bullet summary: pluralism and society

intro

• some cities and neighbourhoods are very diverse
• how have these contemporary multi-faith societies developed in the west and what challenges does this present?

development of contemporary multi-faith societies

globalisation

• globalisation describes the way we think about the world as increasingly interconnected
• it is used in a variety of ways, both positive and negative
• it is the ease of international trade and the way in which human lifestyles, consciousness and fashions influence each other from around the globe
• western culture has music, clothes and media adopted from as far as china
• it has been facilitated by technological advancements, including in communications by email, telephone and the internet
• also by politics, including the liberalisation of travel laws and free trade
• crane and matten define it as ‘deterritorisation’
• the impact is that religious knowledge and belief systems are not isolated to particular cultures and locations but are encountered locally
• although many regard it as a positive phase of human development, other are more critical
• it can be seen as destructive, relativising faith and moral values as well as undermining cultural identity
• michael barnes suggests that at a local level, people have deep worries about their identity and beliefs
• one of the challenges is how to preserve the distinctive beliefs while acknowledging reality.

the post enlightenment mindset

• there is now an emphasis on human right and tolerance
• societies have developed values based on reason and experience, not religion or revealed knowledge
• post-enlightenment societies have established what steven pinker calls the ‘humanitarian principle’, which proposes that humans get on better when each person takes into account the interests of others
• this works on the assumption that we are rational and capable of respecting others
• a key precept of this mindset is not judging someone’s lifestyle unless it harms society
• the place of religion therefore is a personal lifestyle choice, and it is not for society to judge the truths if they contribute to society as a whole
• the tolerance of many religions have led to these multi-faith societies
• although society may tolerate religions as a lifestyle, religious adherence is about adopting customs and moral practices, but mostly living according to convictions about the truth
• another practical challenges is how to balance this tolerance while maintaining integrity of belief.

migration

• there are many reasons why a person or group may move country or region
• this many include economic improvement, family reunification, and safety
• many people especially from the indian subcontinent, migrated to britain in the twentieth century from former colonies
• the jews fled nazi germany and settled in britain, and then refugees from africa and eastern europe have also sought refuge here
• irish and polish workers come to seek better opportunities
• the result is not only new religions arriving, but new types of christianity too
• aside from political and social effects, migration poses problems for church denominations
• they can no longer assume they are the primary provider of religious needsthey have lost power and influence. the situation canf eel overwhelming.

inter-faith dialogue

• the way in which christian churches adjust to multi-faith communities is important for social cohesion and what it means to be a modern christian
• some argue this situation echoes the position early christians were in before constantine
• when it was emerging, christianity was a minority and often persecuted
• without power, they had to negotiate with other religions in their day-to-day life

the ‘other’ and dialogue

• it might be argued that without the existence of the other, christianity would have developed differently
• the word other has a wide meaning and is useful to develop purpose of interfaith dialogue
• it is often used negatively but it can be used positively too
• jacques derrida called this view différance
• when this other is this, it applies to those of other religions and becomes a process of mutual understanding
• ‘othering’ is treating the other negatively, treating people like objects and defining their existence as outsiders
• it is a source of racism and sexism
• one of the aims of interfaith dialogue is to overcome this and understand each other’s perspectives, and overcome prejudices

inter-faith dialogue and theology of religions

• without a theological structure, there would be little purpose to interfaith dialogue
• besides finding out other beliefs, the dialogue must be an open-ended and co-operative process
• if it were to merely develop mutual support of faith against secularism, it would lack critical appreciation of other religions
• for it have a dynamic purpose, it must have a place within a theology fo religion
• these each have different positions of truth, salvation and mission and so methods of dialogue will differ

theological exclusivism and inter-faith dialogue

• what is the point for RAEs?
• besides wanting to be better informed, they would see it as an opportunity to offer up the gospel to others with the hope of conversion
• it is a christian duty to do all they can to bring people into contact, according to fides ex auditu
• if this objective is understood, then dialogue is possible

• although UAEs share this desire for honesty and integrity, they think that for dialogue to be genuine, there has to be a respect for those treated as outsiders
• this means accepting that truth is not limited to christianity
• catholicism sees interfaith dialogue as a means or respect as part of its pastoral care for others
• michael barnes argues that dialogue is a risky option because it will mean others will question the teaching of the church
• part of the rick is a genuine desire to find a middle ground between religions and find common values
• there is a struggle between treating non-christians with respect but also believing that only christians can be saved
• from a protestant perspective, karl barth‘s theology reminds christians and others against human arrogance which claims to have a monopoly on the truth
• in interfaith dialogue terms, barth calls for christians to enter with humility and openness because humans cannot dictate where god reveals himself
• many find barth’s ideas too vague

theological inclusivism and inter-faith dialogue

• the aim of inclusivism in dialogue is to address the charge of imperialism and develop open and genuine yet not competitive discussion
• the distinction between RI and SI is important because SI believes other religions as a whole may be means to salvation, while RI believe only individuals may be able
• for SI, it is about developing institutional changes and understanding
• for example SI David Ford argues interfaith dialogue works effectively once common ground has been established, then the differences can be discussed with a spirit of collegiality
• these differences can be a blessing because they force people to think hard about what they believe, leading to study, discussion, debate and friendship
• ford believes all three religions are united by the biblical covenant and have much to teach each other
• two publications show how this has been achieved:
  • dabru emet: a jewish statement on christians and christianity: calls for jews to ‘learn about the efforts of christians to honour judaism’, and ‘reflect on how what judaism may now say about christianity’. signed by over 150 rabbis. this is important especially after WW2. it challenges christianity.
  • a common word between us and you: from muslim scholars and leader to christian leaders. the common is the love of god and neighbour in a quest for peace. it generated much interfaith discussions, meetings and publications. it shows an institutional level.

• in contrast, the RI interfaith work is focused on individuals and local communities, not like in the dabru emet or a common word
• the strength of inclusivist theology in interfaith dialogue is that it balances finding the common ground while respecting differences
• critics claim it reduces the creativeness of dialogue
• for it to be truly effective christians must not assume any privileged position on the truth

theological pluralism and inter-faith dialogue

• pluralists take the notion of différance as foundational
• they argue truth is multi-faceted and dialogue with the other is a genuine quest to expand ones own spiritual view of the world
• keith ward for example, broadly supports pluriform theological pluralism and argued dialogue is a significant for developing a global faith
• this is an attitude of openness by anyone of faith to understand other traditions to deepen and develop their own
• developing global faith through dialogue doesn’t mean looking for common ground but actively enjoying differences and disagreements
• this avoid the tendency to treat all religions as essentially being the same
• but universal theological pluralists do think that all religions are part of one underlying reality
• they believe that an appreciation of this provides dialogue with the possibility of establishing world peace
• they use it to develop and promote a global theology, and teaching people to overcome ego and live a reality-centred existence

• but for ethical theological pluralists, this is too abstract
• while they agree that dialogue should place emphasis on living unselfishly, the way to establish a more just world is by using the insights in world religions
• paul knitter argues that the purpose of interfaith dialogue is not theological but practical
• religions must first resolve common problems such as combatting extremism and then discuss theology

• for theological pluralism to work effectively in dialogue it would require all in the discussion to support the pluralist model
• this is problematic because it means abandoning their faith as truth and seeking a common world religion
• this is firmly rejected by all christians
• ethical and pluriform pluralists regard the purpose of dialogue to celebrate difference and work towards harmony and justice

problems

• many fear that if differance is the foundation then it subtly undermines the faith of each participant as it implies everyone’s beliefs are temporary and no one may claim truth
• others think interfaith can become superficial as people may be unwilling to say where others are wrong or where differences are irreconcilable
• it can either become too theological, technical and focused on leaders and marginalise ordinary members of faith communities

mission and conversion

• what is the difference between persuading someone to have a religious belief and a political belief?
• if we believe something as right and true w want others to believe it too
• there are other reasons for this, such as sharing common values and producing a more productive society
• it validates the beliefs and gives power to a group or leader
• persuasion in christianity is mission and conversion
• it is a proselytising religion, like islam
• the motivation for christian mission is driven by a desire to prepare people for the kingdom of god in this world or the afterlife
• but in the modern world this mission is seen as a breach of liberal principles and is an inappropriate use of power
• the assumption is that if religious beliefs are private then it is wrong to impose it on others
• this poses the churches with a dilemma. on one hand the NT calls the church to make disciples but overt mission and conversion is widely considered to be dangerous and aggressive

the problem of meaning of salvation

• the problem is what is meant by salvation
• there are inclusivist, exclusivist and pluralist ideas but the issue is the same as the analogy with politics; we want others to believe what we believe
• the church of england holds an inclusivist position but states that its mission is ‘because christ is the trust and fullest expression of his love’
• but when a pluralist like knitter uses the term conversion, he means conversion to an openness to overcome suffering and injustice, not to christ
• this is because for ETPs, salvation means liberation rather than a preparation for life after death

mission and inter-faith dialogue in the roman catholic church

• the aims of mission in the roman catholic church are set out in redemptoris missio
• parts on mission in interfaith dialogue are summarised thus:
  • ‘inter-religious dialogue is part of the church’s evangelising mission’ as it is one of its expressions and an opportunity to give an account of christian belief
  • dialogue is possible because all religions provide spiritual riches and dialogue must be motivated by respect because all lawful religions are led by the holy spirit
  • through dialogue the church seeks to uncover rays of truth
  • for effective dialogue there must be honest on both sides and a desire to overcome injustice and intolerance
  • one paragraph states different kinds of dialogue such as exchanges between official representatives, sharing experiences,
  • normal people have a special place in dialogue, offering an everyday insight into how christianity is lived
  • it encourages them to be persistent
• in summary it argues everyone has a duty to be respectful in dialogue, to learn more about god’s revelation
• even though dialogue is essential for better understanding between faiths, christians still have a duty to proclaim the truth of the gospel

mission and inter-faith dialogue in the church of england

• the aims of mission in the CoE are set out in the document sharing the gospel of salvation
• it begins by outlining the missionary situation in england and why members should be bold in expressing their views
• it makes the following points:
  • mission is part of history but in a plural society it must be done with greater sensitivity than in the past. to immigrants the church must show hospitality in hope they will come to faith and be baptised.
  • the most effective form of mission is when christian communities live authentically, they are not merely to prop up other social institutions.
  • interfaith work will only work if motivated by a shared sense fro the common good for society as a whole, not personal interest
  • the church of england has many opportunities for mission such as: teaching, ministry, university, forums, councils, networks, schools and churches.
• it also provides examples of good practices and ways in which it is adapted to living in a multi-faith society
• ‘proclamation is not the same as welling a product in the marketplace; it means to ell people what you think id good about what you believe and practise. so this is not incompatible with interfaith dialogue’.
• it endorses the fourfold dialogue:
  • the dialogue of daily life – doorstep or checkout
  • the dialogue of common good – tasks for the community
  • the dialogue of mutual understanding – formal structures like the SRM
  • the dialogue of spiritual life – prayer and worship
• in summary, it encourages christians to be confident in expressing their faith in society
• this must be done with sensitivity, but ultimately hopes to bring conversion
• dialogue helps the church and other faiths to work for the good of society

should christians have a mission to those of no faith?

• the answer might obviously be yes
• it might be thought that having no faith is no different from having a non-christian faith
• the mission to convert is the same in both cases. but there are differences
• strongly atheistic people may have good reasons for it and any attempt to persuade them may be counter-productive
• from an RAE perspective, those who have rejected the gospel are not among the elect
• on the other hand having no religious faith does not exclude someone from interfaith dialogue if the purpose is to develop cohesion
• increasingly dialogue is aimed at both the faithful and the faithless
• the challenge for christianity is adapting its missionary language to those whose notion of faith is very different form established religions

inter-faith dialogue, social cohesion and impact

• it should be clear the purpose of dialogue is the common good
• this refers to all elements of a fair, just and cohesive society
• the question of if it contributes in any real way is hard to measure but those who think it does have 2 reasons:
  • religions have a powerful sense of community, so it has a clearer sense of its values than a secular one so it can be more productive in social cohesion.
  • even if it has little national impact, in some communities where there is a greater density of religious groups the effects are localised by significant
• it is hard to measure impact
• a common word generated over 600 articles on muslim-christian relations and some religious leaders have even endorsed it
• it has encouraged deeper shared beliefs and removed mistrust
• on the other hand it is not considered effective in religiously conservative communities
• dialogue only occurs when there is willingness to engage
• in conservative communities it can be seen as a weakness or lack of commitment to the truth
• fundamentalism and extremism is attractive to those who feel marginalised in society
• however fundamentalism has provided interfaith dialogue with even more incentive to reconsider their methods and aims
• there are more reasons that ever to be persistent and use sports, media and influential people creatively
• most urgently, religions need to provide their followers with better education and understanding

the scriptural reasoning movement (SRM)

• the constant challenge to interfaith work is how to maintain effective dialogue without being superficial
• one area of development is the dialogue of mutual understanding through the study of scripture
• a method developed since the 1990s to read and study scripture is called scriptural reasoning (SR), founded by david ford and peter ochs
• ford calls SR ‘first interfaith theology’ because all religions, especially judaism, islam and christianity, have scripture as a foundation for belief, worship and morality
• ‘reasoning’ refers to close analysis and critical explanation of texts and is very important
• there are two levels:
  • internal reasoning: the text itself, in structure, language, themes, context and history
  • external reasoning: the interpretation and reflection on their own situation within their religion
• critical explanation can take place any many different levels from technical scholarly study, to personal and spiritual responses
• there must always be a willingness to accept that there is no one interpretation
• there are numerous ways of reading scripture
• advocates of SR argues that when scriptures are read collaboratively, then everyone learns and is enriched in their own traditions

aims of SRM

• unlike other interfaith dialogues, SR does not aim to produce public statements like the dabru emet, but work in small groups
• ford presents three aims:
  • wisdom: members of the group are committed to a common quest for knowledge and wisdom, which will involve discussion and dispute.
  • collegiality: reading text is a shared enterprise, interpretations are presented and discussed equally in the groups.
  • hospitality: texts are read and interpreted without value judgements. there must be a spirit of openness and allow for views and opinions to be expressed and exchanged.
• the first theology of each religion will naturally be of a different kind
• the starting point for textual study will usually be shared problems or theological ideas, like how to deal with fundamentalism, effectiveness of prayer, purpose of worship, dealing with secularism, peace, music, women and equality
• the result is not a global theology but an ‘exchange of blessings’

methods of SRM

• there are no set methods but a number of suggested routes have been developed
• it does not need to be a dialogue of scholars but it does need members of each religion to be well informed and passionate about the scriptural texts they are presenting
• the group might have a facilitator whose job it is to propose questions, and ensure all members are fully involved
• it is important to give plenty of time for discussion
• no one in the group is considered an expert or representative of their religion, they must express their own views
• the aim is not to arrive at a consensus but increase wisdom and understanding of the common good

criticism of SRM

• although it can be stimulating, some are critical:
• orthodoxy: as no one is an official representative, there is a danger that the views of each religion are removed from the orthodox or normative teaching of that religion.
• reasonableness: there are no right interpretations, so who decides if it is reasonable or supported? this is especially true in groups of enthusiastic amateurs.
• authority of scripture: even within religions there is a variety of views about scriptural authority, which affects how a person interprets their text. if text is viewed as exclusively god’s revelation, a person might question whether an interpretation from outside their faith has any validity. there seems to be an assumption about the nature of revelations. can it really be done by exclusivists?
• non-abrahamic religions: it focuses on common ground in the main three, but what about other religions? buddhism, for example, has very different roots, textual traditions and interpretations.
• relativism: it relativises religious beliefs, because participants are not allowed to be judgemental of other truth claims, holding them as all equally valid.