INTERFAITH DIALOGUE - WHY IS IT NECESSARY?

Rev. Abhi Janamanchi

January 28, 2007

Speaking at the Interfaith Forum in Venice, Florida

Moments come, which come but rarely in history, when quite perceptibly one age draws to an end and another dawns; when we stand poised between a collapsing past and an indeterminate future; when established landmarks disappear and we often seem to be adrift on a limitless ocean; when, in essence, to survive we need to not merely have a linear progression in thinking but a paradigm shift in consciousness. We have, in fact, reached just such a crucial crossroads in the long and tortuous history of humanity on this planet. There have been many major transitions in the past, from the caves to the forests, then to pastoral, agricultural, pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial civilizations. But what we are now involved in will certainly be the most crucial and difficult of all the transitions that we have encountered so far, the transition to being a global society.

Impelled by science and technology, all aspects of life on our planet are undergoing a process of globalization, whether it is politics or economics, commerce or industry, environment or communications, language or music, or any other. The great religions of the world also have burst geographical boundaries and have assumed global dimensions. While we are thus being irresistibly propelled towards a global society, the consciousness needed to sustain such a society is still imperfectly developed.

It is this dangerous time lag which seems to be at the root of much of the tumult and turmoil that we see around us today, and if the truly religious impulse is creatively projected it can go a long way in forging this new consciousness that would unite rather than divide the people of the world.

Religion has always been a major factor in the growth of human civilization. Whether it is art or architecture, music or literature, philosophy or law, moral codes or spiritual texts, many of the glorious achievements of the human race can be traced back to the tremendous inspiration provided by the world's great religions. On the other hand, there have also been tremendously negative contributions - mass killings, holocausts, inquisitions, torture, persecution, vandalism, and bigotry – which have all, at some place or time, been, and still are, perpetrated in the name of religion. And the crowning irony is that these have been done in the name of a divinity, which every religion looks upon as being beneficent, merciful and compassionate!

The United States of America is probably the most religiously and culturally diverse nation in the world today. This religious diversity is not a New York-California-Chicago phenomenon of the cosmopolitan areas of America. This is a Main Street phenomenon. There are Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs in Salt Lake City, in Toledo and in Jackson, Mississippi. Mosques, gurudwaras, and temples are very much part of the architectural landscape in cities like Denver, Oklahoma City, Houston, Minneapolis, and Tampa. We need not go back a hundred years to document this dramatic religious diversity. Most of it has taken place in the past forty-five years following the immigration law changes in the 60s which eliminated the national origin quotas that had linked immigration to the national origins of groups already established in the US.

This new religious and cultural diversity has profound implications for every aspect of American life. Our society has become increasingly complex, not only culturally and racially, but also religiously. Encounters between people of very different religious traditions take place in the proximity of our own cities and neighborhoods. How Americans of all faiths begin to engage with one another in shaping a positive pluralism is one of the most important questions our society faces in the years ahead. Pluralism is not simply a problem that threatens the consensus of a religious and moral mainstream but is an extraordinary spiritual and social reality. The existence of radical pluralism is a fact of life in American society. It is a fact that cannot be ignored nor interpreted out of our field of vision.

The questions we are confronted with as Americans irrespective of our religious or cultural background are – "How will we respond to this fast-growing reality of pluralism?", "How will we treat the other?", "How does our engagement with other religions going to affect our commitment to our own faiths?", and "Will it affect its validity, uniqueness?"

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophet Amos asks, "Do two walk together unless they are in agreement?" In response to that question, the answer that I would give and I am sure, most of you here, would as well is, "Yes, it is possible to walk together in harmony despite theological differences." Or, as our Transylvanian Unitarian forebear, Francis David, said, "You need think alike to love alike".

And the way we would go about it is through dialogue and working together to serve the needy, the destitute, and the homeless. Dialogue is the method by which our commitments are tested. In pluralistic dialogue, the partner is not an object or a subject merely putting forth some objective thoughts to be discussed, but a 'you', a 'real you' and not an 'it'. The encounter of a pluralistic society is therefore not premised on achieving agreement, but achieving relationship.

One of the ways we foster dialogue and understanding is through interfaith work. In the past century the interfaith movement has succeeded in legitimizing the idea of religious cooperation in the pursuit of tolerance, peace, and other shared concerns. As we begin a new year in the 21st century, however, our challenge is to accept that interfaith organizations and activists are part of "the problem." Religious intolerance will not be overcome by interfaith programs that encourage religious propaganda. If our interfaith initiatives are to yield greater and more effective collaboration among religious communities, we will have to think critically about religion and about the interfaith cooperation we are promoting.

The interfaith journey is a long one and, as each new person becomes involved in the interfaith pilgrimage, he or she has to repeat this journey, which has six stages. Initially, interfaith efforts had to concentrate on removing false images of the other. Christians, for example, had to totally reject the accusation against the Jews that they were guilty of deicide or killing God. They and Muslims and Jews had to see through the many gods of Hinduism to recognize that Hindus worship One Divine Reality. Today, we have to combat the false image of Islam.

Secondly, we need to meet with people of other faiths. Personal friendships are still a most effective way of dispelling prejudice. This is why interfaith work, particularly with young people, is so important.

Thirdly, in many faith traditions, we have had to rethink our theology and to recognize that Love is not limited just to Christians or Hindus or Muslims. Our love like the love of God should know no limits. You may know the story of a new arrival in heaven who was being shown around. He came to a very high wall and from the other side he heard beautiful singing. He asked why there was this wall. "That's so the people inside can think that they are ’he only people in heaven" was the angel's reply. In reality, of course, as an Indian saying puts it, once the river of life is crossed and the eternal shore is reached, the kind of boat that brought us there is no longer of any use.

Fourthly, as we get to know each other and learn about our beliefs and practices, we recognize how much we have in common, especially in our ethical teaching. The Golden Rule can be found in almost every tradition. Increasingly, we see that we have a common witness to make on moral values, as The Declaration on a Global Ethic shows.

This leads to common action, which is a point I want to pursue. But let me suggest that as our relationship deepens, we not only affirm those matters on which we agree, we begin to see that our differences are an enrichment and not a threat. The insights of the other can help us to deepen our own spiritual life. This is the new pioneering area for spiritual and theological dialogue, but not one in which religious leadership is yet engaged, but an area in which voluntary bodies like the International Association for Religious Freedom (IARF) can take a lead.

Based on my own experiences and involvement in interfaith work over the past fifteen years, I would now like to address three issues that might help lay a firmer foundation for developing strong interfaith networks - rhetoric, representation, and results.

Rhetoric

When the former General Secretary of the IARF, Rev. Bob Traer, contacted the British Charities Commission in 1991 requesting charity status for the organization as part of its relocation from Germany to the UK, he was told that the historic purpose of the IARF which is "to advance liberal religion," was not acceptable. The Charity Commission required that the stated purpose of the Association be "to advance religion." Rev. Traer tried to convince the Commission that IARF’s purpose was not to promote religion without qualification rather to promote religion that is liberating and religion that respects freedom of conscience. In essence, he said to them, "We don't promote religion that is oppressive." Well, he lost the argument, and therefore, to this day, the first purpose of the IARF in its British constitution is "to advance religion."

Surely, we can agree that interfaith activity should not simply promote religion, as though all that is marketed in our time in the name of religion and spirituality is good. We should reject religion that justifies violence, we should be critical of religion that supports proselytism that seeks to promote one brand of religion by diminishing and demonizing others, and we should oppose religion that exploits the gullibility of its followers in order to accumulate wealth for its leaders. When we speak of interfaith cooperation and understanding, we actually assume the religion we are talking about is moderate and beneficial for its members, even though we know that not all forms of religion have been (or presumably are) so benign.

Might we conclude, therefore, that interfaith work should support religion that encourages self-criticism? The prophets of ancient Israel are exemplars of this kind of religion. Micah says, "What does the Lord require . . . but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) The prophetic writings in the Jewish and Christian scriptures argue strongly against religion that is hypocritical and insensitive to the needs of the poor, religion that is more concerned with ritual than with justice, religion that serves a priestly elite but fails to serve the people of God.

Of course, this is a particular tradition of faith that cannot simply be generalized as valid for all people and all religion everywhere. But can we at least affirm that religion without self-criticism is dangerous and unworthy of our support? Religion without self-criticism makes absolute claims that cannot be discussed or examined. Those who hold such beliefs have a right to do so, and to manifest them as long as in their practice they do not violate the human rights of others. But do we, who are involved in interfaith activity, wish to support such religion? I don't think so.

In my experience we often come to interfaith meetings to present propaganda about our religious group. That is, we describe our wonderful teachings, but we do not disclose what we know about how our own religious community fails to live up to its aspirations. I suggest we do the opposite. Let us begin our interfaith sharing with a description of how we have fallen short of our ideals. This would be a way of communicating the wisdom of our religious traditions, but also honestly admitting that we share the human experience of not always living up to what we know and affirm to be true.

This candid approach would change interfaith meetings. There would be more humility and perhaps more real exchange about how to accept our limitations and, at the same time, work together to better serve our communities. (Share what happened at a CPWR meeting).

Therefore, I suggest we seek a culture of tolerance by supporting religious freedom through a strategy of interfaith cooperation that requires respect for human rights and critical reflection on the religious beliefs and spiritual practices of our time.

Results

Our greatest challenge, of course, is how we measure the results of interfaith initiatives. The IARF has generally assumed that building relationships between organizations and individuals from different religious traditions is a mark of success, and surely this is a prerequisite for any other positive result. But if these relationships are largely self-serving, then the IARF is more of an interfaith "club" than a service organization. There's nothing wrong, of course, with enjoying each other's company, but the rhetoric of the IARF promises much more. The Association claims to support religious freedom and cooperation among faith communities in building a more tolerant and peaceful world.

The real question in interfaith work, I believe, is whether we are largely serving ourselves or serving others. If we claim to be serving others, what would be the measurement of that claim? Drawing more persons into the programs of our organizations cannot, in itself, be the mark of success. Are we achieving greater tolerance among religious communities? Are we creating structures that promote the human dignity of each person and encourage greater justice in our societies?

I can point to some activities of the IARF that I think may meet this standard. The Association has supported at the UN Commission on Human Rights, as a matter of principle, the right of freedom or belief for religious groups that do not share its commitment to pluralism. The IARF has sponsored local interfaith programs in India and the Philippines that have encouraged people to resist "communalism" by taking social and economic initiatives that support religious and ethnic harmony. Hindus and Muslims in the state of Gujarat were brought together through the IARF to rebuild a temple and a mosque in a couple of villages and were assisted by an international group of young adults from different faiths. Indigenous, Muslim and Christian leaders in the Philippines meet regularly to talk about the resentments that divide their communities and to find common ground to stand to support peace and community building. Japanese IARF members have met with Korean IARF members and publicly expressed regret for the suffering of Koreans during the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula in the middle of this century. Palestinian and Israeli young adults and women meet regularly to deepen their understanding of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and focus on tangible ways to reduce violence and rebuild ties. I have to admit, however, that most of the relationships established in the IARF over the past two decades have been meaningful for IARF members, but have done little to increase tolerance in the world. Perhaps this is because the Association has only been able to involve in its interfaith activities those who already agree with its objectives. These individuals may have grown in understanding and sensitivity, and perhaps a few were deeply moved by their experience in IARF activities. But very few IARF members have been motivated by their participation in IARF programs to take new initiatives to create religious tolerance and cooperation. If measured against the rhetoric of the IARF, therefore, the results fall far short of what has been promised.

Is this only true of the IARF? Or, does interfaith activity tend to draw primarily those who are already committed to its goals? In other words, is interfaith cooperation largely a reflection of the increasingly pluralistic character of contemporary society? Are we breaking new ground or merely harvesting the fruit that has been sown by the changes in our societies? Are we dialoguing with those who need to be dialogued with or are we just preaching to the choir? Moreover, is there any relationship between increasing pluralism and what those who enjoy pluralism call "tribalism?" Is the way we are talking about and presenting "the religions" offensive to many religious people that do not share our social and spiritual assumptions?

Perhaps the self-serving and religious propaganda that is common in interfaith activity can be checked, if we are clear about the results we seek. Our challenge, first, is to help people become more tolerant through an honest exchange with other persons who have different faith commitments. This may well require acknowledging prejudices and resentments in order to "let go of" or to be "freed from" these debilitating emotions. Our second challenge is to help create structures that facilitate cooperation between religious communities, which have a history of conflict, suffering and resentment. Such structures may ensure growing tolerance and may even enable acts of repentance and forgiveness.

Local, national and perhaps regional inter-religious councils that address the needs of their communities and countries provide the greatest hope, I believe, and the results of their efforts are measurable. If through these encounters we learn about other religious traditions, and come to appreciate at least some of them, that, too, would be a good result. Finally, if through interfaith activities we became a little self-critical about our own religious traditions, and thus more humble in sharing our faith and practice with others, this would also be beneficial.

Conclusion

Despite all the travail and the despair that surrounds us, as I look towards the future, I see that something new is being born. We are experiencing the birth pangs of a new age, of a new hope. We are present at that sacred moment when new life is about to emerge from the womb of the past. What struggles to arise from the past might become our shared future of mutual hearing and understanding, of mutual openness, of unprecedented willingness to acknowledge and accept others in all their different-tness both within and outside our own faith traditions.

Will we recognize the mystery of this possibility? Will we be open to its opportunities? Are we willing to help it be pulled into the light of tomorrow or will we turn away preoccupied and cynical?

These are not questions. They are the agendas of today, they are the exciting, irresistible invitations to each of us to abandon prejudgment and stubborn refusals to deeply hear one another. They are the program and the means for people, like you and me, who dream of a new world order and who by their care for those who are ill or poor or hungry, who seek to protect the environment, who struggle for peace and reconciliation - millions of people bringing to birth a new global society based on co﷓operation instead of exploitation, violence and competition.

If we join our dreams with the dreams of so many other people real change is possible ﷓ and it is the task of international interfaith organizations to link those dreams and make them a reality. One contribution people of faith can make to the future is to share the gift of hope. It is easy to give in to the nightmare scenario, but every act of kindness, every occasion of forgiveness, every gesture of generosity is a sign of hope.

Perhaps we might pause for a few moments to think how we by what we say and do and by how we live can be signs of hope that our dreams will one day, with God’s blessing, at last come true.

For remember

A vision without a task is but a dream

A task without a vision is but drudgery

A vision and a task can change the world.

BENEDICTION - Goethe

Until one is committed,

There is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.

Concerns acts of initiative (and creation)

There is one elementary truth

The ignorance of which kills countless ideas

And splendid plans:

That the moment one definitely commits oneself

Then Providence moves too.

All sorts of things occur to help one

That would never otherwise have occurred.

A whole stream of events issues from the decision,

Raising in one's favor all manner

Of unforeseen incidents and meetings

And material assistance

Which no one could have dreamt

Would come their way.

Whatever you can do,

Or dream you can, begin it.

Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.

Begin it now.