From its first meeting, the planning committee for the Critical Moment in Dialogue conference hoped to create an international, interreligious meeting that would be different, moving beyond typical gatherings of the past. Rather than a dialogue on a particular topic, such as human rights, the committee called for a dialogue on dialogue, assessing the critical moment in which the interfaith movement finds itself.

The committee developed a three-question survey to be distributed to participants prior to the conference, which would elicit their collective wisdom about the status and impact of dialogue. The survey asked:

• What are the most valid or legitimate criticisms of dialogue that you've heard?
• How would you assess the impact of dialogue?
• What areas of concern are not reflected in current, mainstream interreligious discourses?

Though the committee was anxious that few participants would respond, the number of responses received was overwhelming, with 41% return rate. Many people wrote extensive answers to the survey questions, showing great enthusiasm for the conference.

With so many responses to consider, analysing and interpreting the data became a complex, daunting task, undertaken by committee members Ameeta Mulla Watal and Courtney Goto, who presented the findings of the survey on the first day of the conference. 

In general, participants expressed a longing for the "more-ness" of dialogue. While they celebrated the positive impact of dialogue, they also recognised its failings, and yearned to see dialogue become a stronger and more effective tool. Survey respondents hoped to see dialogue move into the community at the grassroots level, thereby making change more palpable. They longed for a more inclusive dialogue that would bring in new voices, including more women, young people, and outsiders.

Finally, they advocated for more action-oriented-dialogue. Such conclusions inevitably led to key questions with which the planning committee hoped the participants would struggle:

• What is our role as leaders, clergy, activists, and scholars?
• Are we prepared to open up the 'cliques' of the interfaith movement?
• How do we respond to the critiques of interreligious dialogue?
• How do we envisage a new decade where dialogue will be more balanced?
• What steps will we take in order to achieve it?
• How do we create balance between pure activism and theological study?

The following quotes will convey something of the flavour of the questionnaire responses:

"[A] dialoguer must also be a risk taker! That is why [...] interfaith dialogue has remained an activity of the few, though there are noticeable signs that organisations who are interested in such activities are increasing and more people are interested to get to know about each others' religion and culture."

"Dialogue has impacted people as individual believers. In my own case, I have been led to a deeper understanding of my neighbor's faith and mine through dialogue. It has strengthened my commitment to Christ and opened my eyes to recognizing God's salvific activity outside the intentional Christian community."

"It [dialogue] is nourishing for the participants, reinforces their interfaith community and strengthens their desire to be together. However, it rarely reaches the vast majority of the people/clergy who have a problem with meeting each other. After all, most religious life is within insular communities for whom interfaith dialogue is not only not a reality, it is even a heresy."

"Interreligious dialogue and relations have led synergistically to creative collaborations and partnerships between individuals, faith communities, NGO's and governments to address local, national, regional and global crises and problems."

"Dialogue tends to remain at the level of the theoretical while ignoring day-to-day matters of practical life."

*Ms Courtney Goto is a doctoral student at Emory University, a member of the Wick's reference Group and of the preparatory group for the "Critical moment" conference.