Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue — Interfaith Photovoice

Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue — Interfaith Photovoice



Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue



By William L. Sachs, Ph.D.

Interreligious Dialogue in 20th Century America

Although the meaning of “interreligious dialogue” seems abundantly clear, its meaning has shifted significantly since the mid-twentieth century. In the past, this dialogue referred to formal occasions at which senior religious scholars and leaders discussed areas of difference and potential agreements between different traditions. Typically, such “dialogue” occurred in formal assemblies, including such gatherings as the World Council of Churches.

Historically, dialogue surrounding religious difference usually took place between those in the same religion . Formal gatherings and the elaborate statements that resulted helped to unite branches of the Christian tradition, for example. For much of the twentieth century, the ecumenical movement embodied interreligious dialogue. Important points of understanding between Lutherans and Episcopalians, for example, drew these churches together in forms of mutual recognition. Formal expressions of respect advanced cooperation between religious institutions.

So long as the religious spectrum of the United States was predominantly Christian, “dialogue” was narrowly defined, and the meetings were led by senior scholars and administrators who spoke on behalf of their institutions. However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, the size and influence of religious denominations began a steady decline. The so-called “mainstream” churches that once seemed to embody American religious life were severely affected. They had developed institutional structures that mimicked the form of twentieth-century corporate life. With support from their regional structures and local congregations, denominational headquarters sought to manage religious life by setting standards and providing resources. Representatives who gathered for dialogue could presume they spoke for clearly defined religious groups.

Two historic developments reshaped the meaning of dialogue and how it would occur. Unity and coherence among religious institutions began to falter. Conflicts over civil rights for African-American persons and over the roles of women in religious life generated forms of activism that secured historic advances and highlighted inequities in institutional power structures. A “culture war” embroiled religious life in divisions between liberals and conservatives, the latter including the growth of fundamentalism. At times, the issues at stake seemed subsumed by conflicting forms of activism, with religious institutional coherence suffering as a result.

Religious Pluralism

At the same time, North American religious life gained unprecedented variety and diversity. Once characterized as “Protestant, Catholic, Jew” (Herberg 1955), religious pluralism became prevalent with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also known as the Hart-Celler Act) in 1965, which opened the United States to immigrants from non-western countries who brought their faith with them. Whereas only the largest metropolitan populations included a range of religions in the past, today religious diversity is evident across all regions of the United States. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the variety of American religious life included significant numbers of Asian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Their large numbers and spread across North America made their presence visible at the local level in many communities for the first time.

The notable case, certainly in public awareness, is the growth of Islam in the United States. The Pew Research Center reported in 2017 that the Muslim population of the United States had reached 3.45 million, approximately one percent of the national figure. Pew found that three-quarters of American Muslims are immigrants or the children of immigrants. The number is not large (1.1 percent of the U.S. population), but the rate of growth by immigration is notable: since 2011, “Muslim population has continued to grow at a rate of roughly 100,000 per year, driven both by higher fertility rates among Muslim Americans as well as the continued migration of Muslims to the U.S.” (Mohamed 2018:n.p.). Pew also notes the high educational level of American Muslims and the high proportion of youth among the Muslim population. It is also striking that diversity of race, ethnicity, and religious practice attends American Muslim communities. The global distinction between Sunni and Shia is extended, for example, by Black Muslims, a subgroup of African-American origin in the US. Islam in America is characterized by encounters between peoples of differing national identities and cultural backgrounds, making the organization of local Muslim life challenging. Though many Muslims gather along ethnic lines, some Islamic mosques bridge members’ cultural differences in pursuit of their shared religious practices and pursuits.

For Christians, the shrinkage of religious institutions and the rise of religious pluralism could be interpreted as decline. The conflicts that confounded denominational life, especially as fundamentalist and sectarian groups arose, seemed to decrease Christianity’s role in American life. By the early twenty-first century, the Christian percentage of the population had fallen to roughly 70 percent (Pew Research Center 2015). Further challenge to all religious groups was the fact that more than 20 percent of all Americans professed no religious affiliation. Still, in 2017 nearly 90 percent of the US population continued to profess belief in god or a higher power as they understood it (Pew Research Center 2018).

Interreligious Dialogue Today

“Interreligious dialogue” now relies on the initiative of local leaders who summon their congregation or religious group toward engagement with people of different faiths in their vicinity. In this setting, the meaning of “interreligious dialogue” has shifted to launching forms of practical initiative and patterns of cooperation. People of different faiths can recognize their common stake in the life of their neighborhood, city, and region. With this recognition, dialogue becomes experiential and intentional. It requires a mixture of reflection and action in ways that create fresh social bonds. And in some cases, like the programs of Grand Rapids based Kaufman Institute, interfaith small groups are organized to create opportunities for friendships around shared interests in movies, food, knitting, and contemplative practices.

There is a clear basis for interfaith initiative in both Christian and Muslim traditions. It may seem surprising to some that not merely acceptance but engagement with other faiths proves intrinsic to Islam, as Zeyneb Sayilgan maintains. She grants that a recent Pew survey finds “the overwhelming majority” of the world’s Muslims “believes that Islam is the only true religion leading to eternal salvation” (Sayilgan 2016:20). She also acknowledges that “a marginal but vocal minority” of the world’s Muslims rejects other faiths and even intends them harm. But the weight of Islamic tradition is on respectful “engagement” (Sayilgan 2016:23). Qur’an 5:48 celebrates religious difference as god’s creation. In Muslim eyes other traditions may be incomplete, yet those traditions and their followers are to be respected. As the prophet lived among people of other faiths, so Muslims are enjoined to build bonds, which Sayilgan interprets as dialogical and social. People of “the book” (i.e., the Abrahamic faiths) are referenced in the Qur’an and so are especially welcomed. Indeed, Jesus is identified as a prophet in the Qur’an.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 forced many American Muslims to consider their approach to civic life and interfaith relations. It also brought sharp controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City and resistance to building other mosques in some American communities. Additionally, conversations about shariah continue to provoke heated religious and political debates, particularly among the most politically conservative Americans. In the midst of these tensions however, we also see an increased commitment to dialogue and cooperation; these national controversies have sparked new expressions of local interfaith activism.

Sayilgan’s colleague, Robert Heaney (2016), notes that Christianity is a missionary religion, which manifests across a spectrum of humanitarian and conversionist projects. The centrality of Jesus Christ and the Trinitarian basis of faith both define Christianity’s uniqueness and present obstacles to finding common ground with Islam—Muslims perceive the Christian construction of a triune god as polytheism, for example. But as an Abrahamic faith rooted in a creator god, in love of neighbor, and in compassion, Christians also have a profound basis for respectful engagement. “Mission” readily becomes “proclamation,” or living the faith in dialogue and in action without the intention of proselytism (Heaney 2016:12). “Mission” also translates into forms of service which seek the common good amid pluralism without diminishing the commitments of one’s neighbors to differing faiths. For both Muslims and Christians, in practice, there are ways to strike a balance between affirmation of one’s own faith and constructive engagement with persons who profess another faith.

Photovoice opens such a door. Different sorts of challenges attend contextual rather than institutional dialogue. To gain shared vision of their community, and to address it constructively, people of different religious traditions require a means of coming together, that is, an easily grasped rationale for being introduced and seeking to work together. Common purpose requires common vision. Photovoice provides a readily understood means of exploring shared affirmation of the place where they live for people whose lives otherwise are defined by difference.

Works Cited

Heaney, Robert S. 2016. “A Christian Rationale for Interfaith Engagement.” Pp. 3–19 in Faithful Neighbors: Christian-Muslim Vision & Practice, edited by R.S. Heaney, Z. Sayilgan, and C. Haymes. New York: Morehouse.

Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant – Catholic – Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mohamed, Besheer. 2018. “New Estimates Show US Muslim Population Continues to Grow.” Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new -estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/, retrieved 30 June 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2015. “America's Changing Religious Landscape.” http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/, retrieved 29 June 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2018. “When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean?” http://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe -in-God-what-do-they-mean/, retrieved 27 June 2018.

Sayilgan, Zeyneb. 2016. “A Muslim Rationale for Interfaith Engagement.” Pp. 20–36 in Faithful Neighbors: Christian-Muslim Vision & Practice, edited by R.S. Heaney, Z. Sayilgan, and C. Haymes. New York: Morehouse.

Acknowledgements

The material above is an edited version of a section of “Through One Another’s Lenses: Photovoice and Interfaith Dialogue” by Roman R. Williams, William L. Sachs, Catherine Holtmann, Elena G. van Stee, Kaitlyn Eekhoff, Michael Bos, and Ammar Amonette. It appears in the Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion, Volume 10: Interreligious Dialogue: From Religion to Geopolitics, edited by Giuseppe Giordan and Andrew P. Lynch, and published by Brill (Leiden, The Netherlands). We are grateful to the Louisville Institute for the Collaborative Inquiry Team grant that supports this project and to the Kaufman Interfaith Institute for its local partnership and funding.