“This Is a Head,Hearts,and Hands Enterprise”: Adult Learning in Interfaith Dialogue

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine an interfaith dialogue group to understand how adults learn through such an environment. In this qualitative case study, I worked with a group of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults located in the southeastern United States. In investigating adult learning through interfaith dialogue, I found that members experience communicative, instrumental, relational, personal, and transformative learning. The findings from this study may help practitioners in both participating in and facilitating interfaith dialogue groups with the intent of learning about other religious traditions. It may also benefit scholars in providing an understanding of how these groups can be intentional learning environments.

Keywords

interfaith dialogue adult learning communicative learning instrumental learning relational learning personal learning transformative learning

Adult Learning in Interfaith Dialogue

According to Grim (2014), religious hostilities are on the rise, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Contact between members of various religions is not likely to lessen, and Western nations in particular are becoming increasingly religiously diverse. Individuals are encountering members of differing religions both in person and virtually. Learning how to coexist is essential for the success of a global society. Interfaith dialogue is a favored method to educate people about other religions and help resolve religious conflict. In this paper, interfaith dialogue is defined as “an intentional encounter between individuals who adhere to differing religious beliefs and practices” to “foster [understanding], respect, and cooperation among these groups through organized dialogue” (Agrawal & Barratt, 2014, pp. 571-572). In this form of dialogue, participants attempt to relate to another’s tradition through talk in order to understand what they find meaningful, what their experiences are, and how they understand what they hold to be sacred (Takim, 2004).

Interfaith dialogue is not without its challenges, and it can fail as often as it can succeed. History is riddled with examples of interfaith dialogue with goals of conversion or oppression of groups with views deemed inferior and/or dangerous (Fletcher, 2007; Garber, 2015; Polyakov, 2018; Smith, 2007; Swidler, 2014; Zia-ul-Haq, 2014). Yet, even with its difficulties, the rewards of interfaith dialogue can be great and may include a change in perspective with regard to alternate faith traditions (Boys & Lee, 1996; Helskog, 2014a, 2014b; Swidler, 2006).

Across a variety of fields, the majority of academic literature on interfaith dialogue is theoretical. Empirical research examining the effects and process of interfaith dialogue, particularly that which looks at interfaith dialogue as an intentional learning experience, is lacking. Specifically, the literature of adult education does not adequately “explore the nature of learning that occurs within an interreligious experience when individuals cross into a different religious context” (Charaniya & Walsh, 2004, p. 30).

The purpose of this study was to examine a community-based interfaith dialogue group of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults, investigating both the process and the results of the meetings, to understand how adults learn through the experience. The research question guiding this study was: What type(s) of learning occurs when Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults engage in interfaith dialogue? To answer this research question, I designed a qualitative case study working with an interfaith dialogue group, referred to in this article as the Trialogue. The members of the group called themselves a “trialogue,” rather than a “dialogue,” because the group was made up of practitioners within the three Abrahamic faiths, these being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. After briefly reviewing pertinent literature and the study’s methodology, I offer findings from this study in the form of a cycle that presents the flow of learning the adult participants of the Trialogue experienced. I conclude with a discussion of the findings’ implications for practice and scholarship.

Relevant Literature

Theoretical literature on interfaith dialogue considers the value and necessity of interfaith dialogue (Patel, 2013; Pons-de Wit, Versteeg, & Roeland, 2015; Swidler, 2013, 2014), the purposes of interfaith dialogue (Edelmayer, 2013; Gopin, 2002; Neufeldt, 2011), guidelines for interfaith engagement (Avakian, 2015; Gabriel, 2010; Swidler, 2006), factors that affect the process and outcomes of interfaith dialogue (Brown, 2013; Driskill & Gribas, 2013; Properzi, 2011), desired outcomes of interfaith dialogue (Charaniya & Walsh, 2004; Fisher, 2014; Fletcher, 2007), approaches to interfaith learning (Garber, 2015; Keaten & Soukup, 2009; Swidler, 2006; Takim, 2004), and challenges facing interfaith dialogue (Brown, 2013; Lee, 1991; Neufeldt, 2011; Siddiqui, 1998; Zia-ul-Haq, 2014). Empirical literature examining the process and effects of interfaith dialogue, either from the perspective of the participant(s) or of the facilitator(s), is less common. Yet a growing number of articles report specifically on learning during interfaith dialogue. This review synthesizes the empirical evidence of how learning occurs and what type of learning adults experience through interfaith dialogue.

Learning can be unique to each participant in interfaith dialogue, yet there are several commonalities. An individual’s motivation for participation in interfaith dialogue affects their engagement and ability to learn (Agrawal & Barratt, 2014; Lando, Muthuri, & Odira, 2015). Interfaith dialogue provides an opportunity to collaboratively make meaning with other members of dialogue (DeTurk, 2006). It allows participants to suspend their own frame of reference in order to attempt to understand something from another’s point of view (DeTurk, 2006; Helskog, 2014b). This suspension and attempt to understand others can have the unanticipated outcome of an assimilation of beliefs from other traditions (Bender & Cadge, 2006), although not all scholars see this as a positive outcome of dialogue (Garber, 2015; Haug, 2014).

Rather, during interfaith dialogue many found it is important for participants to compare similarities and contrast differences between various religious traditions in a way that allowed them to develop a better understanding of the other tradition without losing sight of their own (Boys & Lee, 1996; Fulton & Wood, 2012; Gonzalez, 2011; Haug, 2014; Helskog, 2014b; Krebs, 2015; Lando et al., 2015). For instance, Boys and Lee (1996) wrote that “learning about the tradition of the other in the presence of the other led to both a sharpening and a diminishing of similarities and differences between the two traditions in the perception of the participants” (p. 454). Learning in this way is dependent upon the ability to discuss the difficult topic of religion in a way that promotes both learning about other traditions and self-reflection (O’Keefe, 2009; Otieno, 2015).

Discussing difficult topics and learning from someone with a different worldview is a learned skill that takes time to establish (O’Keefe, 2009). Interfaith dialogue can be an opportunity to cultivate these conversational skills, leading to both an increase in interfaith competency and the ability to peacefully participate in interfaith communication (DeTurk, 2006; Everett, 2018). Interfaith activities can help this cultivation. For instance, to support the development of these dialogical skills, Linesch (2017) found that creating collages from passages from the Torah, Gospels, and Qur’an led to greater skill at interfaith conversations and new ways of knowing than dialogue alone.

How and what people learned through dialogue was the most diverse finding in this review. At times, interfaith dialogue helped participants learn about religious conflict (Acar, 2013); consider new perspectives and explore complexities within their own beliefs (Small, 2009); develop stronger commitments to their own, self-authored worldview (Mayhew, Rockenbach, & Bowman, 2016); or better understand similar yet different teachings across traditions (Charaniya & Walsh, 2001; Haug, 2014). Often, learning in interfaith dialogue was collaborative, open, respectful, and mutual (Boys & Lee, 1996; Gonzalez, 2011; Helskog, 2014a; Kalender, 2016; Krebs, 2015; Williams, 2019). But when members of interfaith dialogue did not feel safe and supported in the dialogue space, learning was not mutual, and dialogue became a way to dominate those in the minority (Riitaoja & Dervin, 2014).

In addition to learning about others, interfaith dialogue may increase an individual’s ability and desire to reflect on his or her own beliefs, leading to better self-understanding and self-awareness. Experiences in interfaith dialogue led to critical reflection on assumptions, biases, and prejudices (DeTurk, 2006; Gonzalez, 2011; Haug, 2014; Helskog, 2014a). For instance, Boys and Lee (1996) explained that through “studying the troubled history between Christianity and Judaism” both Jewish and Catholic participants were able to “view their own tradition and history with a more critical eye” (p. 425). Haug (2014) found that when Buddhists read Christian scriptures, they sometimes reflected “on possible weaknesses in one’s own religious teaching” (p. 163). Self-reflection in interfaith dialogue can have a great impact on the construction, development, clarification, and deeper understanding of one’s own faith (Bender & Cadge, 2006; Boys & Lee, 1996; Haug, 2014; Lando et al., 2015).

Transformative learning is a common goal of interfaith dialogue. Reflection on, and awareness of, the complexities of one’s own identity are important components affecting transformative learning. Researchers have found indications of interfaith dialogue leading to a deepening of worldview in a way that both strengthens individual faith and allows for participants to transform their perspectives of other religious traditions (Boys & Lee, 1996; Helskog, 2014a; Krebs, 2015; Otieno, 2015). For example, Otieno (2015) indicated that “dialogue turned radical disagreement arising from the form, content, and/or explanation of differences between Muslims and Christians into creative co-existence” (p. 309).

Responding to the challenge of promoting understanding and even resolving conflict through interfaith dialogue is integral to understanding the impact and realistic outcomes of this type of interfaith engagement. Knowing how interfaith dialogue can lead to learning, peaceful coexistence, and conflict resolution between various religious communities is essential if we are to fully understand the benefits of interfaith dialogue. While this review attempts to present what current scholarship shows about learning in interfaith dialogue, there is still a dearth of empirical research on the topic. What types of learning adults experience through interfaith dialogue should be further researched. Deeper understandings of how adults learn could enable facilitators of interfaith dialogue to plan dialogue groups focused on supporting those types of learning. Notably, I identified only one empirical study examining learning in dialogue between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim participants (Linesch, 2017). Thus, the present study is particularly pertinent as additional research on dialogue with all three faiths contributes to better understandings of the dynamics of learning when there are three, rather than two, faith traditions present. An examination of how members of the Abrahamic faiths learn in dialogue adds complexity to our understandings of what it means when members of these religious traditions learn to communicate.

Methodology

To study the phenomenon of interfaith dialogue between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults, I designed a qualitative case study (Simons, 2009) within a constructivist paradigm (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). As a case study, this project sought to answer the research question through in-depth collaboration with the participants in order to provide “more detail, richness, and variance—that is, depth—for the unit of study” (Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 301) with the “purposes of illumination and understanding” of the case under consideration (Hays, 2004, p. 218). It is through context-specific knowledge generated in case study research that a more nuanced view of reality is produced. Thus, this study aimed at constructing rich descriptions through interpretation of the experiences of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults who participate in interfaith dialogue.

The case in this study was an interfaith dialogue group of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults located in the southeastern United States. This group began in 2001 with only five members and, at the time of this writing, is still a growing and active organization. I purposefully chose this case based on three characteristics of the group: 1) the membership of Jews, Christians, and Muslims; 2) the fact that it is a community-led organization; and 3) the long period of time the group has been in existence. Members of the group were all middle- to late-aged adults. The majority of the group’s members were White Americans. Group meetings occurred once a month and had anywhere from 20 to 40 participants. Members of the steering committee facilitated each meeting, a group of seven individuals who had been members for at least 5 years, many of which were integral in the Trialogue’s creation in 2001. The steering committee met once a month to choose topics for dialogue. They would also engage in dialogue about these topics. During meetings, they managed the conversation by adhering to the Trialogue’s conversational values of appreciating diversity, encouraging collaboration in discussion, bolstering respectful listening, staying on topic, and maintaining even amounts of time for members of each religious tradition to speak. After obtaining institutional review board approval, fieldwork for this study lasted for approximately 7 months.

Hays (2004) reports that one of the major strengths of the case study methodology is its use of a variety of different methods in data collection. This allows for the data triangulation that supports this study’s credibility. Data for this study came from five sources: (1) interviews following Seidman’s (2013) “three-interview series” method (p. 20); (2) observations (Spradley, 1980) of monthly meetings and steering committee meetings during which I was a nonparticipant observer; (3) a focus group with steering committee members (Kleiber, 2004); (4) a member check session with interview participants (Maxwell, 2013); and (5) documents (McCulloch, 2004). All interview participants were married, many with children, and active members of their community as well as the Trialogue. The interview sample is reflective of the demographics of the Trialogue. Table 1 offers demographic information about the interview participants as well as who served on the steering committee. Table 2 reviews the data analyzed for this study.

Table 1.

Demographics of Interview Participants.

Pseudonym	Religious affiliation	Place of birth	Member since	SC
Claudia	Protestant Christian	Northeastern United States	2013	✓
Daniel	Reform Jew	Southeastern United States	2003	✓
Harun	Sunni Muslim	North Africa	2001	✓
Isaiah	Reform Jew	Northeastern United States	2001	✓
Khadija	Sunni Muslim	North Africa	2003
Luke	Protestant Christian	Southeastern United States	2003
Matthew	Protestant Christian	Southeastern United States	2004	✓
Phoebe	Roman Catholic Christian	Southeastern United States	2003	✓
Yusuf	Sunni Muslim	Middle East	2001	✓

Note. SC = steering committee.

Table 2.

Data Generation Summary.

Method	Generation details	Data set
Observations	5 plenary session meetings (450 minutes)	Field notes
	4 steering committee meetings (360 minutes)	Audio recordings
Interviews	Set of 3 with 9 participants (1,450 minutes)	Audio recordings
Interviews	Set of 3 with 9 participants (1,450 minutes)	Transcriptions
	1 individual interview (90 minutes)	Audio recording
	1 individual interview (90 minutes)	Transcription
Documents	Throughout the study	Trialogue Covenant
Documents	Throughout the study	Email correspondence
Focus group	1 session with steering committee (75 minutes)	Audio recording
Focus group	1 session with steering committee (75 minutes)	Transcription
Member check	1 session with interview participants (86 minutes)	Audio recording
Member check	1 session with interview participants (86 minutes)	Transcription

I completed an inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) beginning with open coding then conducted a second round of coding using simultaneous coding and subcoding (Saldaña, 2013). For field note data specifically, I executed domain coding (Saldaña, 2013) using Spradley’s (1980, p. 93) “strict inclusion” analysis to create semantic relationships. I coded interview transcripts, the focus group transcript, and the member checking transcript with process coding, concept coding, and emotion coding (Saldaña, 2013). After organizing the coding schemes into categories, I established themes.

I completed analysis for this study using ATLAS.ti (Version 7, Windows). After loading each data set into ATLAS.ti, I followed Friese’s (2014) NCT analysis method. NCT stands for “noticing things, collecting things, and thinking about things” (p. 12) and takes a recursive approach to analysis. I used ATLAS.ti’s quotation function to code and I created code and analytical memos using the memoing function. This process was recursive because there was a back and forth movement between the noticing and collecting phases, rather than a linear progression across the three phases (p. 16). This allowed me to integrate new insights into each collecting phase before following through into the thinking phase.

Findings

The Trialogue is an interfaith learning community. Members came together to discuss their religious beliefs and practices with a mind-set of openness and an intent to understand one another. They embraced both similarities and differences between religions. Learning about similarities across traditions fostered a sense of camaraderie and the differences showed the richness and uniqueness of each faith. In between Trialogue meetings, members continued their conversations through email, individual meetings, and community activities.

Following the first rule of their covenant, the Trialogue is a community of continuous interaction and learning. Members experienced five different types of learning: (1) communicative learning, (2) instrumental learning, (3) relational learning, (4) personal learning, and (5) transformative learning. I have created Figure 1 as a model demonstrating the learning cycle. At their own, unique pace, members first learned communicatively and then were able to experience other forms of learning, with each type of learning serving as a foundation for the next. In what follows, I work through each segment of the model, outlining the five realms of learning with respect to the data.

Figure 1.

The cycle of learning in interfaith dialogue.

Communicative Learning

Communicative learning is the first stage of the cycle. Without the ability to learn in this form, members were unable to participate in the other forms of learning. Learners worked at understanding meaning through communicating “intentions, purposes, feelings, values, and moral decisions. . . . In this kind of learning we validate beliefs by assessing their justification . . . by engaging in discourse” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 121).

Participants expressed that learning what Matthew called the “art of dialogue” was an outcome of their involvement in the Trialogue. Members explained how participating in the group taught them to be better dialogue partners by learning skills such as listening (rather than waiting to speak), hearing questions as they were intended, and being open and honest in responses. Yusuf described learning how to dialogue as “an experience you gain by having exposure to one another . . . by being submerged in the conversation rather than being or learn[ing] in an academic way.” Isaiah noted good dialogue partners must have the right mind-set:

This is a head, hearts, and hands enterprise. You’ve got to open your mind, you have to open your heart, and your behavior or your hands . . . because if you don’t have the right feeling about others, and the right attitude . . . anything you say or do is going to reflect your position.

Once participants were able to learn communicatively, they could learn instrumentally.

Instrumental Learning

Instrumental learning “involves task-oriented problem solving with the objective of increasing proficiency in performance” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 120). Within the Trialogue, instrumental learning included learning about other religious traditions to increase knowledge. In the monthly meetings, topics of discussion ranged between scripture, traditions, practices, history, and belief. Members viewed as having scholarly knowledge spoke about the context and history of scripture and the resulting meaning. For example, when discussing the concept of a covenant with God, Daniel asked Ezekiel, another Jewish participant, to “do a little Midrash” before he offered interpretation of a specific passage. Daniel was requesting Ezekiel to quote from the Midrash, a collection of commentary on the Hebrew Bible dating to before the 2nd century CE, an expected ability due to Ezekiel’s exegetical knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.

Instrumental learning often included learning about similarities between traditions. During one meeting members examined the story of Noah in each sacred scripture. After talking about Noah in the Hebrew Bible, Yusuf explained, “There’s the story of Noah in the Qur’an and it highlights the process when Noah asked his people to come back to God.” Learning about similarities between religious traditions could be surprising and disorienting; sometimes it forced members to reassess what they thought they knew about other religions, their members, or even how they understood and saw themselves in their own tradition. A prime example of this came from Daniel:

When I was saying goodbye to Yusuf after the first meeting that I came to . . . I told him that there is something in the Talmud saying that when two people are sitting across from one another and they’re studying scripture with people . . . he finished it and he said that God rests between you in this space. He knew that, and he didn’t know it was from Talmud of course, it was in the Qur’an . . . It stands out as an example of how much we have to learn from each other ’cause he was surprised to know it came from the Torah. . . . It was like, what? It’s in the Qur’an? You’re kidding me, that’s Talmud, it’s totally Talmud! . . . It couldn’t be more Talmudic. But it’s in the Qur’an.

Members created connections between traditions, synthesized what they learned, and constructed interpretations of similar scriptures together. The prevalence of similarities was highly engaging for members, as Claudia explained, “It’s astounding to me how many similarities there are between us. Jacob and Joseph and Adam and Jesus! Mary! Learning about Mary was really amazing, that they [Muslims] venerate Mary so much.”

Other topics of instrumental learning included characteristics of God and content of scripture. As a result of instrumental learning, participants articulated a newfound respect for other faiths. Phoebe noted, “[Daniel] was talking about Yom Kippur and if you have hurt someone you go to them and say, ‘I’m sorry.’ You don’t just say, ‘Oh God forgive me.’ And I think, isn’t that the greatest thing?” Yusuf described learning about the nuances within Christianity, “All people, they may worship in one faith, but they have different thoughts and different ideology and different ways to go about [it].” To gain this knowledge, members were open to learning from others; this willingness allowed for relational learning.

Relational Learning

Relational learning comes from a combination of communicative and instrumental learning. Relational learning is learning through relationship with both self and others, in which learners bring their own unique subjectivities to the table (Hollingsworth, Dybdahl, & Minarik, 1993). In a relational learning environment, learners are open and receptive to others, goal oriented toward understanding and empathy, and hold “tension between subjective certainty and objective uncertainty” (Hollingsworth et al., 1993, p. 10). In learning through relationship with others, Trialogue members learned about who people are within their religious traditions rather than allowing their traditions to define them. They began to see other religions through the eyes of their believers. Relational knowledge was bounded by what adherents held to be sacred and meaningful. In her interviews, Claudia shared how she felt when she learned how Khadija feels wearing hijab, a feeling contrary to common Western perception. Claudia said, “She wants to cover. . . These women are covered, it actually frees them. They feel like it’s freeing and that was a really strong idea that hit home for me.” Because she had a comfortable relationship with others in the group, Khadija stated that she felt confident in explaining her “personal experience with it [hijab]” even though “other women may have a different opinion or a different reason” for choosing to cover or not. Relational learning enhances instrumental learning and participants gain a more personalized view of others’ experiences.

Members practiced relational teaching by sharing what passages were personally important to them, what meanings they derived from scripture, and what they found challenging in their own faith tradition. They explained how certain teachings and beliefs affected their lives. Their empathy became stronger as members determined how another’s experience related to, or differed from, their own. Isaiah’s empathy for Muslims increased through a better understanding of Islam:

I better understand how the Jewish experience is echoed in the Islamic experience and how the Islamic experience is echoed in the Jewish experience. . . . I live in my own world, as we all do. . . . But the more I get in touch, the more I understand and feel and empathize with other people, whose backgrounds are different than mine, the more I’m humbled and grounded in the ebb and flow of life that goes on around me.

It is this type of learning that sparked the ability to see members of other faiths for who they are rather than how their religious tradition may define them to others. With this clearer, less encumbered view, deep relationships could form. Luke explained this developing bond, “It’s interesting, at times I feel more at home in the Trialogue Group than I do in church groups because I just get the sense that we’re all saying the same thing, we are worshipping the same God.” Once members began creating deeper relationships, they felt secure enough to examine themselves and their own beliefs.

Personal Learning

Personal learning is the fourth type of learning that members experienced. Personal learning is learning about the self, one’s own religious beliefs, and/or preconceptions and biases one may hold toward other religious traditions or the adherents. The combination of instrumental, communicative, and relational learning, enhanced personal learning and members learned about themselves and their own traditions as they learned about and with others. In this way, learning during Trialogue meetings became mutual.

Personal learning in Trialogue meetings happened because of the deliberate cultivation of the holding environment (Kegan, 1982). The Trialogue spent many years developing this environment so members would feel comfortable examining and explaining their beliefs. Members felt supported and secure in showing vulnerability, leading to a proclivity to engage in critical self-reflection. Members of the Trialogue did not feel a need to be defensive of their religious tradition and beliefs and indicated that their beliefs would not be criticized, discredited, or degraded. Harun explained this sense of security:

When we [the Muslim participants] go we feel comfortable to sit there and talk without feeling like someone is going to say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you talking about? Are you crazy?” No, no. We never feel that way, we can say what we need to say without having any people looking at us like, “Yeah, right, you guys are crazy, why am I listening to you?”

A high level of trust strengthened this sense of safety. Participants explained that developing trust between group members took time and effort but was integral to the success of the group. In sharing his early feelings with Muslim members of the group, Daniel described developing trust as a process:

I had to give up a little bit that they were genuine and representing a genuine view. And that trust has evolved to where it’s pretty absolute. . . . I have come to the view that they are authentic and representing what they want to be as an authentic Islam here in this country.

Members cherished this trust. Matthew said, “It’s so rare to be able to be with a diverse group of people and have enough trust to talk about things that you’re just sometimes 180 degrees different.”

With this feeling of safety, members were more willing to be open and honest about their beliefs and opinions. This openness encouraged a willingness to be vulnerable in discussing confusion or challenges one has with one’s own religious tradition. An example of this came from an interview with Daniel. He issued a “challenge” to the Trialogue to discuss difficult passages in scripture. He said certain passages were not discussed within faith communities, let alone outside them, because “they’re difficult, they’re painful, they make no freaking sense. They don’t fit into any rational spirituality, or religiosity that you can possibly imagine.” In a Trialogue meeting, he brought up the story of Jericho, calling it “a little, mini genocide,” saying, “I told how uncomfortable I was with it, I’m not satisfied with the Rabbinical explanations for it.” Daniel noted that this particular conversation was not very fruitful, but that these conversations were possible because of the high level of comfort members have with each other. They encouraged participants to critically reflect on their own beliefs to be able to clearly articulate them to others. It is in embracing learning about both the self and others that the final facet of learning, transformative learning, could occur.

Transformative Learning

The final stage of the learning cycle is transformative learning. It is a culmination of the learning process expressed through critical self-reflection and an openness to learning about and with others. According to Mezirow (1997), transformative learning, very basically, is a “process of effecting change in a frame of reference” (p. 5). Frames of reference are “the structures of assumptions through which we understand our experiences” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5). Thus, frames of reference are the mental, emotional, and spiritual frameworks that make up an individual’s worldviews and points of view. These frames of reference directly influence how adults make meaning from their life experiences. When adults experience something that conflicts with existing frames of reference, they can critically reflect on these leading to a transformation of perspective in which the newer perspective is assimilated as a more valuable one (Mezirow, 1978). Transformative learning is a lengthy and complex process. In interviews, members described changes in their frames of reference leading to a transformation of their perspectives toward other religions and their practitioners and the experiences in Trialogue that led to these changes. Transformative learning for these members was often predicated on several disorienting dilemmas, or moments that jarred existing frames of reference, causing “pressure and anxiety” to force the individual to critically self-reflect on these meaning structures (Mezirow, 1978, p. 105).

Within this context, transformative learning resulted in participants’ worldviews becoming more permeable to accept religious diversity. Claudia explained, “It’s made me not so fearful. It’s made me trust people that in the past I would have been very suspicious of.” Developing such a worldview took time, effort, and a willingness to challenge oneself to grow. Luke described this eloquently:

I really do think it’s when our beliefs and pre-set ideas are challenged that we actually learn something new. And it’s hard, it’s like muscles. You can’t build muscle unless you stretch and strain and stress it and I think the same thing is true about ideas and beliefs. We don’t change them easily and they don’t expand easily.

Examples of changed worldviews came from many participants. Khadija noted, “It makes me feel like we are even more connected than everyone is willing to say.” Matthew described his changed mind-set saying, “I used to have this fear of them [Muslims]. . . . Now? Great people. . . . If I hadn’t had the exposure and all I did is sit there and watch television, shoot, I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them.” As Phoebe explained, “it’s just widened my perspective of religion, of faith. . . . It broadens your faith tradition, it’ll make you dig deeper into what you believe.” When referencing differing interpretations of similar scripture, Isaiah said the Trialogue has taught him “there’s a whole lot of pathways and interpretations of the same story and that I should be open to other points of view that others have without giving up mine.” With this final phase, members continued participating with a newfound openness holding an enhanced worldview that now held room for acceptance of other faiths. Transformative learning, a deep and nuanced process, ends the initial cycle of learning and set participants up to reenter the learning cycle with a new mind-set.

Conclusion

Interfaith dialogue is a promising method for solving religious conflict, promoting interfaith competency, and learning in diverse communities (Boys & Lee, 1996; Gopin, 2002; Helskog, 2014a, 2014b; Swidler, 2006). Yet “surprisingly little analysis of the influences and consequences of interfaith dialogue” (Neufeldt, 2011, p. 345) is performed in academic research. With this in mind, a purpose of this study was understanding learning as a consequence of dialogue between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim adults. The data in this study indicate that learning through interfaith dialogue is a complex experience that should be intentionally facilitated and supported during meetings.

These findings coincide with existing scholarship, particularly in supporting the proposition that for interfaith dialogue to be a successful learning experience, members must feel part of a safe space (Riitaoja & Dervin, 2014). The dialogical environment of the Trialogue is a holding environment (Kegan, 1982). Members were acknowledged and supported in their learning, challenged to move beyond their comfort zone, and provided with stability that helped them change their ways of thinking and knowing. This environment helped members feel safe and confident that they would not be criticized, degraded, or discredited during their participation. Trust and respect are integral to creating an environment in which participants feel secure learning, being challenged, and challenging others (Boys & Lee, 1996; Neufeldt, 2011; Riitaoja & Dervin, 2014). In such an environment, deep learning can occur even when the distribution of participants across religious groups is uneven. This offers insight into how to counteract negative effects of an asymmetrical power ratio in which uneven numbers of participants of each religious tradition contributes to a lesser likelihood for learning and deep relationships (Abu-Nimer, 2002; Gopin, 2002).

Each participant in the Trialogue maintained what Fletcher (2007) called a sense of wonder and openness toward others. This characteristic was integral to the development of their learning community. Through such open mind-sets, members were able to embrace both similarities and differences in the three religions (Boys & Lee, 1996; Fulton & Wood, 2012; Gonzalez, 2011; Haug, 2014; Helskog, 2014b; Krebs, 2015; Lando et al., 2015). This openness, which enables such learning to begin, offers evidence to support the hope of numerous scholars that recurrent interfaith dialogue meetings will lead to a sense of community between participants (Gopin, 2002; Keaten & Soukup, 2009; Pons-de Wit et al., 2015). While focusing only on similarities can be problematic in interfaith dialogue (Fletcher, 2007; Keaten & Soukup, 2009; O’Keefe, 2009; Scott, 1995), this study indicates that beginning with discussions of similarities can lay the invaluable groundwork for mutual learning, understanding, respect, and empathy by offering a glimpse into preexisting connections between religions.

Members of the Trialogue participated in mutual learning, during which they learn both about others and themselves through self-reflection (DeTurk, 2006; Gabriel, 2010; Helskog, 2014a; Pons-de Wit et al., 2015). Participants were able to learn about other traditions without losing sight of their own (Boys & Lee, 1996; Fulton & Wood, 2012; Haug, 2014; Krebs, 2015). Over time, members of the Trialogue learned the conversational skills necessary to have productive dialogue on difficult topics (DeTurk, 2006; O’Keefe, 2009). This communicative learning was a prerequisite for members to experience other forms of learning, which suggests that in order for interfaith dialogue to promote the various forms of learning members must first have the dialogical skills to converse about difficult topics.

For an individual’s worldview to broaden and become more accepting of other religious traditions, individuals must be willing to learn about both others and themselves (Boys & Lee, 1996; Helskog, 2014a; Krebs, 2015; Otieno, 2015). That members experienced different forms of learning in stages over a period of years is particularly important for investigations of transformative learning during interfaith dialogue. Each interview participant experienced transformative learning after the other learning types. The data from this study indicate that if transformative learning is intended to be an outcome of interfaith dialogue, facilitators should also focus on these other types of learning and encourage the creation of deep relationships between participants as both are necessary for participants to trust one another, hold mutual respect, and critically self-reflect.

These findings have implications for both practice and further scholarship. Individuals interested in creating or facilitating interfaith dialogue groups focused on learning should keep in mind the necessity of developing an environment with clear guidelines for engagement where members feel comfortable enough with one another to challenge both themselves and others to learn and grow together (O’Keefe, 2009). Doing so takes deliberate planning in preparation for meetings and facilitation during an event. Participants of interfaith events should consider that interfaith dialogue can be a difficult and disorienting experience, but that fruitful and complex learning can be an outcome if desired.

Future research could more deeply examine each individual type of learning presented here and the differences between long-term and short-term participation. An exploration into the motivations for participation could contribute knowledge for recruitment and retention of interfaith dialogue participants. Further investigation into how to develop the conversational skills necessary, as well as which conversational tactics are successful, to learn during interfaith dialogue could offer both scholars and practitioners insight into interfaith dialogue’s potential to resolve interfaith conflict.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

A short version of this article was orally presented at the annual meeting of the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults (SCUTREA) in July 2017 in Edinburgh, UK.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Elizabeth M. Pope

Author Biography

Elizabeth M. Pope is an assistant professor of Educational Research at the University of West Georgia. Specializing in qualitative research, her research interests are in adult learning through interfaith dialogue and encounters, teaching and learning qualitative research, and digital technologies in qualitative research.

References

Abu-Nimer

(2002). The miracles of transformation through interfaith dialogue: Are you a believer? In Smock

D. S.

(Ed.), Interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding (pp. 15-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.

Acar

(2013). Effects of interfaith dialog activities: The role of a Turkish student association at an east coast U.S. university. Educational Research and Reviews, 8, 1144-1149. doi:10.5897/ERR2013.1131

Agrawal

Barratt

(2014). Does proximity matter in promoting interfaith dialogue? International Migration and Integration, 15, 567-587. doi:10.1007/s12134-013-0295-3

Avakian

(2015). The turn to the other: Reflections on contemporary Middle Eastern theological contributions to Christian-Muslim dialogue. Theology Today, 72, 77-83. doi:10.1177/0040573614563528

Bender

Cadge

(2006). Constructing Buddhism(s): Interreligious dialogue and religious hybridity. Sociology of Religion, 67, 229-247.

Boys

M. C.

Lee

S. S.

(1996). The Catholic-Jewish Colloquium: An experiment in interreligious learning. Religious Education, 91, 420-466.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown

D. S.

(Ed.). (2013). Interfaith dialogue in practice: Christian, Muslim, Jew. Kansas City, MO: Rockhurst University Press.

Charaniya

N. K.

Walsh

J. W.

(2001). Interpreting the experiences of Christians, Muslims, and Jews engaged in interreligious dialogue: A collaborative study. Religious Education, 96, 351-368.

10.

Charaniya

N. K.

Walsh

J. W.

(2004). Crossing borders of religious difference: Adult learning in the context of interreligious dialogue. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 104, 29-37.

11.

DeTurk

(2006). The power of dialogue: Consequences of intergroup dialogue and their implications for agency and alliance building. Communication Quarterly, 54, 33-51. doi:10.1080/01463370500270355

12.

Driskill

Gribas

(2013). Enacting grace and truth: A communication perspective on interfaith dialogue between the Abrahamic traditions. In Brown

D. S.

(Ed.), Interfaith dialogue in practice: Christian, Muslim, Jew (pp. 12-36). Kansas City, MO: Rockhurst University Press.

13.

Edelmayer

K. M.

(2013). Forward: Function and value of interfaith dialogue. In Brown

D. S.

(Ed.), Interfaith dialogue in practice: Christian, Muslim, Jew (pp. v-xv). Kansas City, MO: Rockhurst University Press.

14.

Everett

S. S.

(2018). Interfaith dialogue and faith-based social activism in a state of emergency: Laïcité and the crisis of religion in France. International Journal of Politics, Culture & Society, 31, 437-454. doi:10.1007/s10767-018-9291-0

15.

Fisher

E. J.

(2014). Kennedy Institute Jewish-Christian-Muslim trialogue. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 49, 144-146.

16.

Fletcher

J. H.

(2007). As long as we wonder: Possibilities in the impossibility of interreligious dialogue. Theological Studies, 68, 531-554.

17.

Flyvbjerg

(2011). Case study. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Friese

(2014). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Fulton

Wood

R. L.

(2012). Interfaith community organizing: Emerging theological and organizational challenges. International Journal of Public Theology, 6, 398-420. doi:10.1163/15697320-12341252

20.

Gabriel

(2010). Like rosewater: Reflections on interreligious dialogue. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 45, 1-23.

21.

Garber

(2015). The Jewish Jesus: Conversation, not conversion. Hebrew Studies, 56, 385-392.

22.

Gonzalez

N. J.

(2011, August 20-23). Recognizing the synchronist at the interfaith table: A second dimension to religious pluralism. Paper presented at the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Las Vegas, NV.

23.

Gopin

(2002). The use of the word and its limits: A critical evaluation of interfaith dialogue as peacemaking. In Smock

D. R.

(Ed.), Interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding (pp. 33-46). Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.

24.

Grim

B. J.

(2014, January 14). Religious hostilities reach six-year high. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

25.

Haug

K. S.

(2014). Possibilities and limitations of interreligious scripture reading. Mission Studies, 31, 157-170. doi:10.1163/15733831-12341331

26.

Hays

P. A.

(2004). Case study research. In deMarrais

Lapan

S. D.

(Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Helskog

G. H.

(2014a). The Gandhi Project: Dialogos philosophical dialogues and the ethics and politics of intercultural and interfaith friendship. Educational Action Research, 23, 225-242. doi:10.1080/09650792.2014.980287

28.

Helskog

G. H.

(2014b). Moving out of conflict into reconciliation: Bildung through philosophical dialogue in intercultural and interreligious education. Educational Action Research, 22, 340-362. doi:10.1080/09650792.2014.882262

29.

Hollingsworth

Dybdahl

Minarik

L. T.

(1993). By chart and chance and passion: The importance of relational knowing in learning to teach. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(1), 5-35.

30.

Kalender

(2016). “Welcome to interfaith dialogue,” the employee of the art gallery said and started the tour: Frames and spaces of interfaith interaction. Journal of Religion in Europe, 9, 423-440.

31.

Keaten

J. A.

Soukup

(2009). Dialogue and religious otherness: Toward a model of pluralistic interfaith dialogue. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2, 168-187. doi:10.1080/17513050902759504

32.

Kegan

(1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

33.

Kleiber

P. B.

(2004). Focus groups: More than a method of inquiry. In deMarrais

Lapan

S. D.

(Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 87-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Krebs

S. R.

(2015). Interfaith dialogue as a means for transformational conversations. Journal of College and Character, 16, 190-196. doi:10.1080/2194587X.2015.1057157

35.

Lando

A. L.

Muthuri

Odira

P. R.

(2015). The importance of interfaith dialog in the workplace for achieving organizational goals: A Kenyan case study. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15, 62-75. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.985306

36.

Lee

S. S.

(1991). An educational perspective on interreligious dialogue: A Jewish view. Religious Education, 86, 184-196.

37.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Lynham

S. A.

Guba

E. G.

(2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Linesch

(2017). Imagery in interfaith dialogue: Informed by the practices of art psychotherapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 53, 23-27. doi:10.1016/j.aip.2017.01.008

39.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Mayhew

M. J.

Rockenbach

A. N.

Bowman

N. A.

(2016). The connection between interfaith engagement and self-authored worldview commitment. Journal of College Student Development, 57, 362-379. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0046

41.

McCulloch

(2004). Documentary research: In education, history, and the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

42.

Mezirow

(1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100-110.

43.

Mezirow

(1996). Toward a learning theory of adult literacy. Adult Basic Education, 6, 115-126.

44.

Mezirow

(1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5-12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401

45.

Neufeldt

R. C.

(2011). Interfaith dialogue: Assessing theories of change. Peace & Change, 36, 344-372. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.2011.00702.x

46.

O’Keefe

(2009). Learning to talk: Conversation across religious differences. Religious Education, 104, 197-213. doi:10.1080/00344080902794665

47.

Otieno

(2015). Open discursive practices and interfaith conflict transformation in Kenya. Peace Review, 27. 304-311. doi:10.1080/10402659.2015.1063372

48.

Patel

(2013). From diversity to pluralism. Sojourners Magazine, 42(6), 14-15. doi:SOJMAG0020130803e96100013

49.

Polyakov

E. O.

(2018). Christian-Jewish dialogue in the monasteries of Jerusalem: An evolution of monastic interreligious dialogue. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 53, 521-540. doi:10.1353/ecu.2018.0038

50.

Pons-de Wit

Versteeg

Roeland

. (2015). Contextual responses to interreligious encounters online. Social Compass, 62, 89-104. doi:10.1177/0037768614560977

51.

Properzi

(2011). Looking for balance between identity and encounter: Buber’s relations and interreligious dialogue. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 46, 251-258.

52.

Riitaoja

Dervin

(2014). Interreligious dialogue in schools: Beyond asymmetry and categorisation? Language and Intercultural Communication, 14, 76-90. doi:10.1080/14708477.2013.866125

53.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Scott

(1995). Buddhism and Islam: Past to present encounters and interfaith lessons. Numen, 42, 141-155.

55.

Seidman

(2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

56.

Siddiqui

(1998). Christian-Muslim dialogue: Problems and challenges. In Bryant

M. D.

Ali

S. A.

(Eds.), Muslim-Christian dialogue: Promise and problems (pp. 75-85). St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

57.

Simons

(2009). Case study research in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

58.

Small

J. L.

(2009). Faith dialogues foster identity development. About Campus, 13(6), 12-18. doi:10.1002/abc.272

59.

Smith

J. I.

(2007). Muslims, Christians, and the challenge of interfaith dialogue. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

60.

Spradley

J. P.

(1980). Participant observation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson Learning.

61.

Swidler

, (2013). Deeper meaning of dialogue today. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 48, 143-144.

62.

Swidler

L. J.

(2006). The dialogue decalogue: Ground rules for interreligious, interideological dialogue. International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture, 7, 158-159.

63.

Swidler

L. J.

(2014). Deep-dialogue/critical-thinking/emotional-intelligence/competitive-cooperation: The most authentic way to be human. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

64.

Takim

(2004). From conversion to conversation: Interfaith dialogue in post 9-11 America. Muslim World, 94, 343-355.

65.

Williams

(2019). Welcoming (and learning from) the stranger: The museum as a forum for interfaith dialogue. Journal of Museum Education, 44, 34-40. doi:10.1080/10598650.2018.1555388

66.

Zia-ul-Haq

(2014). Muslims’ participation in interfaith dialogue: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 49, 613-646.