Questions and Answers on Interfaith Dialogue and Religious Pluralism

We asked a group of seminarians what they would ask me, in response to my writing on religious pluralism. Here are their questions and my replies.

I was recently asked to participate in an online class discussion on interfaith dialogue for a course on “religion and cultures”¹ offered through North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. The students had read an excerpt from my book Unteachable Lessons and were now presenting me with questions, most of which concerned best practices in interfaith dialogue. The course instructor, Dr. Paul de Neui, asked the students to create questions for me and submitted them to me to get my response. I was impressed by how thoughtful the questions were, and asked the instructor if I could use them to document this conversation on my Substack. With that permission granted, here are the questions (and my responses) for your perusal.

How does one break through the common sentiment that politics and religion have no place in polite conversation?

I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that this “common sentiment” seems to be intertwined with a certain measure of social privilege. We often avoid talking about religion or politics just to avoid conflict, especially when we have the kind of privilege that enables us to just opt out. I don’t think there’s any real benefit in pushing someone to have a conversation they don’t want to have, whether on religion or politics or finance. I also don’t think much is to be gained by trying to debate someone whose mind is made up, especially when they hold views contrary to ours. But I think if we can see that the prohibition on these discussions primarily benefits those who are privileged, then we are more at liberty to engage in these conversations ourselves, no matter how messy they might be.

Put another way: if someone doesn’t want to engage with you in a conversation about politics or religion, there could be a variety of reasons besides just social convention. They might not trust you. They might not see any point in getting embroiled in a debate or argument. If you want to share your faith with such a person, I invite you to consider the classic idea attributed to Francis of Assisi: “preach the good news at all times, but only use words when you have to.” In other words: don’t talk about the love of God or Christ: embody it.

When you have observed instances of interfaith dialogue breaking down is there a commonality you can note? For instance, does the dialogue cease to happen based on an unwillingness to proceed from one or more parties? Or maybe wrong intentions? Perhaps miscommunication due to cultural misunderstanding or language barrier?

I’m going to answer this as a Christian, not only because the audience I’m speaking to is a Christian audience but also because the single biggest problem I have seen in the breakdown of interfaith conversations has been bad faith among Christians: in other words, Christians who pretend to have a different agenda than what they really do. “I’m only here to learn about you” but really I want to get you to come to my church. That just smells bad and if people of other faiths did that to us, we would naturally find it offensive, but again, since I’m speaking as a Christian to other Christians I mainly want us to be mindful of our foibles. It’s the old “take the log out of your eye first” principle.

So what I have observed causing interfaith dialogue to break down: dishonesty and bad faith. If the only reason you want to have a conversation with a person whose faith is different from yours is to show them why your faith is the “true” faith, be aware: this is not interfaith dialogue; it’s proselytizing. So be honest. But then don’t be surprised if you have a hard time finding dialogue partners.

What is a mistake you made when entering an interfaith space and what did you learn from it?

One mistake I made was to soft-pedal my own faith identity as a Christian. That may seem paradoxical based on my strong message that Christians shouldn’t proselytize; but I’m actually not saying “don’t proselytize,” I’m saying, “don’t pretend you’re not proselytizing if that’s what you really want to do.” Likewise, even if you have no intention of proselytizing, good interfaith dialogue requires authenticity: so if you are a Christian, then don’t pretend otherwise, don’t apologize for what you believe, and don’t pretend to believe something other than what you actually do. Be real and be honest: just don’t be a jerk about it! You can be authentically Christian without attacking the other person’s faith or suggesting non-Christians are rejected by God, etc. Keep the focus on your own faith, your own experience, your own values and doctrines, and if the other person wants to engage with you then do so (but if they don’t want to engage, respect that as well. Interfaith dialogue, like physical intimacy, requires consent: no means no).

Western culture shies away from the type of long-term relationships required to connect and authentically dialogue with Eastern faith traditions, what can you suggest to us to help us recognize this and pursue these dialogical relationships?

I’m not sure I agree that Western culture shies away from long-term relationships — at least, not necessarily. Technology, individualism, late-stage capitalism, artificial intelligence, social media: there are lots of things in our society that can be used to undermine our capacity for meaningful, long-term relationships. But if we are willing to make meaningful relationships a priority in our lives, there are steps we can take to make it happen (or at least, make it more likely to happen). But to your question: I think to help us recognize the value of meaningful and sustainable relationships, we need to be modeling such relationships for one another whenever we can. Hopefully faith communities can be “labs” where long-term relationships can be fostered. We need to make a commitment to this on an individual level, but then also seek out communities where meaningful relationships are valued and hopefully nurtured.

Yes, long-term relationships can be a help to meaningful interfaith dialogue, but we also need to recognize that long-lasting relationships are valuable in their own right, and therefore are worth pursuing for no other reason than their intrinsic value.

How do you navigate the elephant in the room that all religions are incompatible with each other due to competing truth claims? Do you avoid it, soft-pedal it, redefine it, etc?

Why not simply accept it? If we recognize that there is a level on which religious truth claims will always bump up against each other, then we can have more honest and hopefully more constructive dialogue. I get it that many Christians might see it as a problem that competing truth claims exist, with the resulting incompatibility that means people from different religious backgrounds will never fully see eye to eye. But not all Christians consider this a problem nor do all adherents of other faiths. For some people, it is a positive thing that our creator has fashioned a world of such diversity. With this approach, the diversity of religions is not a problem to be lamented, but a reality to be celebrated.

In a diverse society like ours, what does effective interfaith engagement look like on a day-to-day level for believers?

I don’t think there’s a “one size fits all” answer to this question. Interfaith engagement can take on different forms depending on the person’s interest, knowledge, and background. Some may simply be happy learning about different faiths as a way to be informed in today’s world. Others might want to participate in shared activities, such as interfaith service projects (like building a Habitat for Humanity house together); still others might want to get involved in the academic study of comparative theology or religious diversity. The question is, finding a way of interacting with people from faiths other than your own in a way that works for you.

How do you handle situations where there is strong disagreement without damaging the relationship?

This question is bigger than just interfaith dialogue. How do we handle political disagreement, or conflict in marriage, or any other situation where people in some sort of relationship have to navigate significant differences? The short answer seems to me to be, “don’t be a jerk.” But of course that also means: be kind, be respectful, listen to one another, use “I” statements, refrain from the temptation to judge the other person or explain to them why you think they’re wrong, and so forth. Fortunately, there are resources available to help people navigate having conversations on difficult topics, and perhaps anyone who is serious about interfaith dialogue needs to become familiar with best practices for constructive dialogue. It is possible to talk about significant differences without destroying the relationship, it just takes a commitment to the relationship and a willingness to learn the necessary skills.

Within interfaith dialogue, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between courageous conversation and offense?

I rather think this is a false dichotomy. One can be offensive without being particularly courageous — and vice versa. There’s nothing wrong, even in polite society, with disagreeing with one another or acknowledging that we have different values and see the world in different ways. The question is, can we share such convictions without attacking or denigrating those with whom we disagree? Are we willing to express what we hold to be true, and offer an equal willingness to listen to those who hold contrary views? That’s a problem I’ve seen among too many Christians: an insistence on dominating the conversation and refusing to offer any kind of respect toward those who disagree. Respect must be earned, and if we want others to respect us, we earn that respect by showing a similar courtesy toward them. So to me, the question is not “what’s the line separating courage and offense,” but rather “what’s the line separating kindness, respect and civility from the lack thereof?” If Christians don’t want to be offensive when sharing what we believe, we need to practice empathy, respect, goodwill, civility, and a genuine willingness to dialogue, which means, among other things, a commitment to listening as eagerly as we speak.

How has interfaith dialogue shaped your understanding of God and what is one way that interfaith engagement shaped your faith?

Interfaith dialogue has certainly deepened my faith, even though in ways that theological exclusivists would probably find alarming. I was raised a conservative Lutheran and then spent some time immersed in a non-denominational charismatic community, so in those contexts I was taught that God is resolutely opposed to any type of non-Christian religion or spirituality, and that as Christians it was our responsibility to bring others to Christ… or else. Even before I became engaged in interfaith work, I struggled with this image of God—it seemed inherently contradictory that a God of love and mercy would be so wasteful as to throw away most of his creation simply because they failed to conform to a particular cultural religious tradition.

I would say that interfaith work, and encountering sincere and ethically mature adherents of other faiths, helped me to more quickly abandon what I now believe to be a very toxic image of God. Over time, I came to understand that many Christians use Christian thinking to deconstruct the dominating/punishing God, but for me, interfaith work helped me on that journey. So I still believe that God wants to heal us of our sin and injustice, but I no longer equate holiness and sin with adherence to Christianity versus adherence to other faiths. I see sin not in terms of cultural purity but in terms of healthy or toxic human relationships. To hate another person is a sin, and to fear another person is, at least, a fault that needs to be healed. Ironically, many Christians seem to react to non-Christians (especially Muslims, but really all non-Christians) with either hatred or fear. This is what needs to be healed — not the fact that religious diversity exists.

What challenges do you consistently run into when it comes to interfaith dialogue? What are some ways that we can avoid those challenges? What are some ways that one can start interfaith dialogue if they have never done it before?

Alan Race’s taxonomy of religious exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism (which I discovered through the amazing work of Perry Schmidt-Leukel) has been very helpful for me to understand both the promise and the challenge of interreligious dialogue, interfaith encounters, and inter-spirituality. To answer your question, I’d say the most common challenge I run into is the hostility or opposition to interfaith dialogue that comes from the exclusivists and even the inclusivists. That is what tends to undermine this kind of work. As for what can we do to avoid this challenge: my thought would be for churches and other faith communities to work harder to promote a truly pluralist theology. But we all know that ideological purity does not exist, and trying to enforce a kind of theological conformity would just create as many problems as it solved. So I don’t know that I have a very promising answer to your question. I think those who feel called to interfaith dialogue need to keep doing it, and hopefully the culture of Christianity and the other faiths will move toward mutual respect over time.

As for how a beginner can get started in interfaith dialogue, I would recommend getting involved with interfaith initiatives at the community level. For example, here in Atlanta we have a number of organizations dedicated to promoting interfaith dialogue and understanding, including Interfaith Atlanta (formerly Faith Alliance of Metro Atlanta / FAMA), Interfaith Community Initiatives (ICI), Georgia Interfaith Power & Light (GIPL), the Interfaith Children’s Movement of Georgia (ICM), and the Georgia Interfaith Public Policy Center (GIPPC). And those are just the ones I’m aware of! Frankly, most churches simply don’t teach us how to do interfaith dialogue well, so the best bet for those interested in this work is to get involved with nonsectarian organizations where we can learn best practices. There’s also national or international organizations like the Parliament of World Religions or Spiritual Directors International; they may or may not have a local presence that you could plug into.

You’ve written several books on Celtic spirituality. Can you share a little more about the Celtic tradition and how this might be a form of Christianity that leans into the “pre-Christian spiritualities of Europe,” and comment on how we can learn from this tradition as Jesus followers?

What’s interesting about Christianity in the Celtic lands (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, etc.) is that it marked the first time that Christianity traveled beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire, at least in the west. So it marked an opportunity for the teachings of Jesus to be received by people who were not under the thrall of an imperial government. And while the literature of early Celtic Christianity can still feel very dualistic to us today, and still seems to be geared toward a very patriarchal and authoritarian understanding of God, what emerges over time is a beautiful expression of spirituality that is deeply mystical, celebratory of nature, communitarian, and anchored in story more so than in doctrine or theology. I don’t want to overstate it, and some scholars question the whole idea of “Celtic Christianity” as distinct from Christianity in general, but in our time it has come to represent a way of following Jesus that is more holistic, balanced, optimistic, and ecological. If nothing else, it is a reminder that it is impossible to separate our spiritual lives from our cultural context, but we need to remember that culture is not the same thing as spirit, and sometimes what we may chafe against in religion or spirituality might simply reflect the limitations of our culture. We can work to make culture better without having to throw spirituality under the bus.

Regarding your book Read the Bible like a Mystic. I am curious to understand more about how to read the Bible like a mystic and then how does one know when you’re truly encountering God in Scripture versus just your own thoughts or interpretations?

Well, to understand more about how to read the Bible like a mystic, please read my book! 😇 But to summarize, I’d say we need to learn how to read the Bible less like a legal document (or a policy manual) and more like a love letter, designed to foster intimacy and build a meaningful and lasting relationship. And the mystics can be trusted guides in this particular process.

Regarding how to know when we are truly encountering God in scripture (or in any aspect of our lives) versus merely having a subjective, imaginative experience, this of course is a question for discernment, and the mystics have long been concerned about bringing a wise, discerning heart to the question of how to evaluate and understand our experience of God. I think when it comes to discernment, it’s best not to go it alone: work with a trusted spiritual director or soul friend, and/or a peer group, prayer circle, or some other intimate setting with people we trust, to whom we can be accountable about both our sense of encounter with God, and also our spiritual blind spots. I do believe that the Spirit of Love wants to be felt and known in our lives; we just need some due diligence in sorting out what is an authentic sense of the loving presence, versus what can be just the dance of our ego. It’s a question of “trust and verify” — and it is in relationship with co-discerners that we can best do this work.

In the article we read (a chapter from Unteachable Lessons), you mentioned that if Christians were willing to look towards the riches of our own contemplative tradition, we might not need to look to other faiths for insights about how to connect with God in grounded, contemplative ways. Does this mean to you that the Christian who is well-versed and satisfied in Christian contemplative practices would not have as much to gain from interfaith dialogue?

Not at all. But I do think many people have abandoned Christianity out of a mistaken idea that other faiths will give them something that Christianity can’t. And in the years since I wrote that article, I’ll confess I’ve become more pessimistic about Christianity, as a culture, being biased against contemplative spirituality, which I think is not only the church’s fault but also very much the fault of Western culture, from Roman imperialism to modern capitalism. So, while I would still hold that Christian contemplative practice is just as full and rich as any practice found in other faith traditions, I have become less judgmental of Christians who learn from other traditions; indeed, I do that very much myself now. And I think there’s a place and a benefit for interfaith dialogue even for those who feel completely grounded and happy in the practice of Christian spirituality and have no desire to practice any other tradition. There’s still the benefit of being good neighbors and discovering ways we can work together for the benefit of all.

What factors do you think lead to the most fruitful interfaith conversations?

Curiosity is important. Trust — in God, and in the beauty of diverse cultures. No matter how high our theology of sin, it should remain subordinate to an even higher view of human beings created in God’s image.

But most important of all is a genuine desire to be in relationship: to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” We have to have enough confidence that we can meet them authentically and honestly, that they will accept us for who we are, but that means we also have to make a best-faith effort to accept them for who they are, and not for whom we think they should be. Like any other relationship, approaching the other person with an appreciative curiosity rather than a tendency to criticize or judge will go a long way toward fostering a fruitful conversation.

From the course instructor: What is your position when entering interfaith dialogue in regards to people from other faiths believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and God and becoming Christians as a result of the dialogue?

Do you take the “fulfillment” position (for example, no need to change, just become the best Buddhist (or whatever you are now) that you can be)? Or do you take the opportunity during the dialogue to explain to someone who is interested how to pursue faith in Christ even further (i.e. introduce them into that relationship)? Or do you completely divorce the concept of conversion from your thinking when engaged in interfaith dialogue?

If it is the latter, how do you reconcile that with the instruction to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you?”

I spent years working in a neighborhood church supporting adults who were preparing to be baptized or confirmed, so I am not at all averse to sharing my faith or inviting others to become followers of Jesus. But especially when it comes to interfaith dialogue, I believe there is a danger: when our prime reason for interacting with others is to challenge or convert them, that undermines the clear teaching of Jesus that we are commanded to love them. How can we express a truly supportive and compassionate love, if we are bringing a hidden agenda to the relationship? And if we don’t have an agenda — in other words, we trust the person to respond to the Spirit in their hearts on their terms, without any influence on our part — then why bring up the question of conversion at all? In other words, if someone wants to follow Jesus, they can ask for help from us; and until then, we “share the gospel” through our love, not our words.

Relating to someone only for the purpose of wanting to share the gospel with them is a type of spiritual narcissism, is it not? And we have to ask, what does this say about our belief in God, and our understanding of how God deals with God’s own creation — that we truly believe someone is “not okay” unless they conform to our religion? Yuck. So, we need to do a lot of careful introspection here, so that we are clear that our engagement with others is truly anchored in love, and not some sneaky attempt to control. Let the Spirit be not only our guide but their guide. And if you want to share your faith with someone for the purpose of them joining your faith community, trust that if God really wants us to help people change their religion, God will send such people our way: we don’t have to drum up business!

And in summary, are you inclusivist, exclusivist, or pluralist? And if so or if not, how would you define and explain your position?

Definitely a pluralist. Which for me is an outgrowth both of my own sense of God as well as my experience of other people. “God is love,” as the first letter of John bluntly states. So I try to be loving as best I can in all my relationships. When it comes to interfaith dialogue and inter-spirituality, I believe the pluralist position is the most loving. So that’s what I go with.

A deep bow of gratitude to Dr. de Neui and the students in this “Religion and Cultures” course for reading my writing, inviting me to be in dialogue, and engaging with my ideas. I certainly enjoyed thinking about and answering these thoughtful questions.

1. The course is listed on the seminary website as: MNST 5110, Religions and Cultures.