Interfaith Dialogue vs. Social Action

Dear friends,

Hello! I want to have a short exploratory session about how we go about interfaith relations. I use this big term ("interfaith relations") a lot, right? Or the hashtag, #interfaithallthetime. But what does it really mean?

Particularly in the last few months, a type of division in thinking about interfaith has established itself in my mind. It is the argument of whether interfaith dialogue just for the sake of dialogue--for example, getting a group of Christian and Muslim college students in a room to discuss something like food traditions--is worthwhile. Whether the discussion itself has value. The discussion can be about theology, practice, culture, or any other of a myriad of topics. It can mostly be a meeting to eat a meal together with no set topic. It can be an activity--like going to a mosque together as an interfaith group (see: things I did last week. A topic for another time). There are a handful of organizations that focus on this. For example, I recently attended a meeting of a group called the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom. It operates on a chapter basis, so a group of women comes together in a city or town and decide to meet regularly. This is a group in the U.S. that brings Muslim and Jewish women together to be friends and share in life, somewhat informally, with the main goal of building "sisterhood." It is a very interesting concept, and seems successful. Now, many women in the U.S. can personally stand up against antisemitism or Islamophobia because they personally know women from the other faith; it is really amazing. I am not saying they do not sometimes work on social action projects together, I am just saying that their main goal is not the second step as much as that first step--dialogue between people of different faiths.

Then, there are individuals and groups that say no, this is not enough. Sure, bringing together a group of rabbis and imams to learn Scripture together (for example) is great and meaningful--for the people in the room. Whether the impact is felt beyond those directly involved in the process can be tough to tell. Folks in this camp often argue that interfaith coalition building has to be done for a purpose--to make a difference in the sense of working together on a social action project. For example, perhaps bringing together local Hindu and Sikh folks to fight poverty in their neighborhood. Some feel that the only value in interfaith is in this project work.

The problem I see with focusing only on this second one (i.e. the focus of interfaith should be social action) is that sometimes then the valuable (as I see it) dialogue can be lost. We can become so focused on saving the world for the second project--for example, eradicating hunger in our city--that we forget about the value of the interaction between peoples of different faiths. And I do not just mean accidental interactions--I mean intentional interaction, discussing similarities, discussing differences., looking at religious texts, or religious practices, and not being afraid to confront these. It frequently takes time and a long process of building respect, but it is very important and rewarding.

In this same vein, I see great value in talking about our religious (or non-religious) differences. I know many people like to focus on the similarities between difference faiths, and it is great. Yes, many faiths preach helping the poor, helping the stranger, etc. and this is an excellent point to make. But I worry that sometimes those who perhaps do not (over-) think about this as much as I do might subconsciously be ignoring the very real differences between religions. If we make the argument that today to some extent the biggest religious "adversaries" that the world has set up is Jews vs. Muslims (as fueled by the conflict Israel vs. Palestine), then a surface-level interfaith conversation for me would be one that says, "Look at the similarities between kosher and halal food practices. People say we should hate each other, but he have so much in common in our history and traditions." This is enormously important, certainly, but for me, the conversation should not start there. The conversation should not stop at laughing at the similarity between the words "ketubah" (a traditional Jewish wedding contract) and "kitab" (a Muslim engagement/wedding contract). Because there is value in the difference. Why do Muslims pray five times a day? Why do Mormon folks wear a special garment under their clothing? Why do some Sikhs wear turbans? These are just some easy-to-see differences between some of the major world faiths, and being willing to open oneself up in a potentially scary and painful way can lead to really important and fruitful discussions.

I am planning to go on Birthright* in May, and I had my eligibility interview today. This is really just a five-minute discussion about my background, to make sure I am both Jewish and have answered everything honestly in my application. So of course they asked about whether I have been to Israel--which I have, once, with a mostly Christian group of folks (lots of Catholic mass, all the time!). But as I explained, my life, working with people of different faiths, only adds value to my own life and religious practice. I mean, we all know by now how abnormally excited I get when meeting people from different faiths--you should see me around Mormon folks, my joy is a little ridiculous--but there really is a value in hearing about the difference. We learn so much about what we believe, so much of what we hold dear, when we have that challenged by a new way of thinking. And if we stick with what we believed--and not out of stubbornness or blind acceptance, but out of a genuine and deeper understanding of it after the encounter--then that is an amazing thing to come from dialogue.

So you may guess that I fall more into the first camp above: interfaith dialogue is extremely valuable, merely for the sake of dialogue. I think that while it may only seem to affect the people in the room, those people then take those experiences and share them, use them to guide their own interactions with other people, and so a type of grassroots ripple effect takes place. This is not to say I don't think the second step, the social action part, should not happen--it is also great and valuable. I just think something equally valuable is lost if we skip over the dialogue. If we bring together that group of Christian and Muslim college students to pass out food to the homeless it is great, but if we don't also lead them in conversation about their faiths, we are glossing over both key aspects of their own lives, and key aspects of why they want to feed the homeless in the first place. Plus, my passion lies very firmly in the first camp. If I could spend all of my time meeting with people of different faiths, asking them questions, and helping facilitate them asking each other questions, I would be an extra happy person.

So what do you think? Is there value just in the dialogue? Or do we need the next step of social action to make the exchange worthwhile? Please leave a comment with your thoughts!

Now, as always, go out and love one another.

<3,
Allyson
---
*For those who are unaware, the Birthright trip is an interesting set up that the Jewish community put together some time ago that offers young Jews (ages 18-26) a free ten-day trip to Israel. The trip has many goals--not the least of which is creating a sense of connection in young Jews to the state of Israel...and to encourage young Jews to marry other Jews--and is somewhat of a staple among today's young Jews. I have not yet been on this trip, for a variety of reasons, but intend to go in May.