I am currently reviewing an inter-religious dialogue (IRD) toolkit being developed by a large international organisation. The toolkit is intended to help government officials think about how, in their official capacity, they can support IRD, and in doing so, contribute to wider goals including promoting things like religious freedom and building community cohesion.
Given that the intention is that it should be a practical resource, the toolkit includes reflections on the challenges associated with IRD and ideas about how to work through them.
At time of writing, it is sadly the case that IRD (and interfaith activities in general) in the UK is under acute pressure and beset by challenges.
In considering those challenges, I have been pulling together a series of stories and opinion pieces published in the Jewish Chronicle over the last few months.
The links to the pieces are below and I try to present the four pieces with the minimal amount of editorialization on my part as possible. My intention is to illustrate tensions and challenges within IRD rather than to make specific points about the stories highlighted. Nonetheless, I do think that it is possible to draw some conclusions from this collection. However, and in my experience, those conclusions are not exclusive to Jewish communities in the UK. Far from it, these tensions and critiques emerge in many faith communities.
The first article, dated 21 September 2023, (so prior to the Hamas atrocities, and the subsequent extreme violence in Gaza) criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury for hosting individuals at a dialogue event who, in the view of the author, hold questionable or extreme views. The thrust of the argument being that those holding questionable or indeed extreme views should de facto be excluded from all dialogue processes. However, it is also clear that the author is disdainful of the idea of dialogue:
“It’s all good interfaith work. Let’s get out of our bunkers and share time and chat with people from other faiths. Blah, blah, blah… you know the way it goes.”
Next an article (by the same author) dated 12 October 2023 (ie days after the horrific Hamas attacks) entitled “Why Aren’t More Non-Jews Rallying to our Side?” in which the author suggests that most non-Jews are indifferent (at best) to the feelings of Jews in the UK.
Third an article dated 11 January 2024 in which the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis calls for “brave” dialogue, particularly with Muslims. The Chief Rabbi talks about using dialogue as an opportunity to challenge, as he sees it, difficult ideas which others might hold (in this instance about Israel).
The final article, dated 22 February 2024 mentions in passing the effective closure of the Interfaith Network of the UK by the government in which the author (same as the first two articles) is supportive of the move. The stated reason, and one which the author supports, being that there was a historic connection between one individual and an organisation with which the government chooses not.
So to summarise in chronological order: the presence in interfaith spaces of those holding views which are perceived as extreme legitimates those views and in any case interfaith processes are mainly platitudinous; other faith communities are not rallying around a faith community experiencing pain; interfaith dialogue is important because it is an opportunity to challenge views and perceptions about matters of central importance to the identity of different faith communities; it is not controversial to shut down spaces where there is the possibility that people will hold views in opposition to one another, including views which are potentially controversial.
In the interest of transparency, it is worth noting that as a publication the Jewish Chronicle tends to be skeptical of IRD. However, such skepticism is not unique to the editors of the Jewish Chronicle. It is for that reason that it is useful to consider the content of these pieces and what they might say about how people feel about religion in society, and IRD in particular.
Re-reading the articles, it feels like there is a cluster of anxieties about the nature of IRD: that it is irrelevant and can be treated disdainfully, but also that interfaith spaces are welcoming to those holding views which are unacceptable. That irrelevance and the potential for ‘un-safety’ renders IRD processes vulnerable to being at best side-lined, and at worst, shut down.
Then there is a cluster of anxieties about the intent of those in IRD spaces. This seems to be connected to an assumption that convenors and participants in IRD do not take the process itself seriously. Furthermore, and as a consequence of this, IRD spaces cannot be opportunities for thorough discussion and exchange of ideas, including disagreement.
It is unlikely to come as a surprise that I would challenge both these sets of anxieties. IRD spaces should not be irrelevant, and they should be spaces in which robust conversation can take place (with appropriate facilitation and support). However, and this is where I loop back to the toolkit under-review, if those spaces are under-resourced, marginalised, dismissed as peripheral as compared to ‘harder’ security-focused approaches, the risk is that IRD processes enter a doom-loop, until they cease to function at all.
Again, for me to suggest that this is short-sighted is hardly surprising, but given the (outsize, certainly at present) role which questions of religion and belief play in issues of community cohesion and religious freedom (to name but two) it is surprising that IRD processes should be as maligned as they are. If we take seriously the proposition that community cohesion and religious freedom are important priorities, it must surely follow that supporting and promoting the processes by which those issues can be effectively and positively managed be appropriately resourced.
Finally, some readers will have spotted that I did not speak to the question of the seeming lack of solidarity between faith communities. This is a painful one, but to me, IRD spaces are the places in which meaningful relationships across lines of religious difference start to form. If those spaces are maligned, and participation in them discouraged, the formation of those relationships must suffer. My fear, and I am sorry to be ending on a low note, but my fear is that much as the investment and institutional support offered to IRD processes can enter doom-loops, so too can community engagement with such spaces. As the messaging around participation gets increasingly negative and hostile, the harder it becomes for people to choose to engage. The result must therefore be fewer relationships being formed and less solidarity and understanding.
Participation in IRD processes is not easy, it does require being in uncomfortable conversations with people with whom one might profoundly disagree. However, to paint IRD processes exclusively in these maximalist terms is unhelpful too. In my experience, the reality is more nuanced – most people want to learn from one another, most want to find a way to get along, and it is in learning to navigate that complexity that solutions emerge and friendships are formed.
Thank you for reading this far, I would love to hear what you think!
Josh Cass 