By Michael Clifton (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and on the Steering Committee of Interfaith Grand River)
Recently, an article[1] was circulated amongst members of the Interfaith Grand River steering committee, in which the author comments:
As a scholar and practitioner of interreligious dialogue, one of the refrains I hear from participants is that engaging across religious difference fashions them to be more accepting of that difference and less convinced that any religious tradition holds absolute truth.
I believe most people who have been involved in interfaith dialogue for any significant period of time will have heard that or a similar sentiment from time to time. It’s certainly something I have heard before. Unlike the author of that article, however, who treats that perspective as an unqualified good thing, I recognize that it also reflects what, for many people, can be viewed as unqualifiedly bad and the very reason they avoid interfaith dialogue.
The author’s comments raise the questions:
· Does interfaith dialogue require that one’s own faith claims should be diminished in one’s own view?
· Must a staunch believer in the absolute truth of their own faith’s traditions and ideas necessarily (in order to engage in respectful dialogue with others) or inevitably (as result of that dialogue) put aside that belief in favour of the view that every religious view is, in fact and effect, as good and as right as every other?
The author seems to think so. In that regard, he says that reaching the conclusion that the faith claims you hold as essential for your worldview and way of being are not “true for all people,” is “confident humility” – a perspective he suggests is “a powerful and desperately needed medicine” for today’s world.
I agree completely that a kind of “confident humility” is an essential trait needed in today’s world. I also agree that violence and oppression based on differences in worldview, philosophical, spiritual, or faith traditions and ideas, are terrible sicknesses in the world for which powerful medicine is desperately needed. I do not, however, subscribe to the view that, in order for there to be peaceful and harmonious dialogue amongst people of diverse religious and philosophical views, one must necessarily accept that none of them can possess “absolute truth” that is “true for all people,” nor do my decades of involvement in interfaith dialogue suggest that necessity.
As I hope my fellow members of Interfaith Grand River, and others who know me, recognize, I am what might be called a “staunch” Christian. I have almost as strong a conviction of the reality of Jesus Christ, his life, and vicarious atonement for the sins of the world, as I have of my own existence (note: I have to say “almost” because I am, philosophically, a pragmatist, but please read into this that it is the thinnest of “almost” veneers). I am also a reasonably died-in-the-wool Latter-day Saint.[2] It is the tradition through which I have had my most profound, personal spiritual experiences and development (though my devotion is to God and Christ more than to the Church itself).
The upshot of these two things is this: That I hold a very firm conviction, consistent with the teachings of my faith tradition, that salvation for all people is ultimately only found in and through Jesus Christ.
So, do I believe that my religion holds “absolute truth” that is “true for all people”? The answer is an unqualified “yes”. How, then, do I continue to be an enthusiastic participant in and supporter of interfaith dialogue, without that also becoming a source of conflict or inviting a sense of religious superiority?
I’ve been asked that before – most often by other staunch believers in various faiths who fear that interfaith dialogue requires just what the author quoted above suggests: accepting the idea that what they truly believe matters for all people, really doesn’t – that it only seems that way to you. The answer is that, based on my experience, the truth is exactly the opposite. Contrary to what they fear, my experiences in interfaith dialogue have not only not diminished my own convictions but have strengthened them.During more than 30 years engaged in interfaith organizations and activities, I have observed God – the God I believe in – working with all people in and through the great variety of our religious and philosophical traditions and understandings. I come out of interfaith experiences more deeply convinced of God’s love for all people, continually impressed by what I perceive to be the magnitude, diversity, variety, and scope of His grace and graciousness toward us all. Rather than feel in conflict with or superior to the people or views of other faiths, I have developed deep love and appreciation for them and their traditions, perspectives, and beliefs. Learning with and about them has, without exception, helped to enrich and enlarge the quality and substance of my spiritual life. I believe that these experiences are only available to me because, and when, I have stepped outside the narrow confines of my own tribe, to encounter and experience the beauty and wisdom in others’.
In my view, it is critical for people to know that engaging in interfaith dialogue does not require them to diminish the meaning and strength of their own religious, spiritual, and philosophical convictions. After all, though not genetic traits, those feelings and beliefs are deeply rooted, core elements of our identities, upon which I believe the integrity of our souls and self-understanding rely. It is not a small thing when those are threatened.
If we advertise interfaith dialogue as imposing the inevitable conclusion that “[no] religious tradition holds absolute truth [that is] true for all people,” then I believe we are, in fact, not seeking to invite those individuals into dialogue, but into diminishment, into difference, change, and conversion to what is, in effect, an alternative faith, rather than a safe and enriching meeting place where mutual acceptance, love, and respect can grow across religious and philosophical boundaries.
Of course, one thing that will undermine interfaith dialogue is the attitude that “I am right, all of you are wrong, and therefore I’ll see you in hell,” but this does not mean the pendulum must therefore swing entirely the other way, to the view that no faith, therefore, is “true”. Participants in interfaith dialogue can, and, I believe, should, be allowed to believe that “my religion has true perspectives and ultimate understanding that yours lacks, and that I believe you really need,” while also accepting the principle that, “your religion has great beauty and wisdom that add to and improve my faith and spiritual journey.”
At least, this reflects my experience; an experience that has ultimately produced the extraordinary and corollary feeling that, “you know what? I love that,” and, ultimately, with respect to every other participant, the inspired acknowledgement that “I also love you.”
[1] Javier A. Viera, Kamala Harris’s interfaith identity could help her win the election, The Christian Century, August 15, 2024 (link)
[2] A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I joined at the age of 17, with the commitment that if I discovered it wasn’t as true as its faithful missionaries claimed, I would leave. For the record, this article is being written 42 years, 4 months, and 27 days after my baptism.
____________________________
Michael Clifton studied philosophy and religion at St. Jerome’s University and the University of Waterloo, has served for many years in public affairs and communications roles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Toronto and Waterloo Region, is a former member of the Toronto Multifaith Antiracism Committee, the one-time publisher of an interfaith magazine, and has been a member of Interfaith Grand River and Christians Together Waterloo Region for nearly 12 years, currently serving on both organizations’ steering committees.
Comments