Search

In our world today we continue to see alarming degrees of religiously-motivated conflict, religious and political polarization, politicization of religion, politicization of irreligion, religious nationalism, hostility toward religious minorities, and myriad other concerns. Why is religious literacy important in addressing such challenges?

Part of the answer is very straightforward: religious literacy is important because the opposite of religious literacy—religious illiteracy—is clearly implicated in the kinds of challenges I just mentioned. For instance, religious illiteracy about one’s own faith leaves one susceptible to simplistic politicization of that faith, and to absorbing only a distorted and selective version of the faith—a truncated faith that merely validates self-interest and pre-existing prejudices. Likewise, religious illiteracy about the faiths of others can lead to stereotyping and demonizing the religious other, and to scapegoating and persecuting religious minorities.

While the problems with religious illiteracy may be obvious, the case for religious literacy is more complicated. After all, a merely textbook knowledge of religions does not necessarily translate directly into social harmony in religiously diverse societies.

As I argued in an address at IGE’s recent conference in the Republic of Georgia, a holistic form of religious literacy holds the best chance of fostering positive social effects. This form of religious literacy is called “cross-cultural religious literacy.” The point of adding the words “cross-cultural” to “religious literacy” is to indicate a form of religious literacy that is not passive or merely academic, but rather a proactive disposition and practice of crossing over – that is, actively learning about and developing mutually-respectful relationships across lines of religious difference.

“Cross-cultural religious literacy” (CCRL) is a concept first developed by IGE President Emeritus Chris Seiple. It grows largely out of the experiences of IGE in relational, track 1.5 diplomacy over the last couple decades. As Dr. Seiple and I explain in a Review of Faith & International Affairs article, religious literacy becomes cross-culturally relevant and beneficial when we aim for three interrelated competencies: a personal competency, a comparative competency, and a collaborative competency.

To have “personal competency” in religious literacy is to understand one’s own spiritual, moral, and epistemological framework—including one’s own religious scriptures and traditions and what they say about engaging the other. This rich kind of self-knowledge is crucial and too often overlooked in the contemporary discourse about religious literacy and inter-faith relations.

Second, there’s the comparative competency. To have “comparative competency” is to understand the spiritual, moral, and epistemological framework of the religious other, and what that spiritual framework says about multi-faith engagement. What’s crucially important here is to try to understand the lived religion of the religious other, in a particular place. It’s a matter of understanding people where they actually are, which may not completely align with a textbook definition of a religion.

And third, there’s the collaborative competency. To have “collaborative competency” in religious literacy is to have a practical understanding of the specific contexts of any proposed multi-faith collaboration. In other words, it involves understanding the particular contextual factors in any given situation – factors such religious demography and trends, the history of ethnic and race relations, the organizational cultures involved, power dynamics, and so on – which may be relevant to developing and implementing a project in a multi-faith, collaborative way.

This definition of CCRL is, of course, ambitious and aspirational. Still, even if “perfect CCRL” remains forever unattainable, the urgency of our global challenges is too great, the stakes too high, for us to aim for less.

Nor can we afford to prioritize other goals, however worthy they may be, in a way that ignores or excludes CCRL. Indeed, there 4 major goals that are often lauded in interfaith meetings, each of which is a good goal, but would be better, more complete, if pursued in the context of CCRL. These 4 goals are: knowledge, moderation, tolerance, and religious freedom.

First, knowledge. General knowledge about world religions is good, but not enough. To be sure, knowing basic “facts” about religious history, beliefs, practices, etc. can be helpful. But real life is not a quiz on world religions, and ability to regurgitate information about religions is not enough. Unfortunately we all know that there are people who possess knowledge of religions but nevertheless harbor hostile, anti-pluralist sentiments about the religious other.

As such, it is important to place the task of religious literacy within a broader moral vision for how to live peacefully and productively with religious diversity. One such vision is called “covenantal pluralism.” The word “covenantal” here does not mean a theological sort of “covenant,” but rather a social covenant inclusive of everyone—people of any faith or no faith. A pluralism that is covenantal in this sense is robust and relational, not indifferent and relativistic. Religious literacy should be oriented to a social covenant of mutual respect. As the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote, a social covenant is “a bond, not of interest or advantage, but of belonging … [A covenant is] where we develop the grammar and syntax of reciprocity, where we help others and they help us without calculations of relative advantage—where trust is born.”

The second goal that I would suggest is a good goal, but not sufficient without CCRL, is “moderation.” In the context of inter-faith relations, in my experience calls for “moderation” too often over-reach and become calls for a kind of ideology of relativism. Under an ideology of relativism, people of strong religious commitments and doctrinal convictions are sometimes excluded, or expected to check their religion at the door before they may enter the room of dialogue.

Such exclusion runs the risk of making inter-faith dialogue rather banal and unrepresentative. As Miroslav Volf has argued, it is quite possible to be a “non-moderate” in one’s personal religious beliefs, while at the same time being a sincere pluralist when it comes to social and political life. Such “non-moderate pluralists” should not be excluded from the conversation. Put differently, under a paradigm of CCRL, the requirement for a seat at the table of dialogue is not a relativistic theology but rather a robustly pluralistic ethic, one emphasizing equality of human dignity and equal rights and fair treatment in public life.

A third goal that I’d suggest is good, but would be more complete with CCRL, is “tolerance.” In our fast-globalizing world, “tolerance” is certainly noble and necessary as a general norm. Nevertheless, tolerance—in and of itself—is not sufficient for the challenge of living well with deep diversity. One problem is that framing the imperative in terms of “tolerance” can suggest a posture of privilege, even condescension. No one wants merely to be “tolerated,” as if their presence is only grudgingly and tenuously accepted. A second problem is that a casual and thin concept of tolerance is too easily coupled with indifference. As Sir John Templeton, founder of the Templeton Religion Trust, wrote, “Tolerance may be a divine virtue, but it could also become a vehicle for apathy.”

Accordingly, CCRL strongly affirms tolerance, but with eyes wide open about religious difference. The prominent religious studies scholar Stephen Prothero puts it bluntly: “Tolerance is an empty virtue if you don’t even understand what you are tolerating.”

Finally, a fourth goal that I’d suggest is good, but would be more complete with CCRL, is religious freedom. While legal protections for religious freedom are vitally important and a core dimension of universal human rights, a law or constitutional clause promising religious freedom is not the same thing as an actual sustainable environment of religious freedom. As IGE has long argued, a sustainable environment of religious freedom in any society requires the combination of positive conditions both from the “top-down” and the “bottom-up.” From the “top down,” governments need to protect the free exercise of religion and treat all religions with fairness and equal regard. From the “bottom up,” religious and belief communities need to voluntarily use their freedom responsibly—exercising good citizenship, expressing and living out neighborly virtues, and contributing to the common good.

In short, religious literacy is good—but cross-cultural religious literacy is even better. Armed with personal, comparative, and collaborative competencies in engaged religious literacy, we are best positioned to not just survive but thrive in a world of deep religious diversity.