In Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf questions the power of the common assertion that we need 'peace between religions' to have a more peaceful world:
The thesis that there can be no peace in the world without peace between religions is true, but much less significant than its high-sounding character would have us believe. Peace between religions would do little to create peace bewteen peoples – unless, of course, one understands peace between religions as peace between people who espouse them, in which case the thesis is trite. The only thing peace between religions would prevent is strictly religious wars. In terms of fostering peace the issue of reconciliation between religions as systems of beliefs and practices is less important than the character of each religion. How ready are its gods to get involved in conflicts of their worshipers? If each religion foments violence, reconciliation between them will do little to foster peace. On the other hand, even if religious beliefs and the practices of concrete religions are at odds with each other, if each of them promotes nonviolence one will hardly be able to accuse them together of fostering war. If peace is what we are after, then a critique of the religious legitimation of violence – the critique of bellicose gods – is more urgent than reconciliation between religions.
