Interfaith dialogue, when it exists at all, most often comes in response to a particular 'crisis event' within the social structure of a given community. At such times, a coalition of religious leaders may put aside their historic differences to address a critical concern, and then, return to 'business as usual' within their particular faith communities and accompanying prejudices. Yet, many of our deeply rooted faith, and thus, human, conflicts are seldom addressed in such negotiations. The concept of "sustained dialogue" has been offered by Harold H. Saunders of the Kettering Foundation as a means of addressing the chasm created by the basic mistrusts often found between groups in conflict. Sustained dialogue around issues of faith can be an essential tool for changing human relationships as we face our fears, our historic grievances and injustices while discovering our common roots, hopes, dreams and even, faith. This workshop will seek to introduce participants to how such dialogues can be structured and implemented locally so as to lead to the reduction of racial, ethnic and religious tensions which exist in our increasingly pluralistic communities.

The outline which follows is the process suggested by Dr. Saunders for conducting Sustained Dialogue. It is adapted {and parts even directly lifted} from THE PROCESS IN OUTLINE: A BROUCHURE which can be found in A Public Peace Process (St. Martin's Press: NY, 1999) or by contacting the office of the Kettering Foundation in Washington, DC. {Thanks to Harold Saunders for permission to adapt and/or copy as needed the material.}

SUSTAINED DIALOGUE: A Process for Changing Strained Community Relationships

THE CONCEPT

The approach is an interactive process designed to change the core of troublesome relationships. It's intention is not to bring together contending parties to get equal pieces of some real or imagined pie. The intent is to lead the participants to probe the dynamics of conflictive relationships which lead to the problems experienced in community. By developing a capacity for then designing actions to change the way they relate for the better they are then able to decide how to take those steps to the wider community.

In the process, it is essential to focus on relationships rather than specific problems. The process begins with the identification of a dozen or so persons who are concerned enough about the community situation that they are willing to talk about it in depth with the guidance of a moderator. Participants should be respected representatives of the groups in conflict and must each be willing to commit to a series of regular meetings which will stretch across many months. The key will be the willingness of the participants to be active and careful listeners. The process will have succeed if by its end they have:
· Brought out the misperceptions, fears, mistrust and suspicions that lie at the heart of the difficulties between their groups;
· Experienced changes in their own relationships within the dialogue group;
· Worked out a scenario of interdependent steps that they think could begin to change the foundations of the relationships that exist among groups in the community;
· Begun implementing the scenario in the wider community.

PUTTING THE CONCEPT TO WORK

The process entails five parts, though the stages do not have rigidly defined boundaries. The participants will move back and forth across the stages as needed in the thinking and rethinking of the issues under discussion.

Stage One: Deciding to Engage in Dialogue
This stage actually occurs before folk ever get to the table. Its purpose is to find respected participants who reflect key viewpoints within their respective communities and who will agree to a regular schedule of meetings over a period of months. Participants need to agree to the nature and purpose and rules of the dialogue. These are, at the very least:
· To discuss openly both problems and the relationship that cause them for the purpose of changing those relationships;
· To listen thoughtfully and speak briefly with respect for others;
· To speak only for yourself and not for any organizations;
· Not to quote anyone outside of the dialogue.

Stage Two: Mapping and Naming Problems and Relationships
At this point the participants first come together. The focuses are: to get out on the table the arra of problems and relationships among them and to examine how those problems affect real interests; to share their personal experiences with the relationships that have created those problems and that would need to be changed; and to identify and choose the two or three problems on which they will focus in-depth attention one at a time.

It may at first be difficult to share personal experiences which involve racial, religious or ethnic tensions, but this is key. Participants should be encouraged to reflect between sessions on how the identified problems affect them, and to decide which problem the group should first work on and why.

Stage Three: Probing Problems and Relationships to Choose a Direction
Participants now probe deeper the specific problems on which they have decided to focus. The aims are to see how relationships affect interests, to glimpse how relationships might be changed, and to decide whether or not to try. A duel agenda exists here: to determine why participant really care about this problem; and to discuss the problem in a way that reveals the dynamics of the relationships that cause it.

In probing the problems one at a time, they will seek to bring to the surface the dynamics of relationships that underlie the problem. Questions, such as those which follow, will be key.
· What are the main elements of the problem?
· Describe the main people and/or groups involved in this particular problem.
· How does this problem affect what you and/or your group value most? Can you explain it with a personal story?

Participants then suggest possible directions for tackling the problem. Then they will weigh those choices and try to come to a sense of direction that they think should guide their next steps.

After full discussion of each problem, participants should step back and take stock of where they are headed by asking questions such as:
· Where is the situation going? What future would we prefer?
· Would we like to change course? What are the costs of doing so?
· What changes in relationships would be needed to move to the kind of community that would deal effectively with this problem?
· Where could we find common ground for changing relationships?

The key question is whether or not participants are ready to work together to develop steps that could change relationships among themselves and in the larger community from which they come.

Stage Four: Scenario-Building-Experiencing a Changing Relationship
The group should in a very real sense be a microcosm of the larger community, and by now, relationships should be changed or changing positively. As they have learned to think together about how to generate changes which they all agree should occur, their task now is to develop a series of interactive steps that can result in change in how groups feel about each other. They should:
· List the main obstacles to change. (feelings as well as practical factors)
· List steps to overcome each
· List who can take those steps. What steps can each persuade her or his group to take?
· List those steps in an order to show both sequence and how steps by different groups can interact
· Consider how the dialogue group can create public recognition that something different is happening.

Stage Five: Acting Together to Make Change Happen
Now the focus is to decide whether to act in the large community and, if so, to develop practical ways that the scenarios developed in Stage Four might be put into action. Emphasis should be given to the following questions:
· Do conditions in the community permit implementing the scenario?
· Do capacities exist for carrying it through?
· Who needs to take what steps?

THE BOTTOM LINE
"The purpose of this process-sustained dialogue-is to probe the dynamics of contentious relationships in order to develop gradually a capacity for taking actions to change those relationships for the better. Over time, the group might continue to develop ideas and practical steps for reducing tensions by improving relationships."