Presenter: Ian Fry

The impact of the progressive globalization of economic, political and social systems has been quite contrary to the principles of communal Identity, Justice, and Peace. It is therefore contrary to the principles of all world religions, which, together, foster the common ideals of support for the welfare of one’s fellows and the whole of humanity, justice and communal harmony.

We meet to discuss the quest for identity, justice, and peace in this particular region, East Asia and the Pacific Islands, but we are at a critical point in humanity’s communal evolution and the whole world is in a very unstable situation that involves two quite distinct factors that are not related only to our region. They are the dynamic growth in world population towards a peak and then a point of equilibrium, and the deliberate misuse of religious affiliation for political purposes. Thus we cannot consider one region in isolation. There is no isolation. The overall context in which we meet to consider these matters is therefore the place of humanity and systematic religion in universal existence and evolution.

Chart 1, is therefore my starting point. It illustrates a continuum in universal creation, evolution and decay, and it indicates another continuum – only one of many – in biological and human evolution and, ultimately - in the physical sense which we understand - humanity’s inevitable demise.

The total period of human existence to date, (apparently between four and five million years), is infinitesimal compared with the age and the future of the universe and the period potentially available for human life on earth – as these are currently understood.

But that dramatic appearance of humanity, as illustrated in chart 2, conceals a whole host of other fundamental continuum. Of immediate interest to us are the evolution of human communal patterns and economic activity, the accumulation of knowledge through personal endeavour - call it research - and the evolution of systematic religion.

The period during which systematic religion has evolved cannot be shown with any clarity on a graph restricted to the period of human history, chart 3, and the period of rapid population growth from one billion to the projected population plateau of between eight and nine billion – a mere ten generations (250 years) – can only be indicated and not illustrated.

To illustrate the period during which systematic religion has evolved and to relate that process to the dynamic growth in the human population requires another chart, 4. [See pages following with notes]

I am happy to accept that because the Divine Creative Force, God, determined a smooth entry into the scheme of universal existence for humanity there may also be a smooth exit – unless humanity, through its greed, irresponsibility and conflict, brings about a traumatic end to its own existence. If it does so then it may be merely another hairline alongside the one shown in chart 1 until a successor to humanity has reached the equivalent of our present stage of both biological and communal evolution and has the opportunity to manage affairs more effectively than its Homo sapiens predecessors. Of course population decimation without elimination would leave a remnant population with the opportunity to pick up the threads and learn from past transgressions.

On this basis the fundamental role of systematic religion is quite apparent: to enable all humanity to live in harmony and stability within the capacity of our world to sustain it for whatever term may be the divine intention. But the evolution of religious belief and systematic religion has indeed been complex and, although some streams claim that their faith and their understanding reached finality at a certain time in history, religious evolution is in fact an ongoing process. No faith, Abrahamic or otherwise, was promulgated with its beliefs, laws and customs delivered complete and final in a flash. The senior faith, Judaism, evolved through the experience of many people, some of whom experienced divine inspiration personally, and many of its principal characters contributed to the writing and compilation of its holy books over a long period. Its history spans 160 generations with long periods of torment and oppression, and while its circumstances have led to a worldwide presence it has not resulted from expansion by evangelism or proselytizing. The situation with Christianity is quite different. Its evolutionary time span is only half, (80 generations); the period of ministry of the principal character upon whose life and teaching its principal holy books is based was a mere three years; he did not contribute directly to the compilation of those books, the first of which was not written until some 20 years after his death; and it has sought to expand aggressively through evangelism, syncretism and proselytizing. And Islam’s circumstances are different again. Its principal holy book, the Qur’an, was recorded in its entirety from the inspired recitations of one man, the Prophet Muhammad, over a period of 22 years, say a span of one generation, during which the faith assumed a complete form. Changes during the 56 generations since then have been limited and reflect pressures to which the community has been subjected rather than a process of evolutionary development.

Therefore before we accept any proposition that the beliefs of one religion or another are absolute, complete and paramount; that the relationship between faiths as we are accustomed to them are fixed, final and immutable, or that dialogue is only justified in order to reduce pressure against our particular religious community, we do well to reflect on chart 4 (notes) which outlines the overall evolution of religious understanding and the organization of systematic religion

Now although this conference is concerned essentially with the Asia-Pacific region some further historical background is required to establish the wider context within which we must work, and consideration of the immediate future requires some consideration of the timeframe for our quest and what we know of the circumstances in which we must work.

[See Chart 5]

Current projections are that the world population will rise from 6.55 billion to 9.2 billion 70 years from now, then stabilize at a sustainable plateau not far below that figure. In view of the fact that we are at the midpoint of the assessed life-supporting term of the solar system it is reasonable to hypothesize that it is Divine Intent that humanity should be around for quite a long time. But two things are quite apparent. First: humans are endowed with total freewill and are capable of expressing an endless array of emotions with both positive and negative implications for others, from understanding and cooperation, affection, love, compassion, support, empathy, sympathy, satisfaction, honesty and acceptance, to anger, rejection, dishonesty, jealousy, greed, resentment, intolerance and discrimination. Second: there will be some individuals and communities who assume aggressive competitiveness, a hunger for power, insensitivity to the needs of others and the proper use of resources, and for whom ambition to secure a position of privilege and preeminence will justify any means without regard to their capacity to cause total devastation and to eliminate their species.

In view of those considerations several other matters become self-evident. First: chronic conflict and instability will occur in a situation of "population overload " or in circumstances such that the availability of resources is not equal to the demand until a situation of equilibrium is achieved. Second: by Divine Intent there will be a mechanism by which such aggression may be restrained to enable harmony and stability to be achieved together with population-resource equilibrium so that human life may be sustained for whatever is the term of Divine Intent. Third: that mechanism is divine provision for the continuing evolution of systematic religion in such a manner that humanity will be enabled to adequately understand its relationship with God and to live and manage its affairs consistent with Divine Intent.

There is no general agreement about the nature or mechanism of divine intervention in human affairs or on what can be regarded as the earliest phase of religious observance or worship. We can only trace in outline (as in chart 4) the history of belief in, or experience of, "supernatural" events that humans could not explain or comprehend - the role of sharman, witches and medicine men in psychic, remedial or antagonistic intervention - and the evolution of religious observances. However it appears that after a period in which people and communities sought supernatural, external or divine intervention in their affairs, urbanization occurred, monarchies were established and deities and sacrificial practices were adopted. This probably reflects efforts to impose religious conformity as a means of gaining political stability through the expectation of favourable external intervention, rather than an acknowledgement of prior intervention by the deity. The surviving records of the Abrahamic tradition are therefore the earliest we have that indicate recognition of divine intervention, and these mark a critical point in the evolution of systematic religion under divine influence.

The proliferation of systems of religious practice and holy books, either evolving concurrently or successively, was to be expected in circumstances in which there was substantial isolation between communities evolving quite independently of each other, with no system of inter-communal communication, and when there was a gradually increasing need for guidance in human conduct. That pattern was in no way, inconsistent with what we can perceive to be divine authority, and these were the circumstances during the period of seventeen or eighteen centuries prior to the Common Era when the foundations for each of the world faith systems were laid through the lives and works of the people on whose teachings those faith systems were based.

Similarly, there is nothing inconsistent in the notion that people, or communities, may be charged with particular aspects of an overall program or responsibility. Thus, while the "founders" of each of the world faiths were divinely inspired and called to undertake a fundamental task, Abraham and his successors were charged with a particular responsibility. The fundamental task for each of them was to lead their communities to live in circumstances of stability and harmony for whatever may be the term of human existence, and to recognize their relationship with the totality of creation. But the particular and very daunting obligation that fell on Abraham and his successors – within the framework of that fundamental task – was to lead humanity-at-large towards, firstly, an understanding of the external force that brought it into being as one component of the totality of creation, and, secondly, an understanding of its relationship with the external force: God.

Thus, world faiths fall into two equally legitimate groups – Abrahamic faiths and non-Abrahamic faiths. We can identify two lines of continuum. One runs through the entire framework of religious and human communal evolution. The other runs through the rise and evolution of the Abrahamic streams. There was no reason for either division within them or competition between any of them, except to the extent that one or another might harbour idolatry, erroneous beliefs, the want for a position of pre-eminence, or conduct contrary to divine guidance. In fact such division and competition occurred within particular sub-streams of both the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic streams.

The key distinction between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic faiths is that each of the sub-streams within the Abrahamic stream is subject to a Divine Covenant (or a commission). Such a covenant, each of which is imposed by God, has three elements and is not negotiable: a promise or an undertaking by God, an obligation imposed on the second party, and a penal clause that may be invoked by God if, in God’s judgment, the second party has failed to honour its obligation. But to be subject to a covenant and to be chosen for a particular task does not mean that one religious community is superior to others. It is simply required to honour and to act on the obligation imposed on it, and, in view of the fundamental role of each community of faith, it is mandatory that it work to ensure the key concepts of stability, harmony and sustainability. Any neglect of those concepts, or action contrary to them, is clearly a breech of covenant and therefore may invoke the penalty clause. And when we relate that understanding to current circumstances and the critical phase of human communal evolution as we approach the population peak the conclusion we will reach is a matter for serious reflection.

The proportion of that peak population in the white Western Christian category, referred to in the chart as the "North", will have fallen from one in six people at present to one in eight; but the proportion of resources they will consume (if our political and commercial leaders continue and succeed on the basis of their current policies) will only have fallen from four to one, to about 50:50. In other words, instead of 17 percent of the world population consuming 80 percent of the available resources, a mere 13 percent will still consume half of the resources flowing in world trade. Put another way, (and these figures are adapted downwards to allow for the vagaries of such assessments), the North currently consumes a number of key commodities at a per capita rate somewhere around 12 to 15 times more than the South, and if current policies and trends continue the North will still consume at a per capita rate of around five to six times the South when the peak is reached.

That scenario is not conducive to stability, harmony and sustainability or to universal fulfillment through communal identity, justice and peace. From several points of view – human dynamics, environmental degradation and the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources – it is a recipe for universal disaster. To allow that situation to occur is clearly not consistent with the covenantal obligations of each of the Abrahamic faiths. If we accept that, then we must consider the third aspect of each covenant: the penal clause. So: if we are to be able to relate the religious beliefs and the conduct of religious communities to the urgent quest for identity, justice and peace as we approach the population peak we must review the way in which religion, or the abuse of religion, has contributed to the crises we face. It is a sobering thought that many of our children and our grandchildren must hope to be here at the peak and it will be they who must manage the world’s affairs to ensure that those requirements are met.

We meet to discuss the quest for identity, justice, and peace on a regional basis, but the whole world is in a very unstable situation and it involves two quite distinct factors that are not related only to our region. We can help to stabilize the overall world situation with an effort focussed primarily on the East Asia-Pacific region, but if we restrict our efforts to this region then the outcomes will be similarly restricted. And, because religion is a key consideration, a process to reassess fundamental religious concepts is vital.

The pre-conference portion of this paper introduced several considerations relating to historical continuum and contemporary policies and attitudes as background to this proposal for three prongs in a coordinated program to move towards a world of justice and peace.

First: A continuum runs through universal creation, evolution and decay, one aspect of which is humanity’s biological evolution and anticipated ultimate demise.

Second: Another continuum runs through the evolution of systematic religion as a precursor to an abrupt surge in the human population to a peak preceding long-term equilibrium.

Third: The twin continuum indicates that the role of systematic religion is to develop such understandings that humanity is enabled to live in circumstances of stability and harmony for whatever may be the term of human existence.

Fourth: The evolution of two groups of world faiths, equally legitimate, with one group being subject to divine covenants (and the other not), and the proliferation of sub-streams is consistent with the circumstances of the twin continuum.

Fifth: Attitudes and policies that currently dominate human affairs are not conducive to stability, harmony and sustainability with universal fulfillment through justice and peace. They are quite the opposite. They presage divine intervention through the mechanisms of covenant and human interaction (in the event that appropriate corrective programs are not implemented) to ensure that Divine Intent is not subverted by the way in which human free will is exercised.

These considerations indicate the critical need for a review of the way in which religion, or the abuse of religion, has contributed to the crisis we face, and for urgent, coordinated programs to correct the situation.

Strained relations between nations and the increased incidence of religion-related personal attacks and communal conflict have led to increased intervention in the affairs of religious organizations and harassment or oppression of their adherents by governments in many countries in recent years.

Sometimes intervention has been with formal legislative authority, but quite often by bureaucratic decision encouraged by the attitude of influential politicians. The International Crisis Group, many civil society organizations, units of the United the Nations, and some governments are monitoring the situation. The current pattern of incidents shows that they are directly related to the level of tension and conflict resulting from the series of crises in the Middle East. However, such cases of intervention in religious affairs and regulation of religious activity are not a new phenomenon. European powers used both formal and informal procedures to regulate non-Christian religious affairs extensively in their colonies. A number of European and Central Asian countries are currently and blatantly regulating the affairs of any religious faith community that is out of favour; and the classic case, the regulation of religion in post-war Japan by the US administration for purely political purposes, is discussed later in this paper. Currently the United States seeks to influence the conduct of other governments either by diplomatic approaches or the use of sanctions, and its intervention is not always helpful.

Government intervention usually occurs because some people are disadvantaged by what other people do on the basis of their belief, or under instructions from superiors, and it may also occur because communal self-understanding is threatened.

History is littered with cases in which people have been denigrated or attacked simply on the basis of their belief and not because of their conduct and, as surely as in any other case, a cycle of action and reaction sets in. Early examples include the stoning of Stephen for preaching that Jesus of Nazareth was the Just One for whom the Jews were waiting, and the denigration of Jewish belief and practice by Procurator Florus. A more recent but equally critical example is the persecution of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France on the 1890s.

But in addition, when one faith group or another claims to be the beneficiary of a preferential or exclusive Divine Covenant and places paramount importance on one particular aspect of its relationship with God, there is a problem. The group develops a rationale for its existence and teaching, and its consequent generalized self-understanding distracts its adherents and the community-at-large from the fundamental reality that all humans are equal in God’s sight, and inhibits the faith group’s capacity to pursue its basic role. It becomes the focal point for dissent, tension and efforts to secure or maintain a position of privilege or preeminence, and undermines prospects for stability and harmony. It becomes a stumbling block. It must be seen as having breeched its obligation under covenant just as if it had totally rejected it. Both actions are equally subject to the penal clause, and must be considered in the context of our climb to the population peak.

However it is situations in which there has been manipulation of religious belief and association to achieve a political objective that have had the most dramatic consequences and have contributed to a chain reaction that has brought us to the current state of crisis.

We can trace the chain through selected case studies¹

First: actions taken by the early Church in an effort to manipulate the imperial powers of the first millennium CE so that it could impose its interpretation of the norms of social and communal conduct on all peoples. The basis of those actions was its claim to an exclusive covenantal relationship with God, and divine authority to determine all such matters, and the establishment of constitutional links between the church and temporal powers.

Those actions were a major influence in the establishment of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as separate streams of faith. Subsequently, the policies it pursued, and the relationships with temporal powers that it fostered and became dependant upon, enabled the church to ride into the non-European world at the end of the 15^th century CE in a position of dominance, able to rebuff any overtures or claims to equality by the communities of both Judaism or Islam and any other faiths with which it came in contact. With such relationships it expected to be able to impose its moral and civil codes on all peoples who came within its sphere of influence. It felt supremely secure, claiming divine protection, believing it would never have to justify its attitude or defend its position, thinking primarily of divine promises rather than obligations or penal clauses, and totally unprepared for changing circumstances and the challenges of the twentieth century.

Through the sale of indulgences for the remission of all temporal punishment for sins that, according to its rites, would have normally incurred penance, the church raised funds and recruited an army for a crusade with the stated aim of recovering Jerusalem from Muslim control. The long-term consequences were devastating. In slaughtering whole villages of Jews who wouldn’t accept instant baptism, its army converted the disparate Rhineland communities of Jews, which included people from the Khazar Khanate and others whose ancestral home was Palestine, into a cohesive community without distinction between its people on the basis of ancestral origin. When the army reached Constantinople and the Bosporus 300,000 were slaughtered by well disciplined Turks; they were declared (by the Pope) to be martyrs; enshrined as heroes of religious mythology; helped the church generate deeper hatred towards Muslims as devils incarnate, and became the justification for later phases of the Crusades.

Those measures were based on its claim that it had divinely delegated authority to determine monarchies, their temporal powers, and the allocation of territory. Specifically, the Pope issued a series of bulls with promises of territory and privileges to those kings who would support him in his ventures. In doing so he precipitated national competition for colonial territories in an atmosphere of intense religious fervour; blessed the rape of the America’s and Africa, and incited equally intense competition for "souls" when Christian missioners were confronted by Muslims, or other religious communities, at trading posts along the way.

Governments of each of Britain (especially in the cases of India and Japan), France (China, Indo China/Vietnam, Thailand), and the United States (Japan, Thailand), blatantly coupled their churches and their naval and military power to force entry into the countries of East Asia during the Colonial Era, and then sought to consolidate their control by favouring one faith community over another. In doing so they undermined existing systems of governance; discredited the cultural heritage of the region; imposed religious divisions which became major considerations in both internal and regional conflicts between the two world wars and subsequently; imposed economic and financial arrangements which facilitated foreign investment and control of resources with gross imbalance in benefits flowing to the foreign powers; and ensured that the region would become embroiled in a series of traumatic wars of independence in which further foreign intervention would be "justified" by the perceived need to enforce stability, and to sustain political and economic systems and military bases favourable to the foreign powers. [The network of intrigue and the consequences are so complex that they can only be noted in this paper, but some discussion of the nature and extent of the manipulation is set out in Trouble in the Triangle. ²]

The British Government’s Balfour Declaration on November 2nd, 1917, was expected to provide benefits for both the government and the Jewish communities of Britain and Europe. For the government: support from the Jewish banking houses in financing its war effort; a decision by post-revolution Russia to remain in the war against Germany; greater support from the US public and Congress; and access to the Iraqi oil fields through Palestine. For the Jewish communities: a homeland in Palestine. However the consequences included: the invasion of Russia by Britain, France and the US, precipitating the radicalization of Russia; the rise to power of Adolf Hitler; the Holocaust; postwar turmoil in the Middle East and Britain’s reneging on the Balfour Declaration; intense pressure on the United States to take up the role of protector of the Zionist cause; the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Bloc and the West; and trauma in the Middle East following the establishment of the State of Israel.

Immediately on taking up his post as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, SCAP, in Japan in September 1945 General Douglas MacArthur directed its Religious Division to ignore Allied policy that there was to be total religious freedom, to accelerate the entry of Christian missionaries and facilitate their programs, and to dismantle the structures of Shinto influence by imposing the Shinto Directive. He was determined to prevent Communism from making inroads into Japan by using any weapon at his disposal, including religion. His rationale was that if Japan was not Christianized it would be filled with Communism and that to Christianize Japan was a first step toward saving Asia from Communism.

That direction compounded the Soviet mistrust of the United States which had its origins in US involvement in the WW I invasion to reverse the Russian Revolution, many years of denigration, and its decision to develop and use the atomic bomb without confiding in its Soviet allies. The consequences included the partition of Korea and acceleration of the slide into the ideological Cold War and the arms race, but they went much further. China’s determination to become a nuclear power was triggered when McArthur threatened it with an atomic attack if it intervened in the Korean Peninsular. The Soviet Union determined to assist countries of Asia and Africa in trade and in the development of their own economic structures rather than see them obliged to accept a "one-size-fits-all" version of Capitalism forced on them by either the US-sponsored Bretton Woods institutions which were established with the key motive of keeping control of the world economy in US and Western hands, or simply the overwhelming economic strength of the imperial powers which had been achieved largely at the expense of their colonies.

In addition the Shinto Directive angered other countries affected by the earlier misuse of the influence of Christian missions, and encouraged a backlash against Christian communities wherever an armed struggle was necessary to break colonial rule and, more generally, as Western authority began to subside. However, anger at McArthur’s policy was probably greatest in China where the US Army had, concurrent with McArthur’s occupation of Japan, sponsored the return to China of Christian missionaries as fast as possible and integrated the surrendering Japanese forces into US forces to protect the Kuomintang leader, the Christian protégé of the US, Chiang Kai-shek, as he struggled against the Communist forces to retain control of a number of coastal enclaves.³ The situation was then further aggravated by a succession of US policy decisions. First, in November 1947: the threat to withdraw China’s access to Marshall Plan aid if it did not support the partition of Palestine to establish a state for Jews.⁴ Second, in 1949: to protect Chiang Kai-shek in his escape to the Chinese island of Taiwan to set up a Kuomintang government there after the failure of the 1947 constitution which had been introduced for the purpose of power sharing. Third: to insist that China’s vote in the United Nations be held by Chiang Kai-shek’s government-in-exile. Fourth: to use its influence on countries that had no part in Cold War manoeuvring to isolate China from world trade. We cannot wonder that the Chinese Communist Government’s attitude towards neo-colonial religious imperialism remains the same today.

With those case histories in mind we can note the factors involved in contemporary personal and community reaction against Globalization

Conflicts are generated when people are exposed to external criticism, influence or interference in their traditional or long-established community structures, social norms, religious beliefs, self-understanding and welfare status in such a manner that these are variously modified by, undermined or simply challenged by external influences.

This has been the natural situation through the entire period of human evolution, and it will continue to be so. It is a natural function of communal evolution and it can be managed with a minimum of trauma for all parties concerned with good will and understanding. However the extent and severity of change-conflict has increased in a direct relationship with increased cross-cultural contact as a result of several factors. These are the world population explosion; advances in the total pool of knowledge associated with it; differing patterns of availability of the expanding pool of knowledge; the mass movement of refugees and migrants; the development and imposition of conflicting systems of trade, finance, economic management, and political and legal structures (especially including land tenure and resource ownership systems); dramatic advances in transport and communications, and restrictions imposed on the transfer of information and technology.

From several points of view – human dynamics, environmental degradation and the rate of consumption of available resources – the continuation of the current trend in world affairs is a recipe for universal disaster. The alternative scenario B indicates what we should be working towards, while scenario C indicates a distinct and very disturbing possibility if we do not adopt radically new directions. [Chart 6]

At present the Western world is focused on Islam to the point of preoccupation. Islam is widely represented as the only threat to the global hegemony of the United States and therefore to the stability and economic well being of the whole of the white Western Christian world.

Its attention is constantly drawn to terrorist attacks by ‘radical Islamists’ on Western targets, and to the Islamization of whole regions, either by evangelism or by political action. The implication is that the expansion of Muslim influence is intrinsically a bad thing. The reality is that the Christian Church sat astride the fabric of international relationships for so long that its adherents were persuaded to accept its self-understanding that this was so by divine authority. That self-understanding was shaken a bit by the events and consequences of the Great War followed promptly by World War II, and the church changed direction to some extent but it did not undertake a thorough reassessment of itself or of its relationships with other faiths. Over two generations since then there have been a series of international shocks, each of which should have precipitated such a reassessment.

However the vital factor is an event that is central to the Common Era: the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It triggered a remarkable rebirth of Jewish intellectual endeavour, followed by a similar and equally remarkable rebirth of Muslim intellectual endeavour. But it also triggered a series of crises.

The first actually began in advance of the central event as a precursor of what was to follow. It was the first stage of the conflict in Palestine that began with the Balfour Declaration, determined the course of World War II, and reached its climax with the Arab-Israeli War on the proclamation of the State of Israel. Then, after a pause, came the Suez Crisis of 1956. Next: the Six-Day War in 1967. Then, in 1973, the Yom Kippur War provoked friends of the Palestinians to impose an embargo on supplies of petroleum to the principal supporters of Israel and the consequences of the US response precipitated an unsuccessful push for a New International Economic Order. Operation Galilee and civil war in Lebanon; the Iran-Iraq War running through the 1980s; Russia’s Glasnost and Perestroika in 1985; the rise of the Taliban; the First Gulf War; the carefully Western-orchestrated collapse of the Soviet Bloc; the Second Intifada and the related rise in Islamic fundamentalism have followed in succession.

Those crises encouraged a steady increase in Christian dialogue with Jews and Muslims, interfaith education, and reconciliation programs. But it took attacks on the US on September 11, 2001; the invasion of Afghanistan to instigate a ‘war on terror’, and a Second Gulf War to lift the need for interfaith dialogue programs to the point that governments are now prepared to assist with funding for them. Chart 7, the ‘crisis and instability’ graph, indicates why.

The trend line reflects the frequency and violence of religion-related wars, terrorist and retaliatory activity, and the consequential parallel establishment of new dialogue initiatives, interfaith organizations and programs for interfaith education.

We are at a critical point in humanity’s communal evolution. By default a handful of world leaders can condemn the world to chaos and degradation with a long struggle out of the gladiatorial pit, or, by deliberate decision, they can guide us along an enlightened path towards harmony and stability through justice and the enhancement of communal identity. But, considering the pressures that influence their decisions, and current Western self-understanding, they are unlikely to take the latter path unless leaders of faith communities apply strong, enlightened countervailing pressure informed by the research findings of their scholars. Thus there is a need for three concurrent programs.

FIRST: an intense and coordinated program of reassessment of the fundamental concepts around which the three Abrahamic faiths divide. This is the only way to disentangle the network of crises in which we are enmeshed, to determine the way ahead, to demonstrate to the world that each of the world faiths are legitimate instruments of divine will, and to enable all humanity to better understand its relationship with God. Some scholars are already working in this field. The process is natural: it is an inevitable response to critical circumstances and a logical extension of current dialogue programs. People cannot engage in dialogue without questions being raised and answers sought. But current efforts are ad hoc and not coordinated. To be expeditious and have optimum effect the process of reassessment requires scholars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to work in intimate collaboration and under the uninhibited scrutiny of scholars of the non-Abrahamic faiths.

SECOND: continuing dialogue programs, enhanced, with emphasis appropriate to the settings of each local, regional and international situation. These must encourage recognition of relevance and legitimacy, rapprochement and cooperation between communities of the three primary Abrahamic faiths; the elimination of conflict associated with religious prejudice; the generation of goodwill and harmony within the broader community; and the development of a better understanding within each community of the beliefs, liturgy, practices and aspirations of their partners in faith.

THIRD: an equally intense program with scholars from all disciplines working together to propose and to press for changes to the international economic order so that exploitative policies and practices are inhibited; capital structures, trading patterns, and monetary policies appropriate to each situation are facilitated; links between commercial manipulation, exploitation of people and foreign or minority religion are severed; and the misuse of resources and the undermining of cultural and communal norms are prevented. As a starting point proposals mooted by the Group of 77 and others during the period between the Yom Kippur War oil embargo and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc should be re-examined as the basis for a New International Economic Order.

These programs must each be global in scope, but the difficulties of organizing them, and the resistance to each of them, is obvious. The resistance is based on deeply held self-understanding, current patterns of capital control and transfer, and the want to either maintain a position of privilege or to attain a position of privilege must be countered. There must be a starting point and there is none better than collaboration across the wider region of the Asia-Pacific rim. It has significant academic institutions of each faith. It is the focus of the changing population pattern. It has three of the great economic powerhouses of the world that are currently in intense competition to drive the push towards unsustainability in resource use and environmental degradation. And the region is home to the nation that has most to lose in the event that there is a total breakdown in international relations over the issue of religion and the conduct or misconduct of the people of the three Abrahamic faiths: the United States.

The critical program is the reassessment of fundamental theological concepts. We are not talking about a simple academic exercise. We are not talking only about pride and prejudice in religious self-understanding. We are talking about the future of humanity. Nothing less. Therefore the program cannot be left lying in the too-hard basket. It must be tackled with whatever resources are available to people with the will to do so.

The form of the program can be as simple or as complex as those involved may wish within the parameters of the resources available. This proposal-in-outline is based on the understanding that none of the umbrella bodies of the primary Abrahamic faiths is prepared to initiate a critical reassessment of fundamental theological concepts around which they are divided, or to sponsor the proposed program. It is therefore quite straight forward, without the need for complex structures. Of course it is possible that an umbrella body for one faith or another may be prepared to take the initiative, but my experiences is that it is unlikely for several reasons.

1) The self-understanding of some sub-streams is so rigid that they will oppose any proposal for formal reassessment-by-research to the point of withdrawing from the relevant umbrella bodies or using their influence to prevent the program from proceeding.

2) Clergy and institutional leaders generally fear the consequences for their institutions, including the possibility that the faith of their adherents, or, more frankly, their confidence in their clergy and the historical integrity of the institutions, may be undermined if reassessment results in a significant change to their doctrinal statements.

3) The theology and religious practices of the core community of each faith are enmeshed in ethnic, historical, cultural and socio-economic considerations of the wider community of its adherents plus those who live and work within the traditions and ethos of that faith but are not committed adherents. (The Western "Christian community", Dar al-Islam or the umma, and the worldwide "Jewish community".) It is therefore very difficult to disentangle matters of faith from communal custom, communal self-understanding and the attitudes of each community towards the others.

4) Clergy and institutional leaders generally also fear a backlash against their adherents from two quarters: people outside their faith stream, and people within the loosely connected community whose assumptions of superiority may be undermined if reassessment shows that political, social and economic relationships have been developed or imposed on the basis of unsustainable theology, myths or, possibly, falsehoods. They therefore prefer to avoid confronting the issue rather than carefully assessing the implications of two alternatives: reassessment and managed change, or failure to act.

5) There is a lack of appreciation of the continuum in the evolution of systematic religion, its fundamental role, and the demonstrable historical relationship between promise, obligation and judgment in divine covenant. That lack of appreciation is the basis of points 1), 2), 3) and 4).

It is therefore necessary for authorities of goodwill in research-based educational institutions, or an international agency or Non-Government Organization, to initiate the process of reassessment. I hope it will be the case that, in spite of the reluctance of their parent bodies, some educational institutions affiliated with mainstream structures of faith will be prepared to participate in one way or another, and the umbrella bodies must not be written out of the process because they can undertake very significant tasks even if they are not directly involved in a formal program.

This proposal assumes intimate collaboration between scholars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in a planned program of research-based reassessment of the fundamental theological concepts around which their faiths divide. It has two prongs.

The first prong does not require a formal structure. Teams of scholars known to each other from prior professional contact – one from each faith – would simply agree to collaborate in jointly researching an agreed concept or a set of related beliefs, and would simply publish the product of their research through whatever institutional channels are normally available to them, or through professional associations or bodies such as CSIRID, the Centre for Social Inquiry Religion and Interfaith Dialogue.

The second prong does require a formal structure. The teams of scholars would be academic staff and candidates for higher degrees at whichever institutions are prepared and able to participate. They would be formally nominated for the program and supported by their institutions but would participate on the basis of their personal desire to do so and their recognized expertise in an appropriate field. To ensure adequate support and recognition for its work and effective distribution of theses and other papers the program would require sponsorship by a well-recognized institution or institutions and a Coordinating Group of eminent scholars drawn from each of the Abrahamic faiths.

The Sponsor could be an individual university which has centres or departments in each faith or a specialized interfaith institute or centre for dialogue; an established international network of universities; a credible established interfaith body set up to take peace initiatives or to sponsor significant dialogue programs; an international association or NGO that is already recognized as a sponsor of interfaith or peace studies, conferences or other activities of an international nature; or an inter-governmental agency with a liaison role or educational responsibilities. Its role would be to support the eminent scholars who meet to establish the Co-ordinating Group; to host that group, provide facilities and ongoing secretarial and communications services; and to assist it in locating whatever funds are required for the ongoing program. There are a number of philanthropic foundations that, on the basis of previous support for cross-cultural education and peace initiatives, might be expected to support the program.

The role of the Coordinating Group would include determining priorities for research, approving guidelines for projects; liaising with the network of institutions that undertook to support and supervise research candidates in their projects; consulting with the academic councils or their equivalent at each institution on matters relating to accreditation, support for candidates, examination by panels with examiners drawn from each faith, and the awarding of degrees; arranging the publication and distribution of research papers and theses to ensure their availability across the entire spectrum of communities of faith, their governing bodies, religious councils and educational institutions; and ensuring that the studies are widely and appropriately reported in the main languages of each faith to governments and lay media as well.

The program could possibly break new ground by establishing a basis for multiple-graduate fellowships for doctoral candidates. I envisage that in such cases, rather than three candidates each producing theses, which would be published in one integrated volume, three candidates, one from each faith, would jointly research a project under joint supervision. They would jointly author a thesis, submitting minority annexes or supplementary material if there was not consensus on particular matters, and degrees would be awarded on the basis of the examination of the joint thesis and the supplementary material. Theses researched and published on either of these bases could be expected to be accorded greater authority and to be more widely accepted than similar theses researched and authored individually. Their contribution to accelerated reassessment could therefore be substantial. The Coordinating Group and the institutions would, of course, have to pay special attention to the selection of candidates and supervisors for such joint research projects.

The concepts which I believe should be given highest priority in a reassessment program are covenant, messianism and incarnation – the very matters that are taboo in dialogue programs as we see them from day to day – which subsume the concepts of prophecy, judgment, redemption, atonement and salvation. I anticipate that the program would be extended to cover all aspects of theology and religious practice and belief as Maimonides’ expectation turns to reality and people of all faiths are pre-occupied with the study of humanity’s relationship with God. However it is important that in the early phase the program be concentrated on those key concepts because all other aspects of religious understanding and practice flow from them.

With the reassessment program in progress, the umbrella bodies and their member institutions would have the opportunity to consider the implications of changes to constitutions and structures, systems of authority, the impact on the morale of their adherents, and their relations with other faith communities. They would find that their fears are exaggerated. They would soon recognize the opportunity – and the need – to work in partnership with both of the other Abrahamic faiths on the basis that all three are instruments of Divine Will.

Working together, they can enable humanity to progress towards the harmony and stability that is required to sustain humanity for whatever might be the term on its existence. The reassessment would demonstrate it – conclusively.

[1] Extended supplementary notes explaining these six selected case studies were provided at the conference and are available on request from the author by e-mail to ian.fry@comptonarch.com.au 

[2] Fry, Ian. 2000 Trouble in the Triangle. Fitzroy. Compton Arch  (Two books)

[3] Chiang Kai-shek was an American-educated convert to Protestant Christianity with a heritage of mass baptisms to live up to. The number of Protestant missionaries in China had peaked at more than 8,000 in 1925, but it had then been reduced sharply by forced withdrawals under enormous political pressure for two years or so. However there was then a recovery as a result of Chiang Kai-shek’s marriage to a Christian and his adoption of Christianity by Methodist baptism in 1930.

[4] Lilienthal, Alfred M. 1978 The Zionist Connection. What Price Israel? New York: Middle East Perspective, p. 65.  China had abstained from voting in the Ad Hoc Committee on November 25^th, and in spite of US pressure to change its vote to affirmative, it again abstained when the final vote was taken in the General Assembly on November 29^th.

Copyright 2006 - Journal of Globalization for the Common Good - www.commongoodjournal.com