s fellow traveler for the condition in which he is found constitutes a basic teaching of the Gospel. In addition, offering help to a fellow traveler so that he may journey successfully towards God is generally a recognized duty of all responsible religions.

Each man, of course, is personally responsible for choosing his faith and relation to God, and for his choice of God’s commandments, which he is to keep. We the religious leaders, however, ought to help each man to understand that the truth of the one God is perceived and appropriated in life differently by each particular person according to one’s spiritual condition. Jesus Christ said to His disciples that He had many things yet to reveal to them, but they were not able to uphold them and therefore He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them to the whole truth. The truth exists and has been revealed, but penetration into the depth of this revealed truth is possible only to those who have a pure heart, the Saints. All the rest of us take from it only a part corresponding to our spiritual age and to our spiritual condition in general. In this connection also the Apostle Paul writes to Christians that he fed them with spiritual milk, because they were not able to absorb solid food. And St. Gregory of Nyssa explains that the teaching of truth is transformed along with the dispositions of those who receive it (On the Life of Moses). Just, then, as the pupils at school advance from one grade to another and progress correspondingly with their comprehension of the lessons, so also all of us human beings advance towards understanding the truth and appropriating it in our lives. It is exactly for this reason that the Koran says that religion is not imposed. Religion is appropriated voluntarily and its truths are absorbed gradually during a long evolutionary process, which is as much individual as it is corporate. It is, in other words, possible that religious viewpoints, which were dominant at a certain era, to be advanced at another subsequently, not because God’s revealed truth has changed, but because the appropriation and absorption of it by human beings becomes less affected by their particular wills.

Indeed, we are obliged to observe that many a time God tolerates conditions that are contrary to His first and perfect will, because He sees that man is not willing or is not able to keep it. And so, He grants him an alternative second will, in order to prevent man from falling into total evil. This second, or possibly third and subsequent will of God is in each case preferable to the evil that follows after, but in no case can this replace His primary, proper and holy will. Consequently, if we see God in history allowing certain actions, which our present sensitivity finds puzzling, we ought to ask ourselves whether such actions were permitted by concession on account of the hardness of heart of the men of that time, who were not able to realize the usefulness and the magnitude of His initial high will. In such cases, which are far too many, we the contemporary religious leaders ought to seek first the highest will of God, which is in full harmony with His goodness and not to be carried away by historical precedents that express a concession to human weakness in other eras.

This way of looking at things removes from man the arrogance of his authority and preserves only God’s authority, which is difficult to approach in the fullness of its revelation. It also leads to the rejection of arrogance, because it sees other human beings as brothers in traveling and in evolutionary progress, who are called to the truth of God and have the possibility to come to it in time, even if they may be at a distance from it at the present moment. As a result, this way of seeing things entails magnanimity, tolerance, hope, and opposes any violent means of imposition of religious convictions, which, in any case, do not lead to a sincere faith that is acceptable to God, as experience bears witness.

The realization on our part that we appropriate and experience the truth of God gradually and progressively and to the measure of the purity of our inner dispositions towards it, humbles our mind-set and neutralizes our self-confidence as perfect spokesmen of the will of God. Furthermore, it prevents us from committing the terrible error of attributing to God decisions and objectives which are purely our own – an error that verges on idolatry. It was such an error that made an ancient poet say, that if the oxen were able to describe God they would turn Him into an ox, and thereby satirize his fellow-citizens about their low manner of perceiving God, the Most High. Unfortunately, however, there is no era that is deprived of men who have such misguided self-confidence, that they attribute to God even their criminal actions. It is this fact that made Jesus Christ predict the coming of the hour when anyone that kills his disciples (and by extension, any fellow human being) will think, mistakenly of course, that he offers service to God.

These erroneous views concerning God, which overlook the fact that God is longsuffering and merciful, led certain Western philosophers to speak about the death of God and many Western citizens to abandon religious faith. If we wanted to speak accurately, however, we would say that this case is not really about the death of God, but about the destruction of a false image of God, which presents Him, on account of an error committed by many among the religious leaders, as rigid, inhumane and even bloodthirsty.

If, on the other hand, we turn to the experience and teaching of the Saints, the men, that is, who came closer to God and came to know Him better, we would see that they all converge on the point that He is good and human-loving, longsuffering and merciful, and that He is eager to apply His righteousness, but awaits for the repentance and conversion of human beings. The Religions, then, whose destiny is to announce to humanity the existence of the One God and His true character as longsuffering, as not rejoicing with the loss of any human beings, but as well pleased with their salvation and well being, are obliged to assess continuously their spokesmen that they do not allege human malicious ideas and objectives as being the will of God. It is only when they reveal the person of God as full of goodness that they make attractive men’s relation with Him and faith in Him and contribute to the peaceful co-existence and cooperation of peoples and cultures.

On the contrary, when they submit to human choices and especially to human objectives, and accept to be used as means towards their success, they are forced to change their teaching in accordance with the aims pursued, and thus to falsify the truth of God on account of human interests. Fortunately, however, there have always been and still are in all religions purer spirits and especially poetic ones, many of whom the people of Iran have presented, who grasped the magnificence of God’s goodness and loving-kindness towards humanity and can be used as guides of their believers.

We are all obligated to turn to these higher spirits. It is our duty to seek the will of God, the good and perfect one. Whenever we disagree, dialogue is the God-given means towards common deliberation. Our target should always be truth and righteousness together with God’s loving-kindness towards humanity and mercy. Whatever is merciless is not derived from the long-suffering and merciful God because the tree produces fruit that is proper to its nature, and the long-suffering and merciful God produces long-suffering and merciful actions. If we continue to disagree, in spite of the dialogue, we are obliged to tolerate each other in peace. Peace is the highest good, and the peaceful co-existence of human beings, one of the highest wills of God. If we act on this we will contribute greatly to the peace of the contemporary world and we will certainly please God who is the King of Peace. And then, the religions will indeed play a positive and essential role in establishing peace in the world of today.

We pray from the depths of our heart that the God of all goodness, who is the source of all good things, may present His goodness in the hearts of us all, so that we all, free from our own personal wills and objectives, may hear God’s voice and conform to His peaceful will. Then, we shall be peacemakers, shall be called children of God and peace will reign in our hearts, in our nations and in the entire contemporary world. May it be so.