Prepared for the 1999 Congress of the International Association for Religious Freedom

Robert Traer

How are interfaith organizations to be successful in encouraging tolerance, mutual respect and cooperation? The organizations should be exemplary, I believe, in the following ways.

Transparency

It is important to know not only what an interfaith organization hopes to accomplish but who makes decisions for the organization, how these leaders are selected, and the rules by which the organization is governed. Interfaith organizations with members should indicate the basis for membership and make public at least the names of organizational members. In addition, the programs of an interfaith organization should state clearly the rules for participation, the expectations of those who participate, and the inferences that will be drawn from participation.

For these reasons the International Association for Religious Freedom has posted on its web site its constitution, the names of its Council members, its member groups, and its policy on religious freedom. Moreover, the Handbook for Participants of the 1999 Congress describes the nature of each program and the expectations concerning participants. It seems to me that much of this information is conspicuously absent from the publicity of other international interfaith organizations.

A program that invites individuals to join in proposing interfaith initiatives should also make clear how those who may disagree with the conclusions drawn by the organizers, or by a majority of those participating, may register their dissent. Furthermore, the program organizers should not use the names of participants who dissent from the conclusions of a program in promoting those conclusions, without noting their dissent.

Consistent with these principles the IARF has invited representatives of other international interfaith organizations to make presentations at the 1999 IARF Congress in a study group devoted to interfaith strategies. The position presented in writing of each representative will be included in the Proceedings of the Congress. If summary conclusions for the study group are prepared for the Proceedings, they will be sent to each study group participant for comments and dissent prior to publication. What are the practices of other interfaith organizations? I hope they will make this clear in their presentations.

Sensitivity to different cultural and religious presuppositions is also very important. If an interfaith program plans to engage participants in sharing personal experiences or in expressions of solidarity that are less acceptable in some cultures than in others, such as holding hands or embracing, then those who might participate should be informed before the program begins of what is expected. Similarly, if an act of devotion is part of an interfaith program, participants should be aware before the program begins of what is planned and of the expectations for participants.

I regret that the IARF has not always been forthcoming in this regard, but in the 1999 Congress workshops that intend to involve participants actively in some way are described in the Handbook for Participants as "interactive." Furthermore, the section of the Handbook concerning devotions has a description of what is intended and of the freedom of participants to enter into the service in a manner of their own choosing.

Humility

Religious rhetoric may be pretentious. The goals of interfaith programs should be noble but the claims should not be overstated.

Certainly the IARF should not boast of being humble. A serious attempt is being made, however, to avoid propaganda and to make modest claims about the programs of the IARF. An open presentation on the IARF web site of its membership and history is central to this candid approach.

Interfaith organizations should not claim to represent the religions of the world when, in fact, their participants are primarily individuals who speak out of their traditions of faith rather than for them. Moreover, interfaith organizations should recognize the significant interfaith activities of other groups. Proposals to create a place of interfaith dialogue that imply no opportunities already exist, when in fact there are thousands of dialogues all over the world, are misleading. Honesty requires that we say so.

The name of the IARF clearly indicates that it is an association, and the IARF web site and published materials state that individuals and groups are members of the association. The IARF does not claim to represent the religions of the world, and its publicity tries to avoid language that might give this impression.

In this respect, two other international interfaith organizations have particularly misleading names. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions seems, by virtue of its name, to be promoting a parliament of the world's religions. Similarly, the United Religions Initiative suggests by inference and also in its publicity that religions might cooperate together like states do in the United Nations. I believe both images are seriously flawed, because religious traditions are diverse and historic movements that cannot be represented as countries can. Moreover, the meetings of these two interfaith organizations are gatherings of individuals for dialogue rather than assemblies of representatives with authority to make decisions on behalf of religious constituencies.

It is also important that interfaith programs not promote a religious tradition or religion in general as having the answer to the world's problems. Organizers of interfaith programs should acknowledge the failure of religions institutions to live up to the wisdom of their teachings and should encourage critical reflection in order to guard against inaccurate representations and religious propaganda.

I confess that the IARF has sponsored interfaith programs that have promoted religion uncritically, as though religion or spirituality is the answer to the world's problems. Moreover, as a moderator of interfaith panels I have not always challenged speakers who claim that their religion bears no responsibility for the violence and oppression that have been rationalized in its name. Tolerance, mutual respect and cooperation must not mean a suspension of critical thinking. We can and must politely disagree with statements made about religion that are false, misleading or unworthy of constructive dialogue.

Solidarity

Interfaith organizations depend on funding from affluent religious groups, individuals and foundations but should nevertheless act in solidarity with religious communities that are poor or suffer from persecution. As a sign of this commitment, interfaith organizations should affirm the fundamental human right of freedom of religion or belief and the standard of non-discrimination under international law for cooperation between governments and religious institutions.

Interfaith dialogue does not operate in a vacuum, but in fact depends on the rule of law. The modern interfaith movement would not be possible without the secularization of international society in this century and the decisions of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church to support dialogue and to repudiate and resist proselytism. In many parts of the world, however, interfaith dialogue concerning beliefs may seem to be a luxury, at a time when so many of the world's communities are suffering from war, economic oppression, and ecological devastation.

International interfaith activities are expensive, and thus those who organize them bear a special responsibility to remember that these costs can only be acceptable if the activities actually improve the lives of the peoples of the world. Interfaith programs that merely provide opportunities for scholars and religious leaders to travel, talk and tour cannot be morally or spiritually justified.

My triennial report to the IARF General Meeting suggests that the IARF has not seriously faced this issue but should in the near future. It is no excuse, of course, but I see little evidence that other international interfaith organizations have come to terms with the moral and spiritual ambiguities inherent in raising funds under the banner of peace and justice in order to organize expensive events attended largely by religious elites.

How does interfaith activity appear to others? Is this movement more self-serving than of service to the peoples of the world? Can good intentions be translated into effective strategies? I take no pleasure in raising these questions and in calling for self-criticism by interfaith leaders, but I do not see how we can continue with integrity to promote our work, our organizations and our religious traditions unless we address these questions with candor.

The ideas in this paper are the responsibility of the author and may not represent the International Association for Religious Freedom or any of its members.