Education denotes the methods by which a society hands down from one generation to the next its knowledge, culture, and values. Through education the individual is to develop physically, mentally, emotionally, morally, and socially. An individual teacher, the family, a church or other religious community, or any other group in society may accomplish the work of education.

The oldest known systems of education in history seem to have had two characteristics in common: they taught religion, and they promoted the traditions of the people. In ancient Egypt, the temple schools taught not only religion but also the principles of writing, the sciences, mathematics, and architecture. Similarly, in India, priests carried out much of the education. India was the fountainhead of the Buddhist doctrines that were taught in its institutions to Chinese scholars; they, in turn, spread the teachings of Buddha to the various countries of the Far East. Education in ancient China stressed philosophy, poetry, and religion, in accordance with the teachings of Confucius, Lao-tzu, and other philosophers.

The methods of physical training that prevailed in Persia and were highly praised by several Greek writers apparently served as the model for the educational systems of ancient Greece, which stressed gymnastics as well as mathematics and music.

The Bible and the Talmud are the basic sources of information about the aims and methods of education in Judaism. Jewish parents were urged by the Talmud to teach their children such subjects as vocational knowledge, swimming (!), and a foreign language. Today, religion serves as the basis for education in the home, the synagogue, and the school.

The educational systems in the countries of the Western world were based on the religious tradition of the Jews, both in the original form and in the version modified by Christianity. A second tradition was derived from education in ancient Greece, where Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates were the influential thinkers on education. The Greek aim was to prepare intellectually young people to take leading roles in the activities of the state and of society. In later centuries, Greek concepts served as the basis for the arts, the teaching of the various branches of philosophy, the cultivation of the aesthetic ideal, and the promotion of gymnastic training.

Following the Hellenistic period, Greek influences on education were transmitted primarily through such writers as Plutarch, who urged the education of parents as the first essential step in the education of children.

Through these brief examples, the fundamental aspect of education for the well being of society is underlined. It is an understatement to say that education is important. Education is not only the amassment of facts or techniques; it is the very tool to make meaning of the world in which we live. Introducing its work, the Education Team of the WCC says: "Education is more than just learning. It is about daring to know, do, relate and become."

Religious education and instruction are to make meaning of the world in the light of the tradition we have inherited and in accordance with our belief. Religious education and instruction should strengthen our commitment to live as people of religion, enabling us to respond creatively to our religious tradition and to the world around us. I would like to continue quoting from the WCC Education web-site, where the text goes on to say: "Ecumenical learning is learning in community. People are asked to establish relationships with one another, and also with those who are far away and with what is unfamiliar. Ecumenical learning means learning together. People have to detect the global in the local, the unfamiliar in the context of their own environment, in order to become aware of their own conditions and implications. Ecumenical learning also means inter-cultural learning. It seeks to promote the encounter of different cultures, traditions and forms of life because only a widening of perspective will bring about an experience of the riches of creation in nature, history and culture. Finally, ecumenical learning is a total process: social and religious learning are not separated from one another but constitute a unity."

In different ways, the WCC Education presentation seems to translate the old Latin adage: non scholae sed vitae discimus, we learn not for school but for life; for life together, for community, for relationships, for the global in the local, for inter-cultural learning understanding, for unity. This is particularly important at this time. Today we find ourselves throughout the world in a different situation than previous generations knew it. Religious and cultural plurality has become a visible reminder of the diversity of humankind. Societies that used to be religiously and culturally homogenous have to rethink themselves due to a different religiously heterogeneous landscape. And even in societies, where people of different faiths have lived next to each other for centuries, there are changes taking place that call for a new assessment of the role of the state and community in multi-ethnic and religiously plural countries. It is also true that we can very well live next to each other, but not necessarily be involved with each other. The trappings of globalisation have also contributed to making that which was distant coming closer and that which was only a name get some flesh to the bone. Much of what we may have known, although only in passing, is now purported to be unmasked and revealed by media. Everything can be given a face and that face is said to represent the whole. Simplification is a necessity in a world, which has less time than before.

Our religious traditions, each different from the other, have been formed to respond to the needs of the community and the individual in any particular community. It is also true that our religious traditions do not immediately seem to provide material for how we are to relate constructively and creatively to the world of religious plurality. Religious traditions seem to focus more on catering for the needs of their own flock than of dealing in a respectful manner with people of other faiths and beliefs. There are certainly general statements about people of other faiths in our Holy Scriptures, requests to respecting the stranger, but not very much positively said about the other in his or her otherness. There is not very much positively expressed about the religious tradition and life of the other. It seems as if each religion is more bent on looking upon the own flock as the pet of God and the other as being more in the periphery. In different religious traditions and in different ways, there are expression of retaining the centre for my community, and me, whereas the other is in the margin. The expressions or world-views used may differ but it seems as if the primary interest is my community and myself. This is expressed in various ways in our religious traditions. We may claim to own the truth and maintain that the other should become like we in order to get hold of the truth. We may co-opt the other into our worldview. We may more or less disregard the other and be more preoccupied with our own role and mission in the world. Such views are reflected in our religious education and instruction as well. We are, I think, in need of some new thinking, which, true to our religious traditions, try to formulate something that could help us relate to each other in a more constructive way. How can we in our religious education and instruction create space for the integrity of the other and for a constructive interaction with each other? How can we strengthen our religious education and instruction that people get inspired to be open to the other, affirming the plurality as something good and valuable for our life as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs?

Enabling us to listen to the experiences of different religious traditions is one objective of this multifaith consultation on religious education and instruction. We would like to better understand how we transmit values in different religious traditions, to see what we can learn from each other as we try to formulate some ways ahead to live true to our religious traditions in a religiously plural world.

I am here reminded of a story, which I think could be illustrative of our common effort. "A man was lost in a dense, dark forest. As the daylight faded into the lengthening shadows of dusk and the thickness of night gathered, he became more and more frightened. After three days and nights of this painful feeling of being hopelessly lost, he became desperate.

Finally, on the fourth day of wandering about, at dusk, he saw a monster approaching him from afar. He filled his pockets with rocks to throw and prepared a heavy club from a branch with which to defend himself. His heart beat wildly in his breast. The perspiration of fear gathered on his brow, as the monster loomed larger and larger. It was as tall as a man was. He crouched behind some bushes. He grabbed for some of the sharpest stones and prepared to attack. As the monster came closer and closer he was frozen with fear.

Then, he realised that the horrible monster was a human being. He threw the stones away, but kept his grip on the club just in case. When the man was all but upon him, he threw the club away too as he threw his arms about the shoulders of the man. It was his own brother! The man held on to his brother with love and gratitude. "Thank God you came in search of me. Please show me the way out of the forest, please."

One brother looked at the other with tears in his eyes as he answered: "I am lost now too, my brother. But I can show you what paths NOT TO TAKE. Together, we will find the way out."

It is important that we no longer see each other from afar, seeing each other in dim lights, conjuring up strange images. Instead we need to meet and come close to each other, learning about the ways of the other. We may learn from each other which ways not to take and we may try to formulate ways we can take together. Together we may find a way out towards a perspective in religious education and instruction that provides space, integrity, justice and dignity in the religious manifold we represent.

In preparation for this consultation, we have solicited contributions from the particular constituencies and contexts you represent. These contributions are important, since they provide material for our reflection on religious education and instruction. They offer for me the landscape for our continued wandering. There are some green pastures, some rocky hills, some arid deserts, some rivers and lakes.

Charanjit Singh sets an important tone. Religion is no commodity, which we can deal with in a glib or superficial way. When we talk about religion, we are faced with the numinous, which is at the same time tremendum et fascinosum. "We live with great mystery, this great dilemma in our lives, whether religion liberates or puts shackles on us. How can I live my life as a visually distinctive Sikh woman, while advocating universality of my faith in a religiously plural world; how do I live my faith in an increasingly secular and materialistic world; how can I in this age of logic and science come to an understanding of the tension between religious and materialistic progress without becoming schizophrenic; how can I be true to my faith with total acceptance of the other, particularly when there is the big baggage of historical and continued persecution by followers of other faiths on my faith community; how can we move forward and grow together, while holding on to what is dear to me, in my religious tradition, in my family and in the wider society of which I am part? These are the issues I am struggling with, every day".

As people of religion we live with a dilemma. We have inherited a tradition, which we feel obliged and honoured to carry on. And yet, in the midst of it, we are torn asunder. There is being part of some communities and apart from others. The sense of identity with some communities and of alienation from others is something never completely understood but it remains reality for us all at the many levels of our existence. The Jewish philosopher Ernst Simon expresses it in the following way: "The people I can pray with, I can't talk to, and the people I can talk to, I can't pray with". There is a sense of belonging and a sense of alienation. Are we liberated or are we in shackles? Can we go beyond or do we have to stay within? Boundlessness and circumscription seem to go hand in hand.

Religion is both private and societal and its interrelation with society is of course very relevant for our deliberations. Anne Davison describes the situation in the British society but the same could probably be said about many societies in the West. "Decisions about which religions, and what proportions to teach, causes conflict both within the school and within the surrounding community. On the part of the schools, there is a feeling that it is not their job to teach religion; that this is better done in the home or within the faith community. And at home, very little takes place within the Christian community. Whereas in previous generations mothers and particularly grandmothers taught children, at minimum, to say grace before meals and prayers at night, the present generation of young mothers are not passing this on, largely because they themselves missed the experience. This is due to a general breakdown in the traditional nuclear family situation and growing secularism and individualism. ... "Family norms are no more. This is because much of this teaching emphasises family and moral values, which are either not the norm for many today or are simply unattainable. This can also lead to a sense of alienation and exclusion."

It is obvious that Anne Davison expresses something that is a reflection of what sociologists of religion for some time have been saying. A feature to note is e.g. the marked diminution in the churchgoing population in many countries in Europe. Data measuring religious observance and institutional attachment confirm that Western Europeans are the least religious people on earth. When we listen to such reports we can react in different ways. We can listen to these reports in the mood of où sont les neiges d’antan, longing for the snow that melted last year. We can, as religious people, become apologetic for our religion and antagonistic to these apparently non-religious people and prone to looking upon the world as materialistic or without norms.

Can we withhold judgement and listen attentively to what people are telling us and how sociologists analyse the stories? Are people "simply secular"? Sociologists are rather telling us that the decline in religious attendance has not resulted in "a parallel abdication of religious belief." Religious sensitivities persist in the supposedly secular Europe, although they are no longer tied to a particular creed and are often inconsistent. Europeans seem to harbour religious feelings despite their lack of institutional attachment. They seem to "believe without belonging."

New spiritual traditions seem to arise. The patterns of yesterday are being broken up and it is difficult to situate oneself. We need to redefine who we are in this changing world and to do so in a way that does not emulate the ostrich. Christy Lohr therefore suggests that it must henceforth be part of teaching to be pluralistic. "The purpose of Christian education is to show people how to define themselves authentically and spontaneously in relation to a pluralistic, or inter-religiously diverse, world. . . .The religious education that people receive from their churches should equip them to live in communities filled with multi-cultural and inter-religious variety." This is the task. And how do we do it?

"The challenge for me as well as the hundreds of other Muslim women madrasa educators", says Suleilah Omar, "is to transform the madrasa education system so as to contribute towards this goal of gradually educating our children to recognize the differences and to respect and accept the cultures and traditions of 'the other'. We therefore need to inculcate into our children, from a very young age, these values of respect for 'the other' as well as identifying the common values which are an important resource for nation building and the restructuring of the racially divided civil society in a new South Africa." Suleilah concludes: " I believe we as women involved in religious education can play a major role in implementing a multi-religious education system. We can start by educating our own children at home and also the children we teach at our religious institutions i.e. Madrasas, Sunday Catechism and Jewish Schul. We can also contribute to the public Religion Education curriculum of our state schools by contributing religious resources from our own traditions in the form of textbooks and expertise. We would however need to equip and re-train ourselves to be able to impart the values and traditions of other faiths sensitively and objectively. This requires special people who are themselves truly convinced of the intrinsic need for understanding and respecting the integrity of other cultures and faiths."

Ahalya Sharma mentions tolerance and trust as the hallmark of all religions. While this is certainly a major constituent in religion, it has not always been practised. Instead we witness in many religions how religious rituals and customs seem to have lost their significance and become redundant. Ahalya continues: "Religion has to be a perennial spring of fresh thoughts and ideas and not a stagnant pool. To ensure a harmonious existence in a religiously plural world Tolerance and Trust should be the hallmark of all religions."

We can understand tolerance in different ways. It can mean the capacity to endure pain or hardship and be synonyms of endurance, fortitude and stamina. It can be an expression of sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own. It can denote the allowable deviation from a standard. My question for our reflections of different attitudes to religious plurality is whether tolerance is the way ahead. How should we look upon the other, the religious manifold? Is it so that we have to endure religious plurality, because it is there? Is it the allowable deviation from a standard, which we for various reasons no longer can enjoy? Is it sympathy or indulgence for beliefs different than our own, which characterise our tolerance?

This question is significant. Am I moved by the otherness of the other or do I just accept it is an inevitable fact of life? Anne Hege Grung sees in the whole exercise of dialogue something that moves her. "By the word dialogue I mean personal encounter, to meet face to face, where the aim is not to change the other part in the dialogue, but to risk being changed oneself through the process of mutual change that can be the result of a dialogue. The dialogue is not a place to try to convert anybody, it is creating a common story." There is added value in the meeting with the other.

This is a multifaith meeting of women. Irina Grushevaya spells out the situation for women, which is probably not unique for Belarus, Irina’s home country: "In Belarus, such spheres as policy, economy, legislation and ethical norms still target men." Irina sees the challenging contribution of women: "Women’s educational practice as the alternative to the traditional men’s approach is orientated to the polyphony of truth and knowledge. It accentuates multiplication of life styles, types of thinking; tolerance and freedom in expressing individuals’ aspirations ... It distinguishes the unique and inimitable character of the personality. Women’s position is not as strict as men’s; it initiates discussion, reflection, dialogue, different opinions. Women have an ability to share other people’s feelings and experiences. Interconnection, linking experience and knowledge is extremely important."

Is there a particular contribution of women? Some of us, engaged in interfaith dialogue, have discovered that we sometimes have our best allies in women. In interfaith dialogue, we are about creating space for a positive view of religious plurality and for the right of the other to define him- or herself. There is some territory to gain. We are not there yet. It seems to me that women are about the same thing, gaining territory towards full equality with men, for being allowed to define themselves, for being respected in their otherness as women. Maybe women have an additional gift to offer in the world of interfaith relations and thus in religious education and instruction about religious plurality. Coming back to Ahalya Sharma, I read: "Since times immemorial woman has been fostering, preserving and perpetuating human values in the framework of religion at the family level. In the present context there is an added responsibility on woman to arrive at the essence of religion and propagate it effectively for the benefit of humankind. Thanks to the increased awareness and education of woman, she is able to discharge this responsibility."

Anne Hege Grung underlines the common history of women in religion and says: "It seems that in most religions there are major parts of the tradition that are ignoring or suppressing women in many different ways. When women from different traditions and religions meet, they can share their own experiences about being a woman inside these traditions, both the difficult and the empowering parts." Priscilla Singh expresses the wish that women "through study and interpretation" would find "liberative strands" in their religion, enabling both "women and men to move from simple religiosity to a liberated and informed affirmation about their equality. Religion has always been a strength for women and when women learn to interpret those positive strands, they would enrich themselves and the religion they follow." Priscilla proposes therefore for our meeting that "we need to share our methodology and our rituals and worship elements together!" Miran Yoo suggests that "women have to establish new alternative practical communities beyond Christianity to live together and coexist with all human beings peacefully in happiness and pleasure."

As we said in the beginning, we live with a tension, in a tension. Religion is both liberative and restrictive. Judith Narrowe warns against a facile solution to the problem of religious plurality and offers a perspective from her Jewish tradition. "Religion as liberating or restricting: I prefer not to see these terms as opposites. Religion will be both liberating and restricting; it will/should give the individual a vision of a better future and will/should make demands on/restrict his or her behavior. An example: at the same time one performs the mitzvah of study, one says no to something else. Somehow I connect this to religious pluralism: if we accept the fact that there are several legitimate paths to God, we will have to both acknowledge our similarities and respect our differences. To only acknowledge our similarities is ultimately assimilationist and false ('we're all the same under the skin, all pray to the same God...'); to only emphasize differences re-translates them as impermeable boundaries, making a virtue as well as a necessity of maintaining a ´we´ and a ´they´."

Apartheid and Nazism remind us that the question of religion is not played out only in the hearts of people, in their churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, mosques or temples, but in society. Religion can become a very destructive force in society. Fajwa Abrahams and Suleilah Omar, both Muslim women from South Africa, remind us of how religion was used and abused for political purposes in South Africa. The post-Apartheid society in South Africa wants to focus religious education as a "dimension of human experience. It facilitates the exploration and discovery of meaning in life, the affirmation of the learner's religious identity, and an informed respect for the religious identity of others. The new policy sees "Religious Education (as) integral to a holistic education of the learner as it makes a key contribution to the moral and spiritual maturity of the person. It acknowledges, and aims to facilitate the development of relationships with the Sacred, with society, with the environment, with other persons and with the self"."

It seems to me that we, as people of different religions, have a lot to learn from such a vision of religious education. The WCC Guidelines of Dialogue, which since more than 20 years have guided the work of WCC member churches, point to a vision of communities, respecting each other, interacting with each other and benefiting from each other. "Because of the divisive role to which all religions and ideologies are so easily prone, they are each called to look upon themselves anew, so as to contribute from their resources to the good of the community of humankind in its wholeness. ... (The) vision of a worldwide "community of communities" ... may be helpful in the search for community in a pluralistic world; it is not one of homogeneous unity or totalitarian uniformity, nor does it envisage self-contained communities, simply co-existing." I hope that our work together can contribute to a community of communities, where we through religious education and instruction are can ground a commitment to respect, integrity, interaction and appreciation of the other.

Let me in a couple of words share with you my dream. It is a dream about people of different faiths, beliefs, and religious traditions actually embracing each other, as friends and in a realistic but fundamental recognition and appreciation of the different religious traditions shaping our lives. As things look today, it looks like a very distant dream or illusion. We still have a long way to go. I know that my dream must reckon with the cautioning words of Buddha "Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment." But maybe the present cannot be addressed, unless I allow this dream to inspire and push me. I think it was Henry David Thoreau, who once wrote: "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." And so, this is my dream and thus hope. I look forward to the day when Christians will thank God that there are Jews and Muslims and Hindus, when Muslims will thank God for Jews and Hindus and Jews will thank God for Christians and Muslims. In my dream, we will one day all realise that the other in his or her otherness is exceedingly valuable for my own journey through life. It is possible that it will always remain a dream. But I think it is possible to go in the direction of this dream. In a small way but significant way, this multifaith meeting is, I hope, an effort in this direction.

Hans Ucko is a executive secretary for interreligious relations and dialogue. He is an ordained pastor in the Church of Sweden (Lutheran).