Thoughts on interfaith dialogue
mood: 
annoyed
annoyedmusic: miscellaneous Thai gamelan
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mythworker over on the Wild Hunt blog has recently had a couple of posts about Christian-Pagan dialogue and Gus diZerega's book Beyond the Burning Times: a Pagan and Christian in Dialogue. The first of these posts dealt with non-Christian perspectives on marriage equality and the newer one deals with Pagan pessimism surrounding Christian-Pagan dialogues and interfaith work.Most folks who know me or who have been reading here for a while know that I've been involved with some interfaith work. Nothing like the intensity and length of time that
rowanf and others have put into it, but still, I've got some experience in the field. I believe it's good and necessary work and that it has been making a difference in how people in other religions understand and experience interactions with the Pagans they meet. It has offered some concrete proof that we're not as we've been imagined and if, ultimately, it only ends up convincing people we're harmless I think that's a pretty good thing because with any luck it also means they'll leave us alone to do our own thing in peace.Yet an underlying theme of much specifically Christian-Pagan dialogue is a general Christian desire to spread the faith. I know a lot of Christians and they're good folks and they don't give me any trouble about being Pagan nor do they try to convert me. But the fact remains that motives in Christian interfaith dialogue often tend to boil down to learning about other faiths so that arguments can be prepared for use in attempts at conversion. The reviewers of Gus's dialogue on the Sacred Tribes Journal, particularly William Stewart, take the object of the dialogue specifically as an exercise in understanding with an eye toward evangelism. Stewart says:
Pagans are more often the objects of spiritual warfare rather than the subjects of apology and evangelism. Dialogue must not be a substitute for mission but I believe missional Christians will increasingly need to engage in this type of dialogue in order to gain a hearing in our multi-religious, post-Christendom world.
Given this attitude, I think it's only natural and right that Pagans should approach such dialogue with a certain amount of skepticism and even cynicism. I am by no means saying that we should not have these discussions. I do think they're vitally necessary in reducing inter-religious tensions and fostering understandings between communities. Yet I believe we need to go into these discussions with our eyes open, understanding that there are some very likely ulterior motives in many who would engage with us.
This takes me back to the interfaith discussion at the Gathering Grove a couple of weeks ago. The gentleman facilitating the discussion is a Jewish Unitarian Universalist pastor. A great deal of his discussion focused on how learning that not everyone sees God in the same way can undermine a person's entire worldview and shake their faith. The idea that there are multiple truths can be seen as threatening. Stephen is working hard at seeing the world as multivalent and multireligious yet he seems to believe that everyone around him is stuck in a particular sort of mono-think that, to my mind at least, arises from the very roots of monotheism and its concept that there can only be one truth and one right way of being in the world.
He rejects the idea that the question is as simple as monotheism vs. polytheism, yet I find it difficult to believe that the basic assumptions of these monotheistic worldviews -- one reality versus many realities -- is not somehow at the heart of the problem he describes. A polytheist might quite conceivably worship only one deity, yet that same polytheist would not likely insist that all other deities are false or evil or nonexistent. This, though, seems to be the root position of monotheism and a large part of the reason for that existentialist distress Stephen speaks of when he talks about losing oneself and having one's worldview shattered when one opens their mind to the possibility of multiple truths. To me, there's no reason not to allow a new truth into my life because that addition to my worldview is not going to destroy me; if anything it may expand my world considerably and make it a better, richer one. If it's a frightening truth, then it may expand my world by making me aware of new things to be cautious about and take precautions over. In my experience, it's only some monotheists who live in dread of new information that challenges their worldview because it could lead to an undermining of everything they've built their life upon.
For such people, threatened with fear for their lives and sanity by allowing a new viewpoint in, it seems like the only possible reason for engaging in interfaith dialogue is to convince others of the rightness of their own point of view. This is the fear that so many fundamentalists appear to live within, and why they seem to get so angry when their worldview is contradicted in any way. It is entirely possible to have a Christianity that doesn't feel it must impose itself upon the world. I know Christians who live within that Christian paradigm. I'm grateful for them in my life -- they're excellent people who live what they believe and who work to expand the amount of love and kindness in the universe.
In my work on reconstructionist spirituality, I end up reading an awful lot of Christian theology and Christian texts, being as my focus is on insular Celtic mythology and spirituality. It's unavoidable that I have to read up on Christian worldviews and Christian assumptions because it was the Christians who wrote everything down. Some of it is fascinating, some of it is boring, and some of it is distasteful as a dried turd on a dinner plate. Pretty much all of it convinces me that no one answer will serve for everyone. I read because I want to understand, not so I can argue with Christians to try to convert them. I find some of the material useful for suggesting ways to deepen a Pagan practice and for shedding light on some of the mythological texts recorded by the Irish monks as I dig through looking for fragments of Pagan insight. If I go to a Christian friend for a deeper explanation of what I've read regarding their religion's theologies and practices, I don't want them trying to use that dialogue as an excuse to advocate for my conversion, it just means I want to understand what certain things mean, as clearly as possible, and to make sure I'm not misinterpreting.
In the same way, when I engage in interfaith dialogue in more formal settings, I'm interested in learning about other religions to satisfy an intellectual and spiritual curiosity, not because I'm thinking of becoming a Christian or a Sufi or a Jew. And I don't expect people who ask me questions to become a CR Pagan; I answer questions because I value knowledge and am pleased that other people value it as well. Understanding can foster respect, and this should be the broad goal of interfaith dialogues. To go into such a dialogue with the ulterior motive of conversion is to undermine the process and to misrepresent the dialogue itself.
Much like the stereotype male who believes that The Lesbian only needs to find The Right Man, they believe that with the "right" set of words we will smack ourselves on the forehead and utter "I could have Jesus!" (or a V-8).
I don't particularly hold the belief that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians were one and the same, and I am fairly certain that the God of Islam is different from both of them. they may be brother gods, or perhaps cousins...but I digress; in short I do agree with what you say Stephen says about that loss of self.
Okay, I don't know if that even made sense to me. Time to check blood sugars...
I've attended a dozen or so churches, I've been Saved, Radically Saved, baptized, etc. all to prove that No, This Doesn't Work for Me. And while contacts were made, of course, with the Divine in each the contact was more like "hmn, nice to meet you, need to go now" on both parts.
The Jewish G-d Adonai is about 180 off from anything I connected with during these events. The Jewish G-d (aka Adonai) is mighty, but unbalanced, loving but petty, more than can be encompassed and yet not everything. I think, personally, G-d is as human in some ways as any of us. S/he's certainly as imperfect as we are. At this point, I tend to perceive of Adonai as a Dryghtyn-type deity or divine energy.
I tend to think of Adonai as our very old fashioned, traditional Grandfather who is slightly deranged & even dotty at times when distracted but wants us to be happy and good to each other. Get me started on Shekinah, the loving presence, and I wax poetic for days about our devoted Grandmother, the Matriarch. Or even more fun - the sexy, ecstatic and fun loving Shabbos Bride who urges us to eat, drink and be merry - "And get a good fuck, if you possibly can, darlings!" And of course, the dark spirit in the shadows, Lilith, who watches all and remembers. The pain and loss, She is the Dark Twin of Shekinah.
Granted, I can't even see the various energies of the Judaic divine energies to be the same G-d. Which is probably why I still have a foot in each camp, so to speak.
(Anonymous)
dialogue
I'd welcome further dialogue. You can contact me at mcooper@sacredtribesjournal.org.
Peace,
Michael
"If there was one thing I could force others to believe, it would be to let others believe what they want to believe!!!"
So, as I said, all the pagans and Christians wanted to make the Islamic god sound unreasonable and tyrannical; all the Muslims wanted to hear about the powers of the pagan gods in order to prove we had been deceived by clever djinn; etc. Lovely stuff, innit? Then again, Ireland does not have the best history, all around, of tolerating a multifaith atmosphere (though a pointer or two could be taken from some of the early Christian texts in Ireland, with their great respect for the pre-Christian past...)...
He laughed in sympathy, and said "You must understand. The Church has *never* said there are no other Deities. If there are, or even if they work for you, is irrelevant. What Christianity maintains is that *our Deity is best*. The corollary being that we must prove it to *you* because you're mistaken. That's what Monotheism is--it says so on the label."
Once I got this, I've never had more than annoyance talking to professional Monotheists. Really, it's part of *their* spirituality, just like dancing in the moonlight is part of mine. And if I put it to them like that, they generally stop. The amateur Monos on the other hand, are another story. :)
Confronting it can be a horrible thing indeed because it means surrendering the idea that there are inscribed rules of life; that order must be chosen rather than accepted; that certainty will never completely come. It makes you small and scared, until you realize you're that courage comes from being scared.
Denying it is a lot easier. That's what a lot of monotheism does, and that's why monotheism requires the refutation of alternate points of view. Any alternate point of view is, in fact, a living, breathing reminder of something very painful-- that crisis, and the doubt it carries, won't go away.
Most polytheists I've met, though, have confronted this crisis, because they tend to see the universe as potentially governed, but with respect to human destinies, far more human choice is allowed. The rules are not so universal. Choosing to keep with them are based on personal desires to be moral, to uphold culture or tradition, etc. That understanding of choice is what confronts existential crisis.
Granted, I've known a lot of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants who are what I'd call "existentialist theists", and their stance seems to come down to this -- "I choose my religion because I prefer it." Their evangelism, however, seems to boil down to "Hey. Heard about my way? Because I dig it."
The talking of evangelism, BTW, reminds me of a conversation
I told her I shared those feelings, and when she asked why, I told her that I know somewhere in every operating systems class I teach, there's someone who's going to use that knowledge to make weapons.
Yeah, that sort of thing is always a little discouraging though I don't think most people even think about it.
As to the existential stuff, I've always tended to be somebody who thought a lot about weird questions and the nature of being. To me it seems reasonable and logical to wonder about that stuff. To other folks, not so much, I'm sure.
Some polytheist cultures do have theories about human destiny but I do think that wyrd or fate or whatever you want to call it (whether you believe in it or not) is really only about "what end you'll come to" rather than governing every little action in your life. A Celtic hero, confronted by his geis, doesn't say "the devil made me do it."
Interesting you'd mention this because it gels so much with something I've recently been re-reading. "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus. A germane set of passages:
crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Edipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins. Yet at the same moment, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Edipus, like Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism. ... "I conclude that all is well," says Edipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men. ... If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling. ... The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
For myself, I've tended to find the best chances for interfaith work are doing some form of lefty activism- GLBT, peace, environment etc. Generally the Christians who are open-minded enough to be involved in those things- esp. GLBT issues can deal with Pagans in a more positive way. I've spoken on an interfaith panels on GLBT issues and also did a presentation on sexuality & mythology at a Queer Spirituality conference that was mostly Christian at my Lutheran affiliated college.
I think an important thing to emphasize to evangelists is _why_ we do not find that religion satisfying. Most Pagans come to their faith due to spiritual experiences, not from someone giving us arguments about the logical superiority of polytheism etc. A while back I read a book on Paganism/Witchcraft written by an evangelical Christian for opposition research- the guy had a couple of good criticisms of neo-Paganism but the problem is he kept using Biblical arguments against it. Even my Christian boyfriend could see what was wrong with that- the Bible has no theological authority to Pagans! They just don't get it!
Um...not what I came by for, but thanks.
I think that non-Christians have to educate themselves about Christianity to a certain extent to defend themselves against conversion. That's intensely frustrating. I shouldn't need to be an expert to justify a "no thanks."
*hugs you*
Hugging is good. I like hugs. Yes.
Interesting stuff. I pretty much always find myself up to the armpits in interfaith discussions of varying quality this time of year, being "out" as a Jew in a predominantly Catholic clinic (mostly we don't have the pagan discussion...). Just this morning I had a woman try to provoke me into an argument because we have a dreidel in the waiting room (sigh).
Certainly I too have frequently had the experience of a conversation starting off as religion/culture sharing and devolving into aggressive attempts to either convert me or at least shame me into realizing I'm wrong and will suffer eternal consequences on account of my stubborn stupidity in the face of Universal Truth!(TM)! I actually had a woman burst into tears at me a few years ago, literally begging me to at least consider the possibility that Jesus might be my savior, because she really liked me and felt a strong kinship with me, and it shook her to the point of literal tears to think that she'd go to heaven and I'd go to hell. Because good smart intersting and kind folks like me *should* be in heaven when they die, and this little sticking point of me not believing in Jesus meant that it didn't matter how good a person I was, I wasn't going there. sigh.
I agree with you that the narrow-mindedness ends up kinda hard-wired in due to an oversimplified monotheistic world view. If you're raised to believe there's only one God, and only one correct way of interacting with that god, and that there is the fear of eternal damnation if you stray from this very precarious and narrow path, then of course the idea of multiple paths to truth (and multiple deities??) is gonna be super threatening. Also, apparently Jesus gives you extra cookies in heaven if you get folks to convert. Apparently you get extra cookies if you get a Jew to convert, is my experience. B/c other christian denominations know that Jesus exists but they're doing it wrong. But a Jew is a clean slate! We already know the old testament, we just need to accept Jesus as our savior and we're totally perfect christians! (I find this more among Catholics).
Sorry, I'm tirading. It's been a long *christmas* season...
This time of year is so often the hardest for most people. Easter is even more specifically Christian, but it's not the huge commercialized shove it in your face of Christmas. There are a lot of reasons why I rarely leave my lair at this time of year.
All too often we pagans tend to confuse "monotheism" with "monolatry." Monotheism asserts that only one deity exists, and one either worships him/her/it or does not. Monolatry is the worship of a single deity because only that deity is seen as being worthy of devotion, but permits the acknowledgment that other deities exist. Christianity and Islam have been monotheistic from their origins, while Judaism seems to have become monotheistic during the Babylonian Captivity.
We pagans, already comfortable with the existence of a multiplicity of gods, ofttimes forget that knowing on an intellectual level that some people worship multiple deities is not the same thing as practicing monolatry. And we often approach conversations with monotheists as if they were actually monolators. Of such small misconceptions are larger misunderstandings born.
For me, I'd be satisfied if Christians would cease trying to convert me to their point of view, and if they would acknowledge that virtue is not to be found solely among the members of their narrow little sect.
But I recognize that for some people that is asking a VERY great deal...
You're quite right that misconceptions like the one you mention can lead to severe difficulties in communication. Work needs to be done on both sides of the aisle. Progress isn't usually made by one side making all the effort at understanding.
"interfaith" dialogue - atheism versus others?
Has anyone else run into this problem, or has suggestions?
Re: "interfaith" dialogue - atheism versus others?
I do read
Re: "interfaith" dialogue - atheism versus others?
I'm mostly curious if this tends to happen to other people as well, or if my choice of profession makes this kind of a rare thing :^)
Re: "interfaith" dialogue - atheism versus others?
Re: "interfaith" dialogue - atheism versus others?
(Anonymous)
An evangelical response
Yes, as someone who sees Jesus as 'the way, the truth and the life' I do have a commitment to evangelism. Maybe not the sort of evangelism you've experienced or would even recognize as such, but yes, evangelism all the same.
But is that my only motivation? No. Not by a long shot. I am also motivated by a desire for understanding, as I find that interaction with other paths enriches my own. I am also motivated by an abhorance of war, particularly religious war, and seek to find ways to live in harmony with other religions. I am also motivated by friendship, not instrumental friendship but genuine friendship, as I have found this can be an outcome of dialogue. I am also keen to have my own faith understood, even when it is rejected, as I find misrepresentation far more disturbing than rejection. And last but not least I am motivated by my commitment to glorify God in whatever I do, and that includes being a good neighbour. I could hardly be a good neighbour if I refused to talk.
Now, the important point here is, these aims are not mutually dependant. Each has its own merits. The success of dialogue is not utterly dependant on your conversion (and I suggest some of you read this sentance twice). Mutual understanding and peaceful coexistance would be successes in their own right; they are valid on their own. It is grossly inaccurate to think we all view the entire process through an evangelistic lens. Evangelism is but one dimension, and John, like myself, is the sort of guy who only tends to evangelise when invited to, so you have no worries about us bashing you over the heads. Consider these other aims of ours too before writing dialogue off.
And consider the potential gains. Wouldn't it be better more Christians realised you weren't Satanists (not that Im about to start vilifying Satanists either)? Wouldn't it be better if there were more understanding voices in the Christian community to counterbalance the ravings of the more paranoid? Then why not help us out by being open to talking. In descending into utter cynicism you only empower the extremists.
Re: An evangelical response
I do most certainly believe that interfaith dialogue can work. I believe it has worked in the past and is working right now when given a fair hearing and good effort by all parties. Yet I also recognize that things often slide into a problematic space of attempts at conversion and to ignore this is not doing the dialogue any favors either. Interfaith dialogue needs to be a process engaged in with open eyes and a willingness to take some chances on the part of all participants.
Discussions and responses taking place in a blog post like this one are by their nature often shorter and less nuanced than one might prefer. Yet they can lead to deeper thought by both the writer and those who respond to the posts. A large part of my response to Jason's blog and the reviews on Gus's book come from my own experiences in interfaith, as well as from those I know who are also engaged in such dialogues. Most of my experiences have been okay, with a few excellent ones and a few really bad ones. It has always depended on the individuals involved and the relative openness with which they have approached dealing with Pagans.
Genuine, open dialogue can be a true blessing to the world. We absolutely need more of it.