First response.

The theoretical issue that I'm bringing to this discussion is this: Do you think your way into a new way of acting or do you act your way into a new way of thinking? I believe it's the second. I believe that people really need to act their way into a new way of thinking.

Interfaith dialogue, however, is most often conducted on the implicit premise that people talking will change how people relate to each other across religious differences. Sometimes I feel like my life is full of such panels. As President of a theological seminary, I am often asked to be part of interfaith panels where we talk about religious differences. I sometimes feel like I am in an endless film called A Panel Runs Through It. These panels are important and I think we have made some gains from panels. But it is largely what I would call the "talking heads" approach.

But in the work of social transformation, "talking heads" alone are not adequate. So what other approaches might we use besides talking on panels?

For many years, I've been very active in the peace movement. In 1969 I was an undergraduate student at Smith College. President Nixon attempted to widen the Viet Nam War by extending it into Cambodia. The students at Smith, of whom I was one, went on strike. We refused to attend class and we set up a strike school. Many other college campuses saw the same kind of activity. I went on my first hunger strike and it gave me a lot of respect for Gandhi because I had no idea how painful hunger strikes were. I think that was one of the most important learnings of my life. I learned that you can say no. I learned to say, "Yes, you can go into Cambodia, Mr. Nixon, but you're going to have to get around me to do it." And for those of you in college today, this is very, very relevant. Your work for peace and justice can really make a difference.

I have worked on two related peace documents, one called A Just Peace Church (Pilgrim Press) that was the official statement of the United Church of Christ, my denomination, on our approach to peacemaking. The second is called Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War, edited by Glen Stassen (Pilgrim Press). I like to call this second book "how to end war in your spare time." It was put together by a gathering of twenty-two different peace activists--UCC, Brethren, Mennonite, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, etc. etc. Of course, all you really need to do to have enormous amount of conflict is to get twenty-two different peace activists together in a room and try to spend a little time. We almost came apart in the first meeting. Were we going to issue a list of moral principals? Or were we going to write it as a set of political strategies? And we used a unique approach that I am offering as documentation for why I think you act your way into a new way of thinking: practice norms.

If I had a blackboard here, I would write "Practice Norms." Now what is a practice norm? It is "neither an ideal nor a rule, but a human activity that regularly takes place and that a sociologist could observe." And when this human activity takes place, it makes positive change for peace and justice.

I wrote the first chapter, on non-violent direct action. Non-violent direct action includes things like boycotts and strikes. These have been around for a very long time. I wrote that Pharaoh for, example, experienced a work slow down on the part of the midwives and a complete walk out on the part of the Hebrews.

I would suggest a practice norm approach to interfaith work. It is possible to move forward in practice norms to address the dilemma that Eboo very well outlined in his paper, if we consider it in a community base rather than abstractly.

Community organizing is, unsurprisingly, community based. The community has a certain cohesion. Yet, as interfaith youth learn these practices together, they come to recognize that communities invariably include others whose perspectives, religious, social, and political, may differ widely from their own. In practice, successful community organizing must include the negotiation of differences. The practice of community organizing in an interfaith youth context better teaches us how to do community organizing across many kinds of difference.

I also want to address the broader issues of theology brought up in the paper. In his book When Religion Becomes Evil, Charles Kimball talks about a kid in one house who says "my dad's the greatest dad in the world" and then a kid in the next house says "my dad's the greatest dad in the world." Who's right? They both are right. Who's telling the truth? They're both telling the truth. It's the definition of truth that has to change. As we move forward in interfaith work, we need a better definition of truth.

I will close with one final point. I believe that one of the aspects of our work together is learning more about the infinite nature of God. Protestant Christians have been terrible offenders in this regard because we have looked at other religions and said, "unbeliever, unbeliever". What we need to do is look at other religions and say "Oh good, more."