Feature Article

Franciscan guide to dialogue

The patron saint of animals and ecology - whose feast day was celebrated on 4 October - is often characterised as an idealist. But a close look at St Francis of Assisi's approach to peacemaking, interreligious dialogue and international relations reveals a model eminently suited to today's world.

Why should we think that Francis of Assisi, "God's fool", the saint who begged for food, cleaned lepers and preached to the birds, has anything to teach us about peacemaking, interreligious dialogue or diplomacy in our dangerous world? Sainthood and statecraft hardly seem to go together in our age, or in any age.

The first reason for examining Francis' approach to peacemaking, as Kathleen A. Warren has emphasised in Daring to Cross the Threshold, is that his remarkable encounter with Sultan Malek al-Kamil of Egypt in the midst of the fifth Crusade (1215-21) has become a paradigm for Franciscan and Catholic approaches to peacemaking and interreligious dialogue in a post-11 September world. Malek later established détente with the Frankish invaders of the Muslim Middle East, returned control of Jerusalem to the Crusaders, and gave the Franciscans custody of the Christian holy places. So Francis, in a violent world, seems to have done something right - but what did he do, and can we learn from it today?

The second reason is that since the Second Vatican Council one of the most important signs of the changing times has been the global resurgence of religion in international relations. This resurgence is more widespread than a clash of civilisations driven by religious extremism, terrorism or fundamentalism. A truly global and multicultural international society is emerging for the first time in history. Therefore it is imperative that we begin to take religious and cultural pluralism seriously, and Francis shows us a way this can be done.

The third reason is that the nature of international conflict has changed, and this has opened up new approaches to diplomacy and peacemaking. While wars between states have declined, people are becoming more insecure because of brutal wars within states, involving entire ethnic, national or religious communities. These are often coupled with global threats - crime; trafficking in drugs, women, children and small arms; and with "conflict commodities" - oil, timber and diamonds. In response to these developments has come the rise of "multi-track diplomacy", involving a variety of non-governmental participants, including the representatives of churches, mosques and temples.

St Francis' approach to peacemaking and interreligious dialogue can thus be seen as more relevant than ever to international relations today: he has come to represent "the ecumenical man" of our postmodern era, the one who preaches "universal brotherhood" and global community. But this becomes distorted when his ideas of universal fraternity, global community and interreligious dialogue are interpreted through the lens of liberal modernity and Enlightenment rationality. The Franciscan tradition can too easily be made to fit the "idealist" or liberal view of international relations that emphasises morality, international law and international organisations, and the Kantian or cosmopolitan traditions of international ethics that emphasise democracy and global community.

Morality, as philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us, is not detached from the virtues, social practices, traditions and communities through which most people in the world live out their moral and social lives. This is how they experience the moral life, and understand the meaning of well-being or development. Poor communities, as the World Bank's research on the "voice of the poor" has shown, are often faith communities.

So what was so special about Francis' approach to peacemaking? First, he believed peace cannot really be "made". Rather, it must be "embodied" - personal spirituality must precede political reality. Peace for Franciscans is not an abstract ideal, nor is it a concept (such as Kant's notion of "perpetual peace"), but is embodied in individuals before it is demonstrated in communities. Only then is peacemaking applicable to the state or society levels of analysis or to the analysis of states in the international system.

The Franciscan understanding of peace is more than the absence of war, or the expectation of war - what scholars call a "stable peace". It is also more than what St Augustine called the "tranquillity of order", peace as order within the political community. He considered that to be the only this-worldly alternative to war. It is behind his concept of the just war, and why Christian realists who adhere to the just war tradition argue that theology and moral reasoning are needed to address the ethics of power as well as the ethics of peace within political communities.

This Augustinian concept fits with what scholars call an "unstable peace" or a "negative peace" and is enforced or maintained by all the realist's this-worldly tools of statecraft - the fear, uncertainty and insecurity of others generated by military force, alliances, arms races, deterrence and the balance of power.

It might seem as though the Franciscan approach to peacemaking is based on a hopelessly impractical concept of religious idealism. Yet this is not the case, because it can be related to the concept of human security - a holistic understanding of security which is emerging at the United Nations and focuses on people and communities. It seems almost to echo the Franciscan emphasis on the "minores", the "lesser ones" in society - those without power, wealth or social privilege, similar to the "preferential option for the poor" in Catholic social teaching. This approach complements the emphasis on the great powers, what Franciscans call the "majores", with their traditional concern for power, prestige and national security.

The Franciscan concept of peace resonates particularly for those involved in attempts to resolve problems of post-conflict reconstruction and development. What is called positive peace or "sustainable peace" requires more than the laying down of arms, a ceasefire and the implementation of a peace accord. Good governance and respect for human rights are necessary, together with a profound sense of repentance and the need for forgiveness. Something that is far more difficult to achieve is equally as necessary.

The second aspect of Francis' approach to peacemaking is that he recognised the need for a "meeting of minds" for a genuine dialogue to take place between peoples or communities. If it is true that the Sultan Malek al-Kamil was a Sufi mystic, then the encounter involves forms of piety, mysticism and contemplation as well. That is, peace emerges because the people in dialogue are themselves changed by the encounter, and this transforms the political reality around them.

It may seem that Francis' model of inter-faith dialogue is limited in its relevance to international relations today. Francis' dialogue with the Sultan fits the model of "interfaith relations" since he "came openly as a person of faith" and "left behind the world of politics and diplomacy", as Dr Paul Rout at Heythrop College has argued. The challenge is to find ways in which Francis' model can be transformed into a broadly based inter-religious dialogue between religious traditions or civilisations relevant to diplomacy and statecraft, rather than something for well-meaning religious people to do.

Still, it is worth reflecting that Francis was willing for such a dialogue to take place at the height of deep, violent conflict - the Crusades - rather than only as a part of post-conflict reconciliation. The novelty of Francis' approach to peacemaking was his willingness to rethink rather than reject the existing cultural models of his society regarding war, peace, and security.

Amid the violence of world politics of his day, Francis seemed not only to proclaim, but also to demonstrate, an alternative understanding of what it means to be a "crusader". Literally, this is a person who "bears the Cross", but Francis did this in a way quite unlike that of his contemporaries.

St Bonaventure reminds us that when Francis took off his clothes in one of Assisi's piazzas, in front of the bishop, and put on a peasant's cloak, he still chalked a cross on

its back. He still thought of himself as a knight, but now Christ was his liege lord, and he waged peace rather than war. Thus, Francis reconceived war and peace in the same way that he reconceived the code of chivalry, and gave himself joyfully to Lady Poverty, to the lesser ones and to those marginalised by society.

The third aspect of Francis' approach to peacemaking was an openness to learning from the virtues and practices of other religious traditions, while remaining firmly rooted in one's own. In other words, tolerance and appreciation of the religious sensibilities and traditions of others was not based on scepticism, relativism or syncretism. It was based on a genuine encounter of "thick", not "thin", religious practices and traditions.

Francis of Assisi shows us that being a "true believer" does not lead inherently to religious fanaticism and fundamentalism. He recognised that a genuine, stable peace - in other words, the absence of any expectation of war - begins with the courage to cross the threshold to "the Other", but by being firmly rooted in the virtues and the practices of one's own religious tradition. Francis demonstrates for us that it is possible to arrive at universal values apart from Enlightenment rationality. We can arrive at them through common practices, rooted in different religious traditions, and the virtues necessary to sustain them, such as the practices of charity, truthfulness and hospitality. I have called this perspective "rooted cosmopolitanism", and it is on this basis that a Franciscan approach to peacemaking and interreligious dialogue can take place - one with creative fidelity to the Franciscan tradition, and one that is relevant to the practical world of diplomacy and statecraft.

n Dr Scott M. Thomas lectures in international relations and the politics of developing countries at the Department of Economics and International Development at the University of Bath. He is the author of The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations:

the struggle for the soul of the twenty-first century (Palgrave 2005).