Discusión, conclusiones y recomendaciones 5.1 Discusión

98

The beliefs and practices of religious leaders’ brokering of peace have had an important influence on the conduct of human beings that cannot be excluded from the field of academic studies, because to exclude this is to ignore decisive factors in the religious, economic, political, social and cultural lives of human beings. This is because interreligious dialogue finds ways of uniting religions to live peaceable through the influence of the beliefs and practices of religious leaders that contribute to peaceful coexistence among human beings (Kleiboer, 1996:360). How can a model of and for religious leaders serve as peace brokering for interreligious dialogue? And to what extent can a model of and for religious leaders serve as a means of opposing conflicts without creating new conflicts and being turned into conflict itself? This is possible because the identity of religious leaders serves as prototype for peace amongst themselves, their communities and other religions. The above questions were prompted by the fact that a model of and for religious leaders as an identity is a means of creating and opposing conflict, because the typologies in the theology of religions show that there are different claims to the true identity. The comparative theology of religion in relation to the concepts of peace in the two religious groups confirms that the truth claims of a model of as belief and for as practices of religious leaders as peace brokers are the chief source of peaceful coexistence by including the other religion, and also a chief source of intolerance, hatred, conflict and violence within and outside religion through exclusion (Twiss & Bruce, 2000:40). Most understandings and misunderstandings of religions can be traced to the exclusion of the religious meaning, social and cultural systems that need to be harnessed for interreligious dialogue.

Therefore, religious leaders as peace brokers have an obligation through their model of and for interreligious dialogue. The question is what is the obligation of the model of and for religious leaders as peace brokers? According to Knitter (2007), the beliefs and practices of religious leaders have an ethical, constructive role in interreligious dialogue in society, and either positively or negatively are part of the problem of interreligious dialogue or part of the solution. In essence, religious leaders are supposed not to be part of the problem, but should be part of the solution (Twiss & Bruce, 2000:55). This is because religious leaders are those who are called, motivated and inspired by their spiritual and religious traditions, principles and values to undertake peace work. The obligation of their beliefs and practices as brokers of peace therefore differs in terms of principles and operations due to their spiritual values (Bailey, 1985:222). The identity of peace brokerage in religious diversity is based on the

99

issues of conflicting acts of exclusion. Exclusivism relates to groups of logical identity that see in the other an evil that must be excluded. What exclusivism should know is that one identity of evil can be another’s identity of justice (Volf, 1996:11).

This understanding of identity becoming exclusive is the opposite of the now opposing group. Therefore, exclusion becomes the evil because of its unwillingness to accept the other identity due to its cultural affiliation. Religious leaders as peace brokers are in the position to reframe their beliefs and practices for interreligious dialogue (Caner & Ergun, 2003:233). Inclusion becomes necessary because exclusivism is related to the fact that an allegiance to exclusivism is to renounce all other typologies of religions. Christian religious leaders who hold strongly to this view in their brokering of peace are concerned that engaging other religious identities might be disloyal, which could lead to syncretism or conversion to other faiths. This is because of the contribution of the exclusivist understanding of Jesus Christ’s peace is the only peace, and that peace belongs to exclusivism because one has to believe and belong to the identity of exclusivism as the only real peace. This understanding of exclusivism is based on the fact that God so loved the world that He sent Jesus Christ for humankind to believe in so that people would not die, but have eternal life (Hasan, 2012:42). The exclusivists fail to understand what God’s peace really is about, as God’s peace is universal. Therefore, Christian religious leaders’ brokering of peace means to embrace the identity of other religions for interreligious dialogue.

Christian religious leaders as peace brokers in communities exist to spread the Gospel in the face of global realities. This is because God can reach out to draw people to himself through participation in God’s reign to different degrees (Knitter, 2011:117). Therefore, we must seek to live the Gospel through peace building and reconciling our communities with the understanding of the New Testament term “Gospel” (evangelion), as good news or a good message, denoting the coming kingdom of God and the proclamation of God’s saving activity, which was demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

Therefore, to witness the Gospel is to tell the truth of the experience we have in Christ, and our witness ought to be authenticated by our lives (Knitter, 2007). It means we should enter into dialogue with our neighbours and with our enemies, and heal broken relationships, which can be done through respecting others as our friends. It involves living in our societies with our identities of transformation, in all aspects of our lives, and in accordance with the

100

teaching of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by portraying our image as being just and peaceful in accordance with the character of Jesus (Katongole & Rice, 2008). Being a Gospel witness means submitting your whole life, your whole being to the Almighty God. It also means acknowledging God over your priorities, as when we acknowledge the God of the Bible; such acknowledgment requires everything else to be reordered because, in the midst of all religious diversity, there is a centre that is Jesus Christ. Tracy (1981:332) describes what has remained unaltered after 2000 years, namely that Jesus is still the centre of the community and of life. It is this foundation, and the need for dialogue, that enables us to engage in joint service and united witness in the world (Ada, 1987:520). Thus, we should be united in our mission through interreligious dialogue. As long as the Bible, which witnesses Christ, is open and read, proclamations for interreligious dialogue will be very fruitful (Migliore, 2008:330). Therefore, as we normally listen to God’s word, we need to listen to other religions because we cannot do the first if we are not prepared to do the second. As stated above, the main objective of Christianity is a call to unite through love and reconciliation, not to impose, not to propose, and not to insist that the church is “driven by the Holy Spirit to do her part” for the full realisation of God’s plan (Chong, 1998:286). Therefore, dialogue may not be exempt from Christian religious leaders, because dialogue includes religious, moral and political challenges.

These challenges require Christian religious leaders to rise up and help as representative Christians persons in order to enable healing, empowerment and growth to take place in individuals and their relationships. Ultimately, the hope in doing this is to rescue Nigeria from political catastrophe, as the Bible offers some criteria for beliefs and practices for peaceful coexistence (Greene, 1993:1611). Christian religious leaders, as agents of peace among people in general, should make space for interreligious dialogue into which others can enter. The question is how can Christian religious leaders’ peace brokerage make such openings? This will happen through a holistic and reflexive approach.