Is religious co-operation really all that liberal?

MinaretEcumenism and interfaith dialogue is big news these days. Last year Baroness Warsi, a Muslim, led a delegation from the UK, an officially Anglican state, to meet the Pope, and the result was a bit of a multifaith love-in. And just recently, I read about a new trend of Convergence Christianity, specifically described as not simply blending into a moderate middle, but rather being more open to discussion and adopting elements of each other’s practices, despite differences.

Ecumenical relations are often held to be a good thing, a sign of increasing religious liberalism and willingness to compromise. That’s a fairly obvious conclusion to draw when different religious traditions are prepared to talk and listen instead of condemning each other, but there’s another angle that may be worth considering.

What this trend suggests to me is not that these different religious traditions are more ready to admit that they may be wrong (although that’s probably true in some cases), but that they need the strength and safety in numbers that comes from identifying with a wider group. Given the chance, these groups would cheerfully fight each other, as Christians and Muslims have been for the last thousand years or so. The primary motivating factor here is not compromise and willingness to admit error, but weakness.

CandlesTake a look at Baroness Warsi’s statements at the time of the Vatican delegation. Her motivation is hardly obscure – she’s calling in reinforcements in the battle against those nasty “militant” secularists who object to religion having a privileged position in society. The battle’s being lost, so religious traditions that have barely been on speaking terms for centuries are huddling together for warmth. Pope Francis’s recent pronouncements have had a similar air, despite trying to include even atheists in his “big tent”.

Everyone believes their position is the right one (obviously), and important (hence the objection to secularism), so why align with a different group? Because they can agree on enough to unite against the common enemy, like Tom and Jerry fighting a new cat in the house. They don’t see eye to eye, but arguments between religions are a luxury they can ill afford when their most basic assumptions are threatened.

Clouds OpeningThe less influence a particular sect, denomination or religion has, the more important it is to form alliances to protect their territory. That cuts the other way as well – as a group gets bigger, it has less need of the greater influence that comes from unity, leading to splits and schisms like the ones that have emerged within atheism in recent years.

When considering any apparent interfaith initiative, there are simple ways to tell the difference between genuine liberal discussion and self-interested coalition building – is it open to people of all faiths and none, and is it independent of any attempt to prop up the position of religion in the public sphere?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, there’s a good chance that genuine progress and dialogue is being achieved. Otherwise, I suspect it’s just a cynical ploy.

Images courtesy of Eastop, _teq_ and robby_m, used with permission

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

About Recovering Agnostic

I'm Christian by upbringing, agnostic by belief, cynical by temperament, broadly scientific in approach, and looking for answers. My main interest at the moment is in turning my current disengaged shrug into at least a working hypothesis.

5 responses to “Is religious co-operation really all that liberal?”

  1. Wen Scott says :

    Didn’t the fight between state and church already happen? How very medieval.

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      You raise an interesting point – why does the state have any interest in taking a religious position? Even when we have an established church, I’m not sure of the answer, given that their religious position is being represented by a woman who belongs to a completely different faith.

  2. Rene Yoshi says :

    I really appreciate the point you made regarding banding together out of a sense of weakness as opposed to compromising for the sake of unity. I had never before considered that perspective, but it’s an excellent observation!

  3. RS says :

    Hi RA,

    thank you for your blog which I stumbled across via your post on Spufford’s “Unapologetic”. I just wanted to recommend an interesting perspective on interfaith at this link:

    http://www.stephaniedowrick.com/blog/what-is-interfaith-stephanie-dowrick-explores-a-very-contemporary-question/

    Personally I feel that the kind of spiritually inclusive ideals referred to in this article provide the only hope and direction for those of us – me, at least – who have become (walked away long ago) completely disillusioned/ frustrated/ exasperated/depressed with existing organised religions which, more often than not, seem to miss the point entirely.

    Anyway.. all the best and thanks again for your ongoing seeking and questioning..

Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: