Interfaith Work: The Easy Tasks Versus the Hard Tasks

I received an email yesterday from Carl Evans, past president of IPSC, sharing a provocative and compelling article titled New Rooms in the Interfaith Movement by Eboo Patel, originally published in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin. Click on the green title to read the entire article. With a certain level of discomfort I recognized myself in a description of a Chicago pastor addressing an interfaith youth core conference that Mr. Patel had attended. “In his self-introduction, the pastor had succinctly articulated what I’ve come to call the three main rooms in the house of interfaith cooperation: liberal theology, progressive politics, and spiritual enrichment. Moreover, he proclaimed that those views weren’t just rooms in the house, but the front porch and the foundation as well… Finally, he noted his frustration that a particular type of Christian was always absent from such gatherings, saying: “There are too many conservative evangelicals who claim the mantle of my faith, who believe that Jesus is the only way, that Christians have the exclusive truth, and who focus their energy on trying to bring others to their view rather than expanding their own spiritual horizons”. A young, evangelical speaker that followed the pastor started with “My name is Nicholas Price, and I think you are talking about me.” He went on to say that “He’d majored in religious studies with a concentration in Islam, and he believed his faith called upon him to seek to convert Muslims and also to cooperate with them. While he was deeply committed to the former, he understood that this space was dedicated to the latter.”

This prompted Mr. Patel to consider more deeply the purpose of Interfaith work. “Is it to bring together theological liberals and political progressives of various religions to share how their different faiths brought them to similar worldviews?” He went on to consider “if this approach excludes, and potentially raises hostility toward, faith groups, then it ought to raise the question of just what it is we think we are doing in a movement called “interfaith.” … My experience during fifteen years in interfaith work is that this is pretty common. Evangelicals are on the outside and are frequently invoked as somewhere between the foil and the enemy.” According to a 2011 Pew Forum study on global Christianity 26.8% of the U.S. population are evangelical Christians. Our Interfaith enterprise will never succeed if we don’t manage to include them in our respectful consideration and in the conversation.

The writer goes on to discuss the work of Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam and his theory of Social Capital. Putnam writes, “…social capital refers to social networks, norms of reciprocity, mutual assistance and trustworthiness.” Mr. Patel summarizes this notion with “Such networks have concrete value in a number of ways, ranging from networks in which people help others find jobs, to networks like neighborhood watch clubs, which reduce crime, thereby helping not only the people who participate directly, but also bystanders.” And further refines the discussion “Putnam’s crucial distinction is between “bonding” and “bridging” social capital. Bonding social capital brings people from like identities and perspectives together in tight networks, whereas bridging brings those from different identities and perspectives together. Putnam claims both are important, likening the first to sociological Super Glue and the second to sociological WD-40. He goes on to make this crucial point: “a society that has only bonding social capital will look like Belfast or Bosnia—segregated into mutually hostile camps. . . a pluralist democracy requires lots of bridging social capital. . .”

David Campbell, who shares similar perspectives with Putnam according to Patel, “writes about how religious divisions in America have changed over the course of the past few generations. The strongest divisions are no longer between people of different religions, but between people of different religious intensities. More theologically conservative evangelicals and Catholics, for example, are bonded in conservative politics. According to Putnam and Campbell, one fallout of this dynamic has been to drive a large group of people away from religion, period, explaining one of the reasons for the dramatic rise of what sociologists are calling the religious “nones.” Another fallout is that the theologically liberal, politically progressive, and spiritually expansive have needed to find spaces to gather and commiserate. One of those places has been in the interfaith movement. And so, interfaith work, as it is currently organized, has become a form of bonding social capital between people who have similar political, theological, and spiritual views.” I certainly am guilty of seeking and enjoying the “bonding” that takes place at the majority of Interfaith events I’ve participated in.

Patel observes that “… if the key divisions in American religious life are no longer among Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, but between conservative religious believers of multiple traditions, on the one hand, and a combination of liberal believers and secularists, on the other, then the bonding social capital nature of the interfaith movement effectively serves to widen and deepen that polarization… The primary purpose and greatest value of interfaith work is as a form of bridging social capital—building relationships among religiously diverse people who have different political, theological, and spiritual perspectives. Effective interfaith work would promote the following perspective: We recognize the deep and different worldviews you bring to the table, and we believe that you can have powerful relationships anyway. Movements exist to solve particular problems. The problem that interfaith work should be seeking to solve is the polarization of people who orient around religion differently.”

Patel points to a growing segment of Evangelicals which I found hopeful “… what I’m calling the relational turn in evangelical thinking. The focus here is not just on encouraging people to have a personal relationship with Jesus—the heartbeat of evangelical theology and conversion activities—but is on Jesus as an exemplar who built relationships with people of all backgrounds with unconditional love. Increasingly, I’m hearing these mainline to moderately conservative evangelicals underscore that an important part of that unconditionality is that Jesus did not require people to believe as he did to love them, and he did not use his love for them as a bait-and-switch to get them to follow him. For the evangelicals I’m talking about, following Jesus means several things. One is having a personal relationship with him as Lord and Savior. The second is seeking converts to that path. The third is having relationships with people from a diversity of backgrounds in an unconditional way, as Jesus did, not as bait for conversion but as an expression of religiosity. As Bob Roberts says, “I love others not to convert them, I love them because I am converted.”

As for the title of this Blog post Interfaith work: The Easy Tasks versus the Hard Tasks, the easy tasks are the ones I’ve put the most effort into. Some of which are meeting and greeting the folks with whom I love sharing perspectives; the theologically liberal, politically progressive, and spiritually expansive people I’ve come to know through Interfaith work. Other easy, even pleasant tasks involve reading, going to the scriptural texts or peering into the art and iconography. Ironically, recalling that the name of the young evangelical was Nick, I have a dear friend named Nick who is deeply involved in his evangelical faith, and every other Saturday morning cooks (with a little help), for 50 to 70 men who are committed to mission work and the duty of conversion. I do love him and have made some fine connections with men in that group. I rarely attend though, in part because I’ll only go if I can arrive by five AM (and that is a time of day that is easier for me to stay up to than to get up for!) and spend time with this authentically spiritual man, but also because I find myself sometimes reacting strongly against the attitudes and beliefs of a majority of those who attend. As a member of the Unity faith I believe there is only One Presence and One Power in the universe and in my life – God the Good, evangelicals place great emphasis on “Satan” or “the Adversary” and see that Being as the source of evil. Our Unity understanding is that “evil” is human in origin and the product of error thinking, of a cramped and limited view of the world; the word “sin” originally was a term from archery and meant “to miss the mark”.

After a careful reading and heartfelt consideration of Mr. Patel’s article I can see that there is good, if hard, work for me to do on those Saturday mornings. But in compensation the breakfasts are amazing, Nick is a very fine cook, spares no expense, and most importantly, is liberal with that special seasoning called love. Eating at his table feeds the soul as well as the body.