Presentation to the 1999 Parliament of the World's Religions
Capetown, South Africa

Robert Traer

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 the 21^st century, however, our challenge is to accept that interfaith 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.

Rhetoric

In 1991 when I contacted the Charity Commission in the United Kingdom to secure charitable status for the International Association for Religious Freedom, I was told that the historic purpose of the IARF "to advance liberal religion," which today might better be stated as "promoting religion that is liberating," was not acceptable. The Charity Commission required that the stated purpose of the Association be "to advance religion." I recall saying to the Charity official: "Who would ever want to advance religion without any qualification? Our Association promotes religion that is liberating and religion that respects freedom of conscience. We don't promote religion that is oppressive. " I lost the argument, however, and 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, 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 we support religion that encourages self-criticism? The prophets of ancient Israel are exemplars of this kind of religion. Amos proclaimed for God, "I hate, I despise your feasts . . . but let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." (Amos 5:21, 24) 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.

I am speaking now about a kind of religious teaching and practice, rather than any specific religious tradition. Clearly, despite the prophetic witness, there are religious movements and groups within the Jewish and Christian traditions that reject self-criticism. They are, however, not alone. I have often heard Muslim speakers in interfaith programs say that the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam is not evidence of any problem within the Islamic tradition, but is merely political manipulation. I have also heard new religious movements present their teachings and communities as though, unlike the historic religious traditions, their practices always embody their highest ideals.

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.

I regret to say that the 1999 Parliament of the World's Religions seems to lack a critical approach to religion, even though the excesses of religious fanaticism and propaganda are all around us. In particular, the Parliament's declaration-"A Call to Our Guiding Institutions"-shamelessly promotes religion and religious leaders. This is a significant change from the "Declaration Towards a Global Ethic" that was the cornerstone of the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions. That Declaration asserted a "global ethic" derived from the teachings of the religions, but it argued rationally for this ethic and invited all those "whether religious or not" to support it. The Declaration of 1993 did not promote religion or the religions of the world. It promoted "a common global ethic."

In contrast, after a Preamble the 1999 "Call to Our Guiding Institutions" presents a series of propositions promoting religion, religions, spiritual paths, spirituality, and religious and spiritual communities. Then the Call says: "Religion helps human beings find meaning in life and history. It offers paths to enlightenment and salvation and encouragement to follow such paths. Among the noblest functions of religion is the promulgation of systems of beliefs, practices, and ethics that honor the humanity and dignity of each person and foster the vitality and moral well-being of the society."

Of course, but not always. Written by religious leaders, this is a completely self-serving statement. A reader who is sympathetic to religious commitment but aware of history desperately looks for some acknowledgment of the dark side of religion. There is, however, no such qualifying admission. The Call continues: "When individuals and communities struggle with ethical questions, religion and spirituality provide necessary and trustworthy values, norms, motivations, and ideals, all grounded in an ultimate reality." Is this what Christian television evangelists are doing in the United States? Is that what Muslim terrorists are doing in many countries? Is this what fanatical Jews in Israel and extremist Hindus in India are all about? And closer to home, is this what WE are doing? Are WE, as religious leaders, simply representing ultimate reality clearly, cogently and compassionately to our followers? I think not.

Step back for a moment and try to appreciate how a critic of religion would read these sentences. Then ask yourself what such a person would think about the message of this Call, which asks other "guiding institutions" including government and education to cooperate more closely with the "guiding institution" of religion. Specifically, government is encouraged "to seek the advice and cooperation of religious and spiritual leaders and communities in an effort to bring their teachings and values to bear in the struggle to end bribery, dishonesty, and corruption at all levels of government." Education is "to integrate learning about different cultures, religions, and spiritual practices into the standard educational process." The Call apparently assumes that religious and spiritual leaders are exempt from bribery, dishonesty and corruption and that they, or school teachers with good intentions, can teach students the wisdom of the religions and spiritual traditions, even though this wisdom is clearly lacking among many religious and spiritual leaders.

"A Call to Our Guiding Institutions" does not simply take a logical step in implementing the 1993 "Declaration Towards a Global Ethic." Instead, the 1999 Call promotes the agenda of religious leaders, who would like greater recognition for their ethical wisdom and would very much like to be invited into government consultations and educational conferences. The Call urges that religious leaders and spiritual teachers be consulted not only by government officials and educators, but also by men and women who head up commercial interests, direct arts and media programs, manage intergovernmental organizations and secular non-governmental organizations, and supervise scientific research and medical practice. The Call does not acknowledge that many of the people in these positions of influence are members of religious communities, but assumes that professional religious and spiritual leaders are needed to bring the wisdom of religion to bear on the decisions that shape our social life.

In 1998 I signed the "Declaration Towards a Global Ethic" because I found it compelling and free of self-righteous rhetoric. I cannot, however, endorse "A Call to Our Guiding Institutions," because it is so self-serving. The Call not only fails to identify religion, and those of us who are religious, as part of the problem, but by abstractly speaking of "our guiding institutions" fails to distinguish the role of religion from the role of government. The 1999 Call simply assumes that to ensure a better world religious leaders, like us, should be consulted by those with secular responsibilities.

I find the same problem with the program of the Parliament and with the "Gifts of Service to the World." Most of the presentations in the Parliament involve individuals who are not only addressing the needs of the world but are also promoting themselves or their organizations. Similarly, the "gifts of service" are not only acts of charity but are also programs of organizations that have paid employees, fund-raising drives, and are seeking to improve their "market share." These presentations and programs generally presume that religion is a good thing and that the world will be better if we have more religion. Even if this were true, which I doubt, it is completely self-serving for those who run religious organizations to make this assertion. Surely, we must acknowledge that religion, and we who benefit from religion, are not simply a salve for the world's suffering but, at least sometimes, are part of "the problem."

For similar reasons, I must respectfully dissent from the statement in the Parliament program by Rev. Dirk Ficca, the Executive Director of the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions. He asserts that religious people need to go beyond supporting tolerance. "As a minimum, I suppose, we need tolerance, in the same way we need stop signs: it keeps us from running over each other. But as the primary basis for human relations, it doesn't cut it. For one thing, tolerance asks little, if anything, of us. Clearly it does nothing to humanize the 'other.' It allows us to continue to divide the world up into 'us' and 'them.' For these reasons, tolerance can all too quickly slip into indifference, prejudice, hatred and violence."

What is the remedy for our ills that Ficca proposes? "Let's admit it," he says, "learning to live with diversity is hard work. It takes soul-searching and commitment. More than that, it's an acquired art. It demands practice and discernment. It means coming to grips with the requirements of 'live and let live.' All of which, I believe, can only happen as the result of real life encounters with those who are different." For this reason, Ficca concludes: "I am so proud to welcome you to the 1999 Parliament. At this extraordinary event you and I have the opportunity to encounter each other face-to-face and to learn first-hand about our precious religious and spiritual paths and unique cultural heritages. We have the opportunity to move beyond tolerance to a new sense of what we mean when we say 'we.'"

There are, to be sure, some important affirmations in what Ficca says, as effective interfaith work does require soul-searching, practice and discernment. But I have been organizing and attending interfaith gatherings for ten years, and so I do not expect in seven days to be united with all the religious communities of the world. Can we not more humbly hope that we will discover some of our prejudices and become a little more self-critical about our certainties? And do we have to make "tolerance" a dirty word in order to hope for more than that?

In a Christian-Muslim dialogue last month sponsored by the World Council of Churches, a Muslim member responded to my call for tolerance by saying that Islam went "beyond tolerance" in its teachings about Christianity and Judaism. I thought then, but did not say, that Christians in many countries of the world would be happy just with tolerance. We should promote rather than belittle tolerance, because it is a prerequisite for interfaith cooperation. When we speak of going "beyond tolerance" in interfaith activity, we are really talking about programs that can support cooperation between religious communities because there is already tolerance. In other places, where there is discrimination and perhaps also persecution based on religious differences, achieving tolerance is extremely important.

We should acknowledge, of course, that in the West the idea of tolerance arises from secular developments resisting religious oppression. The American and French Revolutions in different ways embodied this attack on the pretensions of religion. Claims to natural rights and, more recently, human rights were asserted to secure tolerance under law for individuals and groups with beliefs and practices that differ from those manifested by the majority in a society. Achieving tolerance is a great struggle that is just beginning in some societies and is certainly not yet completed in the West. We should not, therefore, denigrate tolerance, but should do all we can to encourage it.

For this reason, I urge interfaith organizations to support international human rights, which include a clear affirmation of freedom of religion or belief that embodies tolerance in law. The principle underlying all human rights is respect for the human dignity of each person. Thus, supporting international human rights law means respecting the right of a person, or a group of persons, to manifest the religion or belief of their own choosing, as long as in doing so the human rights of others are not violated.

International law does not require that I respect all forms of religion but only that I tolerate those that are lawful. Respecting the right of others to manifest their religious beliefs as they choose does not require that I think all religious beliefs are healthy or saving, but only that I respect the human dignity of each person. If interfaith activists were to embrace human rights, there would be less facile talk about appreciating all forms of religion. Instead, we would be working hard to create social, political and economic structures that encourage and support tolerance in situations where religious communities fear and even hate each other.

Representation

Whether articulated or not, the goal of "representing" the religions of the world is deeply embedded in interfaith rhetoric. Programs promoting religious cooperation seek to demonstrate their legitimacy by identifying the number of religious traditions that are involved. What are these "religions" that should be represented? Generally, the interfaith movement has adopted the language of the study of religions and speaks of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth.

The IARF has accepted this language uncritically, and so it has tried very hard to attract Jews and Muslims in order to be a credible interfaith organization. Now the IARF includes a few Jews and Muslims as well as many Buddhists and fewer Christians, several Sikhs, various kinds of Hindus, a hand full of Shinto priests, a couple of indigenous groups, a Zoroastrian organization, and lots of Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. Does that mean it "represents" the religions of the world? Of course not. But I challenge those who are thinking that their interfaith organizations actually do "represent" the world's religions to reflect critically on that claim.

What are "the religions" that are to be represented? If we are thinking about the historic religious traditions, these have hundreds of branches or subdivisions. And if we include new religious movements among the religions of the world, then there may be thousands of "religions" to be represented. Is Unitarian Universalism a religion? Is the Baha'i faith a religion? Is Scientology or the Unification Church a religion? Is Native American religion a religion, or does this phrase refer to the indigenous religious cultures of the United States? In Canada similar indigenous cultures call themselves "First Nations." Do they have the same "religion" as the tribes in the USA? Or, does each tribe have its own religion?

Obviously, the word "religion" is being used in various ways with respect to these different communities of faith and practice. No one can represent the historic religious traditions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, because these traditions of faith and practice are incredibly diverse and are made up of thousands of organizations. Someone might represent, however, a single religious organization, if it is understood to be "a religion," such as Scientology or the Baha'i faith. Indigenous religious traditions are always related to the land of their peoples, so it nonsense to think of them as constituting a single religion. They do, however, have much in common, and in a world dominated by the historic religious traditions perhaps the interests of indigenous groups can be represented, at least in a discussion, by an articulate member of one of them.

International interfaith organizations have generally tried to solve this problem of representation by involving as many individuals with as much diversity as they can afford. It is, very much, a financial issue, because bringing religious leaders of different traditions from all around the world to a meeting somewhere requires sponsoring their travel costs. This kind of "representation" of the religious traditions of the world, by involving individuals from these religions, is limited only by lack of money and the humility of some of those who might otherwise be "paid" to fulfil an organization's diversity requirements. But surely this is a form of propaganda that is unworthy of the religious traditions that we would represent.

It might be said by its size and diversity that the Parliament of the World's Religions represents the religions of the world. Its participants, however, are primarily individuals who are presenting their own views, either about their religious traditions or about a social concern. Moreover, the Parliament makes no claim to represent the religions of the world in terms of their numbers, as would be done in a political "parliament." There are 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world, but members of this religious tradition are a tiny minority of those present at the 1999 Parliament of the World's Religions. Moreover, none of them is authorized to "represent" the Pope on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

Only one international interfaith organization, in my opinion, has squarely faced this problem and devised a reasonable answer. The World Conference on Religion and Peace in a given country or region seeks to represent in its process: persons who speak for the religious organizations of the area, scholars who have an understanding of the issues that need to be faced, and those involved in these issues because of their religious, governmental or NGO commitments. In other words, WCRP tries to bring to the table those persons who are actually involved in the problem that is being addressed in order to facilitate religious cooperation in resolving it. Its policy of representation, therefore, is practical and result-oriented. WCRP does not claim to represent all the religions of the world in some universal and abstract way, but it does seek in a particular place to include all those who can make a difference in devising a peace-making strategy that involves religious communities.

With greater humility, therefore, I suggest we think about interfaith work in particular contexts, where we can define the religious communities that should be involved in order to promote tolerance and cooperative action that might actually benefit the community. And let us put aside in interfaith programs all talk about representing the religions of the world.

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. Of course, we are probably doing both, but my question concerns the difference between our claims and what we actually are doing. We claim to be serving others, but 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. Muslim villagers near Calcutta have begun to celebrate Diwali, except for the religious offering to Hindu idols, as an act of solidarity with their Indian neighbors that they hope will lead to improved relationships. Muslim and Christian leaders in the Philippines are beginning to talk about the resentments that divide their communities. 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.

I have to admit, however, that most of the relationships established in the IARF over the past two decades, which involve the kind of "encounter" that Rev. Ficca praises in his Parliament welcoming statement, 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? 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?

I confess that my own "tribal" tendencies begin to surface when I am involved in interfaith programs that promote religion uncritically. As a Christian, I find I am more critical of my own tradition than most of those who engage in interfaith discussions. And when I hear others extol the virtues of their religious teachings without a shred of humility much less any critical reflection even about obvious mistakes that have been made, I want to defend my own tradition rather than engage in an "encounter" of mutual appreciation.

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.

Religious councils in communities and countries seem to me to offer the best hope in this regard, because these inter-religious structures are rooted in the realities of a particular society. Of course, forming such councils is not in itself an answer. Inter-religious councils may exclude minority religious groups, and their activities may be corrupted if there is political scheming by one or more members. Thus, international interfaith organizations can be helpful in supporting the work of such councils by providing encouragement and incentives for more inclusive procedures and for greater accountability.

At the 7th Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, Muslim and Christian leaders from the country of Sierra Leone shared how they were able to facilitate a peace agreement between the government and insurgents in their country. They formed the Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone and maintained their solidarity in the face of tremendous pressure. Together these religious leaders encouraged the President of Sierra Leone to guarantee amnesty to terrorists who had committed atrocities. Moreover, they visited the terrorists in the bush and asked them to end their brutal attacks on civilians. These courageous religious leaders also publicly demanded a return to democratic government after elements of the army joined with the insurgents in a coup.

In order to secure justice in Sierra Leone through democratic government, these Muslim and Christian leaders preached forgiveness to their followers so that the terrorists and the members of the army that had ousted the government would accept a settlement and could return to their communities without fear of reprisal. In addition, these religious leaders encouraged the members of their faith communities to embrace again the culture of tolerance that had been devastated by the civil war in their land. The Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone also taught their people that religion should promote human rights and respect for the human dignity of each person, no matter what his or her religious beliefs might be.

The World Conference on Religion and Peace aided the Inter-religious Council of Sierra Leone in securing a willingness on the part of government officials and guerilla terrorists to support a comprehensive peace and in creating a tolerant and forgiving society that is struggling to make democratic government a reality. Here is a moving example of how interfaith activity actually changed political and social structures in a way that helped to reconcile a bitterly divided people.

Fortunately not all of us live in the midst of a civil war, but unfortunately most of us live where there are resentments about the past. Religious communities can fan these smoldering embers into a raging fire, but religious leaders can also expose and scatter these hot coals so that they cool and are no longer a danger. In Northern Ireland at a conference sponsored by the International Interfaith Center and local religious leaders from that embattled society, a Hindu member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa offered a moving testimony in support of forgiveness. She urged Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland to temper their demand for punitive justice against those who had committed crimes in the past, from both the Catholic Republican and Protestant Loyalist sides, in order to embrace forgiveness and reconciliation for the sake of their children.

In Korea, too, resentments were smoldering in 1996 when the IARF brought Japanese young people together with the Korean descendants of a generation that had suffered greatly under the harsh occupation of the Japanese. The Japanese young people said they didn't know about what had happened during the war, but the Koreans refused to accept that as an excuse. The two groups drew apart for a time. Then a young Japanese man crossed the divide and apologized to the Koreans, both for what Japanese had done to the Korean people during the war and also for the ignorance of his generation. Furthermore, he pledged that he and his friends would try to build a better future for both peoples. That act of humility and repentance enabled the Koreans to offer forgiveness and also their pledge of cooperation.

There is resentment in Europe about old wars, the religious and cultural differences of immigrants, and the devastating results of communist oppression. There are resentments in the United States about the growing religious power of Islam and the increasing cry from Hispanics for the use of Spanish in the schools and in government. There are resentments over religion, culture, caste, language, and economic discrimination in Africa and throughout Asia that can easily flare up into disastrous conflicts. It is worthwhile, therefore, to promoting tolerance through encounters that expose these bitter feelings and foster new cooperative structures among religions and ethnic communities.

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.

3 December 1999 in Capetown, South Africa - Robert Traer is the former General Secretary of the International Association for Religious Freedom. The views expressed in this paper, however, are his own and should not be attributed to the Association or to any of its members.