Toward Grassroots Interfaith Dialogue: The Role of a Faith-Based Movement

Abstract

Over the past decades, interfaith dialogue has emerged as a key strategy for peacebuilding in conflict-affected areas, particularly in Mindanao, Philippines. This study examines the role of a faith-based movement in fostering interfaith dialogue and promoting peace in the region. Drawing from contemporary theological models of religion, this study explores how different approaches to dialogue shape interfaith engagement. Using a single case study methodology, the research highlights the contributions, challenges, and best practices of an interfaith movement actively working towards peacebuilding. The findings suggest that faith-based movements serve as crucial mediators in interfaith relations by fostering mutual understanding, facilitating community-led peace initiatives, and addressing sociopolitical challenges. This study concludes by offering insights into the future of interfaith dialogue in the Philippines, emphasizing the need for sustained collaboration among religious communities, policymakers, and civil society actors.

1. Introduction

In a globalized world marked by increasing religious diversity, interfaith dialogue has emerged as a critical tool for promoting understanding, reconciliation, and peaceful coexistence. Despite its significance, interfaith dialogue often grapples with challenges rooted in colonial legacies (Bhabha 1994; Said 1995), exclusivist ideologies (Race 1986; Grube 2024), and sociopolitical conflicts (Appleby 2023). Since religion is frequently cited as a cause of violent conflict, dialogue between faith communities often reveals that religion is not the primary source of tension but the use and abuse of power and dominion over the people (Juergensmeyer 2003; Appleby 2023). As pointed out in its opening chapter, Pope Francis (2020), in his landmark document Fratelli Tutti [Brothers all], explicitly states that “war, terrorist attacks, racial or religious persecution, and many other affronts to human dignity are judged differently, depending on how convenient it proves for certain, primarily economic, interests” (Francis 2020, No. 25). Interfaith dialogue has become an increasingly important tool for those who seek to end violent conflict worldwide (Phan 2004).

Although there is growing interest in the role of religion in meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Agenda 2030, very few studies have focused on the contributions of interfaith movements (United Nations 2015). Given the limited literature exploring the effectiveness of interfaith dialogue in practice, there is a significant need to develop new research approaches to exploring these processes and promoting further reflection by practitioners on them. However, given the controversial nature of such issues and dilemmas, faith-based movements can often be hidden away for fear of exposing potential problems in what is already a difficult and often under supported activity (Orton 2016). Faith communities influence public discourse, governance, and development initiatives, playing a crucial role in shaping ethical norms. However, this diversity also brings challenges, such as sectarian conflicts, sociopolitical divisions, and the marginalization of certain religious groups (Majul [1973] 2009; Milner 2008). Thus, interfaith and intercultural dialogue is not only a theological ideal but a necessary social and political project (Abu-Nimer 2015).

This paper examines the role of a Christian–Muslim interfaith movement based in the Philippines, analyzing its challenges and best practices in conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts. It offers practical recommendations for fostering a more inclusive and harmonious society. The interweaving of faith and culture offers opportunities for meaningful encounters but also necessitates efforts to overcome historical and structural barriers to dialogue. This study specifically answers the following questions:

• How do contemporary models of theologies of religion inform interfaith dialogue initiatives in Mindanao?
• What are the key roles and contributions of faith-based movements in interfaith peacebuilding?
• What challenges do faith-based movements encounter in promoting interfaith dialogue and peace in Mindanao?

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Major Religions in the Philippines

The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelagic state in Southeast Asia. It is a deeply religious society that presents a compelling case for interfaith dialogue (Corpuz and del Castillo 2021). With a majority Catholic population, a significant Muslim minority, and a vibrant presence of over 100 Christian denominations, religious diversity is woven into the fabric of social, political, and economic life. The 2020 Philippine census (Philippine Statistics Authority 2023) recorded a total household population of 108,667,043, with the majority identifying as Roman Catholic, comprising 78.8% (85,645,362 individuals) of the population. Islam followed as the second largest religious affiliation, accounting for 6.4% (6,981,710 individuals), while Iglesia ni Cristo ranked third with 2.6% (2,806,524 individuals). These three groups remained the most prominent religious affiliations since the 2015 census. The remaining top religious groups in 2020 included the Seventh-Day Adventist and Aglipay churches (0.8% each), the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (0.6%), and the Bible Baptist Church (0.5%), as well as the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Church of Christ (0.4% each). Therefore, this diversity demands careful oversight, as inadequate regulation could result in significant consequences in the future (Kimball 2008).

2.2. Challenges to Interfaith Dialogue in the Philippines

A host of contemporary events can be rallied as examples in order to support the need to interfaith dialogue—from 9/11 to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) terrorism, from Al Qaeda bombings to Boko Haram attacks on villages (Ressa 2003). Most common is the media’s correlation of violence within religions (Pilario 2015) such as extremism and radicalization (Ressa 2003). A recent study of the PEW Research Center shows that communal violence had increased over the period between 2010 and 2017, with 56 out of 200 countries reporting high or very high social hostilities involving ethnicity and religion in 2017 (Pew Research Center 2019). The result of this conflict is staggering according to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (2012). Citing government data and estimates culled from official websites, PCIJ laid out the cold and dark statistics on the impact of the war so far on the people of Mindanao, among them, there have been more than 60,000 deaths, two million internal refugees, 535 mosques destroyed, 200 schools demolished, and 35 cities or towns damaged. The total estimate that the Philippine government has already spent is P76 billion in fighting the war in Mindanao from 1970 to 1996 alone. These are the stuff of headlines—casualty reports, refugee statistics, towns burned to the ground, and villages ravaged in Mindanao. Yet as the unending cycle of violence and grief has shown over the past four decades (from 1966 to 2012), the hidden costs of war may actually far outweigh the toll on human lives and damaged property, if only for the deeper wounds it plants among protagonists and innocent victims alike (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism 2012). In conflict areas, the cycle of violence often erodes moral clarity, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish right from wrong. While divisions are rarely absolute, the prolonged nature of conflict deepens ethical ambiguity, further complicating efforts toward justice and reconciliation. In the context of interfaith dialogue, this underscores the urgent need for open, compassionate engagement between religious communities (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism 2012).

Religious harmony is deeply intertwined with public perception, making interfaith dialogue essential in fostering peaceful coexistence, particularly in the Philippines (Brazal 2019). While other nations, such as India and Pakistan, have experienced religious conflicts that contributed to national divisions (Ahmed and Brasted 2020), and tensions between Islam and Buddhism have led to violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar (Yusuf 2018), the Philippine context presents both challenges and opportunities for interfaith engagement. Unlike Indonesia’s Poso conflict, which severely disrupted social stability (Ayoob 2007), the Philippines has a long history of religious plurality, where dialogue between Christians, Muslims, and indigenous faith communities continues to be a crucial tool for peacebuilding (D’Ambra 2008). Strengthening interfaith initiatives is vital in preventing sectarian tensions and promoting mutual understanding in the country’s diverse religious landscape (Abu-Nimer and Nelson 2021).

2.3. A Brief History of Christian–Muslim Dialogue in the Philippines

The introduction of Islam to the Philippines can be traced back to the 14th century, primarily through the influence of Muslim traders from the western regions of the Malay Archipelago (Cushner 1971; Scott 1994). The process of Islamization began around 1380 with the arrival of the missionary Karim Al-Makhdum in Bwansa (Jolo), where he established one of the earliest mosques in Simunul, Tawi-Tawi (Scott 1994). Originating from Johore, now part of modern-day Malaysia, Al-Makhdum played a key role in laying the foundations of Islamic teachings in the region (Saleeby 1908). Over time, the faith gradually expanded throughout Mindanao, with major centers of Islamic influence emerging in areas such as Sulu and Cotabato (Majul [1973] 2009). This historical diffusion of Islam set the stage for the dynamic interfaith interactions that continue to shape religious discourse and relationships in the Philippines today (Espiritu 2017).

Colonial history has profoundly shaped religious identities in the Philippines (Agoncillo 1990). Behind contemporary Muslim–Christian interaction and dialogue lie centuries of colonialism that have resulted in misconception, misunderstanding, and mistrust (del Castillo 2015). Coupled with this, was the missionary urge to “save souls” in the colonial period, and their exclusionary approach toward other religions (Lovett 1899). Spanish colonization (1565–1898) established Catholicism as the dominant religion, often at the expense of indigenous and Muslim traditions (Majul [1973] 2009). During colonialism, those who engage in dialogue with the Other met not only the resistance of Church authorities but also the more diffused European attitude of cultural superiority (Salazar 2004). The American period (1898–1946) introduced Protestantism and secular governance structures, further complicating the religious landscape (Agoncillo 1990). These experiences contributed to sectarian divisions that persist today, particularly in Christian–Muslim relations. The Mindanao conflict, for instance, is rooted in religious and historical grievances that continue to require sustained dialogue and reconciliation (Aguilar 1987; Mawson 2016).

The conflict in Mindanao has persisted for decades, marked by violent clashes, abductions, and displacement (Ressa 2003). While the establishment of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in 2019 represented a milestone in the peace process between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), sporadic violence and instability continue (Ressa 2003). The aftermath of the 2017 Marawi siege, which left the city devastated, exacerbated communal tensions and security threats (D’Ambra 2015). The history of Silsilah can also be linked to the martyrdom of Salvatore Carzedda. Quite telling is the martyrdom of a priest who was killed in the context of the mission of Muslim–Christian dialogue in Mindanao (D’Ambra 2015).

Despite peace efforts, militant groups such as the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), which has ties to the Islamic State (ISIS), continue to engage in kidnappings, targeting foreign nationals and local communities (Ressa 2003). Clashes between Philippine security forces and armed factions, including remnants of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), remain prevalent in provinces such as Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and North Cotabato (Ressa 2003). These ongoing security challenges underscore the fragile nature of peace in the region and the need for sustained interfaith and intercultural dialogue to promote long-term stability.

Another problem is the socioeconomic context of the Philippines. Religious identity often intersects with socioeconomic conditions in the Philippines (Majul [1973] 2009). Poverty, lack of access to education, and economic inequalities disproportionately affect Muslim and indigenous communities (Aguilar 1987). Economic marginalization can foster radicalization as disenfranchised groups seek empowerment and belonging. While faith-based organizations provide crucial social services, without genuine dialogue and policy interventions, these efforts remain palliative rather than transformative (Ressa 2003). The religious rhetoric is frequently employed in political discourse, sometimes exacerbating divisions rather than fostering unity (Juergensmeyer 2003). Political actors often co-opt religious symbols and leaders to advance partisan interests, creating polarization within faith communities (Said 1995). The rise of populist leaders, marked by appeals to religious morality and nationalism, underscores the urgent need for interfaith engagement that transcends political manipulation (Ressa 2003).

Postcolonialism examines a wide range of issues, including those related to identity, hybridity, gender, sex, race, species, language, knowledge, modernity, transnationalism, multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism (Given 2008; Brazal 2019). In order to give voice to agents, interactions, practices, representations, knowledges, narratives, and subaltern cultures repressed by conventional disciplines, postcolonialism offers a number of ideas as a framework for transdisciplinary study (Pilario 2007; Brazal 2019). Sugirtharajah (2003) proposes postcolonial methods to utilize social, cultural, and political analysis to engage with the colonial discourse. Postcolonial interfaith dialogue seeks recognition and authenticity for all marginalized or oppressed identities, including religions (Brazal 2019). Practically based theologizing occurs within one’s context in order to inspire awareness, critical dialogue, and integration of ideas (Corpuz and Sarmiento 2021). Therefore, the primary goal of postcolonial interfaith dialogue is to critique hegemonic ideological constructions that make absolutist or hegemonic claims and to provide legitimacy for alternative theological views of the other (Brazal 2019).

A postcolonial reading of Church history would reveal a shift from exclusivism to inclusivism and pluralism (Corpuz 2023). Rather than competing with one another over territories, converts or claims, the Church has adopted a more inclusive attitude toward Muslims, collaborating with them in social projects and exchanging views on common religious questions (Cornille 2013; Keenan 2021). The church had to abandon its previously held traditional doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church), which connotes negative encounters of conquest, colonialism, and missionary endeavors (Fletcher 2007). At Vatican II (1962–1965), Catholic interfaith teaching is expressed primarily in Ad Gentes, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae. Since Vatican II, ecumenical and missiological thinking has been officially developed in papal documents, for example, in Evangelii Nuntiandi and Redemptoris Missio. Other Roman Congregations and Commissions, for instance, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the International Theological Commission (ITC), Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference (FABC), the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines have added to the development of magisterial teachings on interfaith dialogue.

3. Methodology

This study employs a qualitative single case study approach to examine the role of a faith-based movement in interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding in Mindanao. This study employs a case study approach, an all-encompassing research method that integrates research design, data collection, and data analysis techniques (Creswell 2007). Case studies are particularly useful in exploring unique, complex, and context-driven social phenomena, making them ideal for studying interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding (Schipani 2012). The case study focuses on Silsilah Dialogue Movement (SDM), a Catholic faith-based movement engaged in interfaith dialogue in Mindanao. The research gap addressed in this study arises from the limited literature on Catholic movements actively involved in interfaith dialogue, despite the Church’s strong encouragement of interfaith engagement since Vatican II (Phan 2022).

Data for this study were collected through interviews with the leaders of the Silsilah Dialogue Movement, based in Zamboanga City, Mindanao, Philippines. The respondents were informed about the study, and after completing the informed consent form and demographic questionnaire, they were asked about their theology of religion and their primary contributions to interfaith dialogue. To ensure the reliability of the findings and validate the interpretation of phenomenological experiences, subject matter experts were consulted (Creswell 2007).

The study followed a systematic approach. First, the researcher compiled the perspectives and experiences of the respondents. Themes were then identified from their responses. Subsequently, the researcher critically analyzed these themes in relation to the documents produced by the movement.

Table 1. Theology of religions in Silsilah and the models of interfaith dialogue.

Area of Inquiry	Results
Theology of Religions	Inclusivism Pluralism
Models of Interfaith Dialogue (The Culture of Dialogue)	Dialogue with God Dialogue with Self Dialogue with Others Dialogue with Nature

presents the synthesized results from the study.

In terms of their theology of religions, two dominant models emerged: (1) inclusivism and (2) pluralism, both of which extend beyond exclusivism. Regarding models of interfaith dialogue, the overarching theme identified was the Culture of Dialogue, supported by four specific types of dialogue: (1) Dialogue with God; (2) Dialogue with the Self; (3) Dialogue with Others; and (4) Dialogue with Nature. Finally, the study highlights the contributions of the Silsilah Dialogue Movement to the discourse on the theology of religions and interfaith dialogue in Mindanao, Philippines.

4. Results and Discussion

How do contemporary models of theologies of religion inform interfaith dialogue initiatives in Mindanao? Interfaith dialogue takes multiple forms, each offering distinct contributions to fostering mutual understanding and cooperation. The Catholic approach to interfaith dialogue begins with the typology: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism (Race 1986). This model starts with a specifically Christian question: How are other religious traditions related to the Christian mystery of salvation? The question of salvation and its mediation to those outside the Christian dispensation (Merrigan 1999). This typology was quickly adopted by leading scholars in the field, including, for example, Hick (1984) and Knitter (1990) and D’Costa (1996), who previously had each proposed different schemas. Knitter’s models are replacement, fulfillment, mutuality, and acceptance (Knitter 1990). For each model, Knitter (1990) also distinguishes between different kinds of approaches that share the basic outlook of the model. Of these four models, only the mutuality model is the most postcolonial since it views religions as true meant to be in dialogue and mutually enrich each other. D’Costa (1996) argued that the typology is no longer useful. In Asia, Christianity’s very existence in part depends on how it relates to the world religions (Wilfred 2022). This is a matter of survival and more importantly a matter of plausibility: how do Christians relate to their tradition, which so many think has related so negatively to the world religions? The questions are not simply theological and pastoral, i.e., can a non-Christian be saved? But it is also very practical and political: how should Christians relate to the religiously pluralist public square? Should they join with Muslims, for example, to campaign for religious schools? These are postcolonial questions in interfaith studies that need further theological explanation (Pilario 2007; Sugirtharajah 2003).

Dupuis (1997) has cracked the impasse of hardline paradigmatic positions interfaith dialogue has travelled all these years. If one would follow the logic of “paradigms” or “typologies” set by the Western discourse of interfaith dialogue, there will be no hopeful end in view (Pilario 2007). His theory of inclusive pluralism advances a “Trinitarian Christology” which would be able to account for God’s self-manifestation and self-gift in human cultures and religious traditions outside the orbit of influence of the Catholic message (Dupuis 1997; O’Collins 2003). In contrast to the Western typology, some theologians presented the postcolonial perspective on interfaith dialogue which is characterized by fluidity, hybridity, and in-between spaces. The Trinitarian theology of D’Costa (1996), as well as Daggers (2013) particularist model and Dupuis (1997) “inclusive pluralism”, can be considered postcolonial since they adopt an inclusive–pluralist (mutuality) framework based on Asian theology. The trinitarian theologies and the doctrine of the Trinity are brought into dialogue with Asian perspective as well as with other Christian beliefs. Dupuis’ (1997) “inclusive pluralism” seems the most promising theological model within postcolonial interfaith dialogue because it seeks to move beyond a theology of “fulfilment” as proposed by D’Costa (1996) and Daggers (2013). Dupuis’ (1997) concept of inclusive pluralism has been influential in the field of interfaith dialogue as it provides a framework for Christians to engage in respectful and constructive conversations with people of other faiths.

The theological dialogue model involves scholars and religious leaders engaging in doctrinal discussions to explore commonalities and differences in theological perspectives (Cornille 2013). While challenging, such dialogues promote deeper mutual respect and theological literacy. The spiritual or experiential dialogue model fosters shared spiritual experiences, such as prayer, meditation, or joint religious rituals, emphasizing the lived experience of faith and a sense of shared humanity (Sugirtharajah 2003). The practical or social action dialogue model focuses on interfaith collaboration to address social issues like poverty, climate change, and humanitarian aid (Corpuz 2024). This kind of dialogue focuses on working together on common causes, religious groups transcend doctrinal differences and build trust through shared mission and service by going back to the “rough grounds of life” (Pilario 2007). The cultural and educational dialogue model promotes interfaith understanding through academic programs, cultural exchanges, and storytelling, fostering long-term attitudinal shifts towards inclusivity and peacebuilding efforts. Abu-Nimer (2020), drawing from his work on the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, proposes a framework for conducting interfaith dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Palestine and Israel. The political and institutional dialogue model involves religious leaders collaborating with government institutions to influence policies that promote religious freedom and social justice (Pilario 2007).

The Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue (1991) synthesized four models in Dialogue and Proclamation such as the dialogue of life, action, theological exchange, and religious experience emphasizes daily interactions, social cooperation, intellectual engagement, and shared spiritual practices. The Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences (FABC) proposes the triple dialogue approach that engages with cultures, religions, and the poor (Tran 2018; Wilfred 2022). Likewise, interfaith dialogue can take multiple performative forms; one can find it in the daily interactions between neighbors, in formal discussions, in debates or conferences organized by private, civil society, or public institutions, where academics, experts, or religious representatives participate, in dialogue groups’ encounters with citizen and religious representatives participation, or around social activism linked to social issues such as poverty alleviation, housing, or education (Corpuz 2023). These models reinforce the need for a contextual and inclusive interfaith approach. Integrating these models can strengthen interfaith engagement in the Philippines (Wilfred 2022).

A significant example of interfaith dialogue in action is the role of religious leaders in the Mindanao peace process (Corpuz 2023). The Bishops-Ulama Conference (BUC), established in the 1990s, brought Christian bishops and Muslim ulama together for reconciliation and peacebuilding. Through sustained dialogue, community outreach, and policy advocacy, this initiative contributed to the establishment of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The success of this initiative underscores the importance of faith-based diplomacy in conflict resolution (Abu-Nimer 2020).

At the grassroots level, organizations such as the Silsilah Dialogue Movement (SDM) promote interfaith understanding through education, leadership training, and community development (D’Ambra 2008). SDM promotes relationships at the local level, such initiatives help dispel prejudices and build a culture of peace. The SDM, established in 1984 in Zamboanga City by Sebastiano D’Ambra, PIME, is a pioneering initiative dedicated to fostering deeper Christian–Muslim relations. The term Silsilah, derived from Arabic, signifies a “chain” or “link”, and is also associated with a “genealogical tree”, symbolizing the interconnectedness of all humanity under a common Creator. Rooted in the “spirituality of dialogue”, the movement emphasizes that genuine interfaith engagement is a divine calling—an invitation from God to humanity to engage in mutual understanding and cooperation (D’Ambra 2008).

The Silsilah Dialogue Movement has established an extensive network of interfaith partnerships, demonstrating its effectiveness as a mediator in interreligious relations. A significant testament to its impact is the formation of its Advisory Body, composed of representatives from key Catholic and Muslim institutions, including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines-Episcopal Commission for Interreligious Dialogue (CBCP-ECID) and the Bishops-Ulama Conference (BUC). These partnerships are formalized through Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), ensuring sustained collaboration in fostering dialogue and reconciliation (D’Ambra 2008). Furthermore, Silsilah has developed specialized groups such as the Inter-Faith Council of Leaders (IFCL), the SilPeace Youth, and the Young Professionals for Dialogue and Peace (YPDP), which actively engage in grassroots peacebuilding initiatives. One of the movement’s most notable contributions is its extensive peace education program, having conducted hundreds of workshops for teachers and administrators across various institutions (D’Ambra 2008).

4.1. Beyond Exclusivism: Inclusive Pluralist

At its core, Silsilah seeks to nurture a life-in-dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and people of other faiths, anchored in respect, trust, and love (D’Ambra 2014). It encourages individuals to deepen their respective religious commitments while embracing interfaith dialogue as a path toward harmony, solidarity, and peace. The culture of dialogue is grounded in spiritual values, the movement empowers its members to be active witnesses of their faith traditions, working together to uplift marginalized communities and advocate for a just, humane, and ecologically responsible society (D’Ambra 2008).

Recognizing the distinctiveness of each religious tradition, Silsilah views interfaith dialogue as a continuous spiritual journey in which people encounter the divine through engagement with others. It calls for an ongoing process of reflection and action, where individuals bear witness to God’s presence in the diversity of cultures and beliefs. Silsilah aspires to create a world where religious pluralism is not merely tolerated but embraced as a pathway to peace and mutual flourishing (D’Ambra 2015).

4.2. The Culture of Dialogue

The foundation of a “Culture of Dialogue” is rooted in the commitment to living and fostering dialogue as an expression of love, which is essential for sustainable interfaith dialogue and peace (Espiritu 2017). D’Ambra (2008) defines this culture as a holistic approach to dialogue that integrates human and spiritual dimensions, emphasizing the importance of engaging in dialogue with God, oneself, others, and creation. It is a way of life that fosters deep connections among individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, encouraging them to collaboratively build a society where divine values and ethics serve as guiding principles for achieving harmony, solidarity, and peace.

D’Ambra (2008) coined the Silsilah motto: “Dialogue starts from God and brings people back to God”. This underscores the belief that God is at the core of both social and spiritual aspirations, embodying an inclusive and pluralist approach. It highlights the idea that God continuously engages in dialogue with humanity, a relationship manifested through divine revelation. This dialogue is consistently demonstrated through God’s love, compassion, and mercy.

According to D’Ambra (2008), God reveals this dialogue through its presence in the world in various ways, which remains a divine mystery. God is present across all cultures, religions, peoples, and creation itself. This perspective positions interfaith dialogue as a significant challenge that calls for a deeper understanding of each other’s faith traditions, viewing them positively as different paths leading to the divine. These pillars work collectively to sustain peace and transformation in society (Espiritu 2017).

4.3. The Four Pillars of Dialogue

The “four pillars of dialogue” in Silsilah (dialogue with/in God, dialogue with oneself, dialogue with others, and dialogue with the whole of creation) creates an impact and becomes a culture if one will follow the same “style” of life (D’Ambra 2015). Engaging in a Culture of Dialogue necessitates embracing a “life-in-dialogue” with God, oneself, others, and the natural world. This principle forms the foundation of the Spirituality of Life in Dialogue (D’Ambra 2008). Throughout this transformative process, the Culture of Dialogue remains integral, urging individuals and communities to embrace the spirituality of life-in-dialogue (Espiritu 2017). This concept is structured around four interrelated but distinct pillars of dialogue: dialogue with God, dialogue with others, dialogue with self, and dialogue.

4.3.1. Dialogue with God

Within this pillar of dialogue, individuals are called to return to their own religious traditions and engage deeply with God’s dialogue with humanity (D’Ambra 2008). A fundamental aspect of this process involves revisiting divine revelation as an encounter with God’s mercy, compassion, and love. This requires an openness to interior reflection, active listening to one’s heart, and allowing God to manifest His presence. Cultivating moments of silence, meditation, prayer, and contemplation is essential in sustaining one’s relationship with God. Such spiritual practices enable individuals not only to deepen their personal connection with the divine but also to recognize the presence of God in others and in creation.

From the perspective of the theology of religions, D’Ambra (2008) acknowledges the reality of religious pluralism within the context of interfaith dialogue. He further observes that exclusivist tendencies remain prevalent within various religious traditions (D’Ambra 2021). In this regard, he asserts that in the context of dialogue with God, religious and cultural pluralism should not be seen as an obstacle but rather as an opportunity to reflect on the centrality of God within a diverse and pluralistic society (D’Ambra 2008).

Within the Silsilah Dialogue Movement, the spirituality of dialogue forms the foundation of its religious experience. The term Silsilah, which means “chain” or “link”, is rooted in Sufism, a mystical tradition within Islam (D’Ambra 2008). Sufism emphasizes a spiritual path that ultimately leads to unity with God, highlighting the transformative nature of divine encounter as central to interfaith dialogue.

4.3.2. Dialogue with Self

For D’Ambra (2008), dialogue with the self brings one back to values that will bring wholeness to their being, a wholeness which has been broken by prejudices, wounds and pains brought about by the various life experiences. Dialogue with oneself is an important element that will help them experience internal harmony and enable us to live in harmony with others and with creation. The level of relationship will develop in the dialogical attitude necessary to sustain a dialogical style of life with God and with one’s self, with others and with creation (D’Ambra 2019). According to D’Ambra (2019), the following are conditions needed to enhance dialogue with self: authenticity, trust, silence, and humility. These four points of focus of the dialogue with the self will become the entry points of a deeper dialogue if one experiences them and searches for them in the journey of a spiritual dialogue (Espiritu 2017).

Intrareligious dialogue, or the internal discourse within oneself, constitutes a fundamental dimension of the pillars of dialogue. As articulated by Panikkar (1999), genuine engagement in dialogue necessitates an openness to transformation, wherein an individual acknowledges the possibility of relinquishing certain beliefs or even an entire religious framework. This process is grounded in a profound trust in truth, requiring the participant to enter the dialogue unguarded and receptive to personal conversion. Panikkar (1999) further emphasized that such engagement entails the potential for both existential loss and spiritual rebirth. Ultimately, dialogue must be approached as an authentically religious encounter.

4.3.3. Dialogue with Others

This pillar of dialogue underscores the significance of fostering relationships with others in a spirit of genuine dialogue. It is expressed through an attitude of recognizing the presence of God in others, thereby transforming every encounter into a meaningful dialogue. D’Ambra (2019) emphasizes that “the first thing to understand and internalize is that the ‘others’ are always for me/us brothers and sisters because we are created by the same God”. This inclusive perspective challenges the conventional notion of kinship, which often limits the concept of brotherhood and sisterhood to those within one’s own family or religious community (D’Ambra 2019). Instead, this approach affirms that every individual belongs to the same human family, as all are created by the same God and share equal dignity as human persons.

Those who embrace a dialogical way of life are guided by what D’Ambra (2019) refers to as the three “Ss” of dialogue: Sincerity, Sensitivity, and Solidarity. These qualities ensure that dialogue remains authentic and transformative as it necessitates engagement with others in a spirit of openness and mutual respect. Furthermore, the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) highlights that for the Church in Asia to fully realize its identity, it must continuously engage in a threefold dialogue: with Asian peoples (particularly the poor) in the pursuit of integral development; with Asian cultures through inculturation; and with Asian religions in the spirit of interfaith dialogue.

4.3.4. Dialogue with Nature

Silsilah acknowledges the presence of God in all of creation, emphasizing the responsibility of caring for the natural world as a fundamental aspect of its mission (D’Ambra 2008). The movement actively engages in climate justice advocacy, addresses issues related to illegal mining, and defends the ancestral rights of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in Mindanao (Espiritu 2017). Central to its vision is the concept of Dialogue with Creation, one of the pillars for fostering a Culture of Dialogue, which serves as a pathway to societal peace. Silsilah upholds the belief that all elements of creation are interconnected; therefore, engaging in dialogue with creation is integral to interfaith dialogue. This perspective underscores the necessity of caring not only for humanity but also for the environment, recognizing the interdependence of all living beings (D’Ambra 2015). Personal well-being and the welfare of others are inextricably linked, necessitating a profound respect for the entire community of life, including people, animals, and plants, as well as the preservation of natural resources such as land, air, and water (D’Ambra 2008).

Interfaith dialogue is fundamentally rooted in a value-centered approach to life (D’Ambra 2008). Dialogue with Creation is increasingly recognized as a sign of the times and serves as a unifying dimension of interfaith engagement. When individuals from diverse religious traditions collaborate for the common good and the protection of our common home, the Earth, interfaith dialogue attains deeper significance (Espiritu 2017). The relationship between nature, humanity, and God is envisioned as a harmonious unity grounded in love—an inseparable bond that humans are called to nurture and protect. However, contemporary social and environmental challenges have disrupted this equilibrium, necessitating both social and ecological conversion to restore it. Ultimately, participants in Silsilah’s initiatives reaffirm their commitment to caring for creation and strive to rebuild a harmonious relationship between humanity and nature, thereby contributing to the restoration of ecological balance (D’Ambra 2008).

In summary, the foregoing discussion on the history, activities, and theological framework of the Silsilah Dialogue Movement reflects both the established and contemporary understandings of mission and theology within the Catholic Church. The movement’s development is firmly rooted in the praxis of interfaith dialogue from the grassroots, demonstrating its enduring relevance in fostering peace and religious understanding.

5. Limitations and Future Research

This study is based on a review of related documents on interfaith dialogue in Mindanao and a case study of the faith-based movement Silsilah Dialogue Movement. While this approach provides a comprehensive understanding of interfaith dialogue within a specific context, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, since this research focuses on a single case study, the findings may not be fully generalizable to other faith-based movements or interfaith initiatives in different regions of the Philippines. Second, while the case of Silsilah Dialogue Movement provides valuable insights, further comparative studies are needed to assess whether similar models and challenges exist in other contexts. Third, this research specifically examines a Catholic faith-based movement, leaving out the experiences of non-Catholic religious groups engaged in interfaith dialogue. The Silsilah Dialogue Movement originated as a response to exploitation, inequalities in resource distribution, and human rights violations. Over time, the advocacy efforts of various grassroots organizations have played a crucial role in raising awareness of postcolonial issues and have significantly influenced the direction of government-led peace initiatives. According to the respondents, the primary barriers to interreligious dialogue include prejudice and bias, hatred toward the other, violence and terrorism, and fear of the other. To develop a more comprehensive understanding of interfaith efforts in Mindanao, future research should explore Muslim-led and non-religious peacebuilding initiatives, thereby providing a more holistic perspective on peace and dialogue in the region.

Future research could compare multiple faith-based movements across the Philippines or Southeast Asia to identify commonalities and differences in interfaith strategies. A quantitative or mixed-methods study could evaluate the long-term effectiveness of interfaith dialogue initiatives in reducing religious tensions and promoting peace. Christians and Muslims who have long been involved in dialogue may find echoes of their own experiences of interfaith dialogue in this study. Church leaders and the faithful who would like to plan Muslim–Catholic dialogue in their areas in the local Churches might benefit from guidance and perspective in learning how to accomplish this. The academic community interested in the Philippine context of dialogue can also learn from this case study.

6. Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing discourse on interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding in Mindanao, emphasizing the crucial role of faith-based movements in fostering mutual understanding and religious harmony through a “Culture of Dialogue.” However, further interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral research is necessary to build a more comprehensive framework for sustainable interfaith dialogue in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia.

Interfaith dialogue in the Philippines requires a theology of dialogue rooted in inclusivity, plurality, justice, solidarity, and mutual recognition. This necessitates deepening theological reflection on pluralism by integrating interfaith dialogue into seminary and theological curricula. Strengthening policy and institutional support through collaboration between government agencies, religious institutions, and civil society is also essential. Additionally, amplifying the voices of LGBTQIA+, women and youth in interfaith initiatives can bring fresh perspectives and bridge generational divides. Finally, leveraging digital media can provide accessible platforms for interfaith engagement, countering misinformation and promoting peace narratives.

Interfaith dialogue in the Philippines is a lived reality that demands sustained commitment from the grassroots to institutional structures. Addressing historical injustices and historical revisionism, overcoming socioeconomic barriers, and fostering authentic relationships among religious communities can lead to a more inclusive and pluralist society. In the Philippine context, this spirit of interfaith dialogue must be continuously nurtured to build a future marked by peace, justice, and solidarity.