Is the interfaith movement part of the problem of Globalisation or part of the solution?

My own conviction is that the great problems facing our human society are essentially moral and spiritual and that in addressing them we need to draw upon the wisdom of all the great religions. This is why in Promoting the Common Good, Kamran Mofid and I argue that it is high time for Theology and Economics to come together again.¹

There are those, however, who see ‘interfaith’ as the religious face of globalisation, which they fear means the spread of a monolithic Western culture. Soon after the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic was issued, the distinguished Indian Catholic scholar John B Chetimattam said, ‘the very label of a "Global Ethic" smacks of an imperialist plot to continue imperialism’s domination on the majority of humanity through specious moral preaching.’² He complained that the formulation of a set of core values amounted to the imposition of a Western ideology. It ignored the difference between religions and mistakenly separated moral teaching from its context in a religion’s total world vision. The Document, he said, also failed to recognise that many past atrocities were perpetrated in the name of religion and the document also failed to address many of the most urgent social evils in Asia.³

There is some justice in the specific criticisms. The hope, however, that religions could speak together on the moral values on which a just and peaceful world society must be based, dates back to the beginnings of the interfaith movement at the World Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in 1893. Charles Bonney, the President of the Parliament, believed that the Golden Rule could be a basis on which members of different religions would recognise each other as brothers. ‘Only then,’ he said, ‘will the nations of the earth yield to the Spirit of concord and learn war no more.’⁴ Moreover, as I tried to show in Stepping Stones to a Global Ethic, the 1993 Declaration drew upon much prior work. Indeed, the contemporary concern for human rights, even if expressed in the thought forms of the Enlightenment, is grounded in faith traditions.⁵

Moreover, spiritual leaders of many traditions now recognise the need for a Global Ethic. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Jains and others as well as Christians have said ‘Yes’ to a Global Ethic.⁶ Let Pope John Paul II serve as an example. In 2001, he said, ‘As humanity embarks upon the process of globalisation, it can no longer do without a common code of ethics.’ He added, ‘This does not mean a single dominant socio-economic system or culture which would impose its values and its criteria on ethical reasoning. It is within man as such, within universal humanity sprung from the Creator’s hand, that the norms of social life are to be sought. Such a search is indispensable if globalisation is not to be just another name for the absolute relativization of values and the homogenization of life-styles and cultures. In all the variety of cultural forms, universal human values exist and they must be brought out and emphasised as the guiding force of all development and progress.’⁷

The best known, but not the only effort to produce a Global Ethic is the Declaration that was signed by most members of the 1993 Assembly of the Parliament of the World’s Religions and for which much preparatory work had been done by Professor Hans Küng.⁸ Based on the fundamental demand that every human being must be treated humanely, the Declaration affirms four ‘Irrevocable Directives’:

1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life.

2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order.

3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness.

4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women.

The global ethic, despite what Dr John B Chetimattam says, is not intended to replace the specific moral teaching of particular religions. Hans Küng himself says, ‘The global ethic is no substitute for the Torah, the Gospels, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Discourses of the Buddha or the Teachings of Confucius and other scriptures.’ It is concerned simply with a ‘minimal basic consensus relating to binding values, irrevocable standards and moral attitudes which can be affirmed by all religions despite their dogmatic differences and can also be supported by non-believers.’⁹

Certainly the ethical element in a religion has to be understood in the context of the whole. ‘The source of vision and motivation for people of religious belief is their experience of the supreme reality, the transcendent, or the divine.’¹⁰ Moral concern cannot be separated from inner transformation, but as twentieth century religious leaders of several traditions have insisted such inner transformation also embraces a concern for the well-being of the whole society. Mahatma Gandhi, for example, said, ‘The only way to find God is to see him in his creation and to be one with it. This can only be done by service of all, sarvodaya.’¹¹

Although for most believers their ethical conduct is part of their whole faith commitment, it is I believe possible, as the Global Ethic attempts to do, to see fundamental commonalities. Indeed, the Golden Rule is to be found in almost all religious traditions.

It may be that attempts to articulate universal human rights and to identify a global ethic have been expressed too much in Western thought forms. Yet this does not invalidate the effort, but indicates that wider participation is necessary to improve these efforts. The task, as Leonard Swidler makes clear, is not complete. ‘But’, he writes, ‘when the Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic is finally drafted – after multiple consultation, revision and eventual acceptance by the full range of religious and ethical institutions – it will serve as a minimal ethical standard for humankind to live up to, much as the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has done. Through the former, the moral force of the world’s religions and ethical institutions can be brought to bear especially on those issues which are not susceptible to the legal and political force of the latter.’¹²

This is what is beginning to happen, which is why 1993, in my view, marks a turning point in the international interfaith movement. There was by then a sufficient ground swell of interfaith friendship and co-operation that the time was ripe to focus on what religions could do together to help a troubled world. This was, in itself, a rejection of the misuse of religion to foster communalism and to sanction violence.

In his message to the centenary event, ‘Sarva-Dharma-Sammelana’, which was held in Bangalore, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, wrote, ‘In our contemporary world, we are very conscious of the persistence of injustice, war, hunger, and environmental damage; and we are conscious too of the many ways in which religion can be used to perpetuate division and misunderstanding. It is my sincere hope that events like yours ... will help people of different faiths work together for the common good of all.’¹³

In Chicago itself, the Declaration Toward A Global Ethic, which ‘condemned aggression and hatred in the name of religion’, recognised that ‘the world is in agony... Peace eludes us, the planet is being destroyed...neighbours live in fear... children die.’ The Declaration went on to say that this agony ‘need not be because the basis for a global ethic already exists and offers the possibility of a better individual and global order.’¹⁴

This concern for peace and justice, as I have suggested above, was already present at the 1893 Parliament. The dominant issue then, however, was the relation of religions to each other. Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu, in his opening address challenged the exclusivism of some Christians, saying ‘I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance.’¹⁵ The same God, he said, is the inspirer of all religions - thereby implying that missionaries were intolerant and immature. Some Christians were prepared to recognise God’s presence in other religions, but they were in a minority. Indeed some Christians even protested against the very idea of a Parliament. The then Archbishop of Canterbury, E.W. Benson, had declined an invitation to attend, saying that his difficulties rested ‘on the fact that the Christian religion is the one religion. I do not understand how that religion can be regarded as a member of a Parliament of Religions, without assuming the equality of other intended members and the parity of their position and claims.’¹⁶

Much of the first hundred years of the interfaith movement, therefore, was taken up with dispelling prejudice and ignorance. The work of the International Association for Religious Freedom, the World Congress of Faiths and the Temple of Understanding, concentrated on education and on providing opportunities for people of different faiths to meet

Gradually in each religion some people began to question traditional exclusive attitudes to other religions. In my own case, as a student in India, I met some saintly Hindus. This made me realise that Christianity has no monopoly on goodness or salvation. I came to see that the God of Love, whom Jesus reveals, is a God whose love is for all people. Even now, the Churches are still struggling to leave behind exclusive attitudes.

These tasks, which have been helped by the growing academic interest in the study of religions, are still essential - particularly combating the false image of Islam in the Western media and the resurgence of anti-Semitism. By the 1980s, however, such a sense of fellowship had developed among those involved in interfaith work at local, national and international levels that people of different faiths – and this was the new development - began increasingly to work together for peace and justice, the relief of suffering and the protection of the environment - especially through the World Conference for Religion and Peace. This became the agenda at the 1993 gatherings – in Chicago itself, in Bangalore, in Japan and elsewhere.

In the twelve years since the centenary of the first Parliament of Religions, interfaith work has continued to grow. In the UK, for example, local groups have doubled in the last six years. There are new national interfaith bodies and several new international organisations, such as the United Religions Initiative, the Three Faiths Forum and the Peace Council. Some fourteen organisations now belong to the International Interfaith Network, which is co-ordinated by the International Interfaith Centre in Oxford.

Even more significant than the change of priorities in interfaith work, is a change of attitude amongst politicians, business men, economists and other leaders of society. In part, this is a reaction to the threat of extremism and religiously motivated violence. But a growing number of people now recognise both the dangers of religious extremism and that there is a moral and spiritual dimension to the great problems that afflict our world society.

Interfaith dialogue is too important to leave to religious professionals. It is becoming an inter-disciplinary dialogue. One of the best examples of this is the movement for ‘Globalisation for the Common Good’, pioneered by the indefatigable Dr Kamran Mofid. A series of conferences have now been held in Oxford, St Petersburg, Dubai and Kenya. The fifth conference is to be held in Hawaii in the summer of 2006. The conferences have brought together economists, politicians and religious scholars.¹⁷

Another example was a meeting on ‘Women and Religion in a Globalised World’, convened jointly by the Peace Council and the Center for Health and Social Policy, which was held in Thailand in 2004.¹⁸

Likewise, the Assembly, which preceded the 2004 Parliament of the World’s Religions and which was held at the Benedictine Monastery at Montserrat, focused on four ‘global crises of human suffering.’ They were ‘Supporting refugees world-wide’, ‘Overcoming religiously motivated violence’, ‘Eliminating international debt in poor countries’, and ‘Increasing access to clean water.’¹⁹

What is need now is to translate the shared concerns into more detailed and practical policies. This requires the involvement of people of different faiths and different disciplines.

It is even more important, as I argue in my new book, A Heart for the World, to offer to a wider public the hope that there is an alternative to terror and the war against terror, to the growing poverty of millions of our fellow human beings and the pollution of the environment.²⁰ This alternative is inspired by the conviction - to be found in the mystic tradition of every faith - that all life is sacred. What we need to do now is to translate this vision into action that will change the world. As a young Indian put it, ‘Dream and Sweat.’

Endnotes

[1] Marcus Braybrooke and Kamran Mofid, Promoting the Common Good: Bringing Economics and Theology Together Again, Shepheard-Walwyn, 2005

[2]  John B Chethimattam, ‘A Global Ethic’  in Visions of an Interfaith Future, edited by Celia and  David Storey, International Interfaith Centre, Oxford, 1994, p.136.

[3]  John B Chethimattam, ‘A Global Ethic’  in Visions of an Interfaith Future, pp. 135-136

[4] Quoted by Kenten Druyvesteyn in The World’s Parliament of Religions, an unpublished doctoral thesis for Chicago University, 1976.

[5] Louis Henken said that ‘all major religions proudly lay claim to fathering human rights.’ Quoted from Louis Henken, The Rights of Man Today, Westview Press, 1978, p.xii.  Likewise, Section 4 of the report, Poverty and Development, says that ‘the present articulation of human rights is a secular formation of the spiritual notion of the dignity inherent to each person, and thus has its grounding in  the basic principles of all religions.’ See further Stepping Stones to a Global Ethic, Ed Marcus Braybrooke, SCM Press 1992,  passim  but especially pp. 10-20.

[6] See Yes to a Global Ethic, ed. Hans Küng, SCM Press 1996.

[7] Pope John Paul II in an Address to the Papal Academy of Social Sciences on 27.4.01.  Vatican  website.

[8] See further, A Global Ethic, ed Hans Küng, SCM Press, 1993 and  For All Life, ed. Leonard Swidler, White Cloud Press, Ashland, Oregon 1999.

[9] Hans Küng, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, SCM Press 1997,  p. 109

[10] See Millennium Challenges for Development and Faith Institutions, The World Bank, 2003.

[11] Mahatma Gandi, Harijan,

[12]  For All Life, ed Leonard Swidler, p. 18.

[13] The letter is reproduced in Visions of an Interfaith Future, edited by Celia and  David Storey, International Interfaith Centre, Oxford , 1994, p. 14

[14]  A Global Ethic,  p.13

[15]  Quoted in Marcus Braybrooke,  A Pilgrimage of Hope, SCM Press 1992, p. 33.

[16]  Quoted in A Pilgrimage of Hope, p. 12.

[17]  See ‘How it all Began’ by Kamran Mofid in Marcus Braybrooke and Kamran Mofid, Promoting the Common Good,  chapter 2, pp. 5-15.

[18] Women and Religion in a Globalised World, published by the Peace Council and the Center for Health and Social Policy, 2004. The report includes the conference’s ‘Chiang Mai Declaration.’

[19]  Pathways to Peace, Report on the Parliament of the World’s Religions 2004,  CPWR, 2005, p.9

[20]  Marcus Braybrooke, A Heart for the World: The Interfaith Alternative, John Hunt Publishing, o-books, 2006.

Marcus Braybrooke is President of the World Congress of Faiths, Patron of the International Interfaith Centre at Oxford, Co-Founder of Three Faiths Forum, London. Marcus Braybrooke’s most recent books are What Can We Learn from Hinduism; What Can We Learn from Islam; 1,000 World Prayers. Details www.O-books.net