Is There Any Common Ground in a Multi-Religious World?

Rev. Dr. Paul D. Numrich

Inaugural Lecture of the Program in World Religions and Inter-Religious Dialogue

Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus

3 March 2005, Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio

Introduction

From his vantage point in Europe, Nicholas Cusanus frets over war in the Middle East.  “[W]ith many sighs,” he writes, “[I] implored the Creator of all things that in his mercy he restrain the persecution” (I, 1).[1]  In answer to his supplication, Nicholas is “caught up to . . . a council of the highest with the Almighty presiding.  The King of heaven and earth stated that the sad news of the groans of the oppressed had been brought to him from this world’s realm: because of religion many take up arms against each other . . .” (I, 2).

            The treatise, On the Peace of Faith, describes a transcendent multi-religious and global convocation of representatives from the Muslim world, India, Judaism, Christianity, and other groups, “the wise of the nations” (XIX, 68).  One by one their confusions are resolved by Saints Peter and Paul and “the incarnate Word.”  The Jewish representative accepts the doctrine of the Trinity (IX, 25), Peter explains Christ’s crucifixion to the Muslim (XIV, 47-49), polytheists learn that they are really monotheists (VI), and the Indian hopes that the “idolaters” of his homeland will destroy their false images (VII, 20).

            “In the end,” writes Nicholas, “a concord of religions was concluded in the heaven of reason.”  The participants discover that religious diversity comprises merely superficial differences in ritual practice, underneath which there lay a deeper unity “in the worship of one God.”  These “wise” ones are instructed to “return and lead the nations to the unity of true worship,” that they might “accept one faith in the name of all and thereupon establish an everlasting peace so that in peace the Creator of all, blessed forever, will be praised.  Amen.”  This utopian religious vision will some day be fulfilled in Jerusalem (XIX, 68).

            Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa wrote On the Peace of Faith, De pace fidei [Day Pach-ay Fi-day-ee] in the Latin original, in response to the Ottoman Muslim takeover of Constantinople in 1453AD (Anno Domini, “in the year of our Lord”) or 857AH (Anno Hegira, “in the year of the [Prophet Muhammad’s] hijrah”).  The Cardinal’s “many sighs” over religious strife reverberate today, as does his desire to find a common ground upon which the world’s religions can build a universal peace.  Witness the Reaching Common Ground essay contest, established by a woman who feared that Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, would foment anti-Semitism.  (By the way, a Consortium seminary student was a winner in this contest.)[2]

The Cardinal of Cusa’s vision was remarkable for his time.  One commentary identifies De pace fidei as “the first intellectual work in Christian history to call for the unity of world religion[s].”[3]  This was not the typical 15^th-century Christian response to Islam, which tended to be, shall we say, more militant.  Little common ground then, whether between Christians and Muslims, or among Christians with regard to Islam.

            Inter-religious strife, intra-religious disagreements.  Whether in the 21^st, the 15^th, or any century, sensitive observers like the Cardinal of Cusa lift their cry to the heavens, Is there any common ground in this multi-religious world?  Isn’t there something to which all religions can commit despite their differences?  In the popular (perhaps overworked) phrase, Is there any unity in diversity, some unifying core among the religions?  For those fond of Christian hymns, Are there any ties that can bind all together?  And will a religious common ground, if found, bring lasting world peace?

We know that the answer to these questions cannot be naïve and unqualified.  Christians have carved out considerable ecumenical common ground over the past century, but that territory has never been all encompassing.  The religions of the world now occupy a relatively large area of common ground, but many take up positions outside the inter-religious camp.  In every denominational merger, some say “No thank you.”  Schisms and offshoots are routine in the history of religions.  Every multi-religious assembly agrees to disagree on some point or another, while the number of groups boycotting such gatherings usually surpasses the number attending.  And lasting peace remains elusive.

            But why privilege religious folks in this indictment?  In what area of human endeavor, pray tell, do we find a different story?  In business?  Academia?  Race relations?  Domestic politics?  International affairs?  In all these areas we know that agreement and harmony are partial and tenuous at best, yet we tend to judge this same reality among the religions with a different measuring stick.  I recall my conversation with a veteran of international service who berated the religions—and religion per se—as the cause of most of the globe’s turmoil.  My response: Just how stellar is the record of the governments of the world?  It seems to me that by the simple criterion of the ability to get along, the nations fare no better than the religions of the world.  The UN Charter includes the goal to “live together in peace with one another as good neighbours.”[4]  Such noble ideals are found among both religions and nations, but reality rarely measures up in either case.  Why single out religion when it has no monopoly on conflict?

            Catholic theologian Hans Kung is fond of saying that there can be “no peace among the nations without peace among the religions.”[5]  For some that may be a comforting goal.  For me it is a prediction of the absence of global peace for the foreseeable future.  Maybe we expect so much of religions because they claim to represent so much—the highest, the purest, the holy.  When religions fail to live up to their promises, we feel betrayed in the deepest sense.  We also realize that such is the human predicament. 

            The question before us today is not really, Is there any common ground in a multi-religious world?  There always has been some.  Rather, the questions at hand are, What types of common ground are there, constituted by what authority, and how successful are they in producing at least some measure of peace?  Let us consider three types.  In the first, common ground is imposed by one religious authority on other religious groups; in the second type, common ground is imposed by a secular authority on religions; in the third, common ground emerges from the respective authority of each religion.  In all three types, civic and religious considerations intersect, for religion cannot easily be separated from other human endeavors.

            For the rest of our time together I’d like to take you on a virtual tour of these three types of common ground, traveling from ancient India to modern societies, drawing illustrations from many faiths, and ending up where we began—with visions of common ground that promise lasting peace in a multi-religious world.

Type 1: Common ground imposed by one religious authority on other religious groups

            I will begin with examples from Buddhist history since most people I meet—Buddhists included—find such a possibility surprising given what they (think they) know about Buddhism.  The record here may be relatively “cleaner” than that of some religions, but Buddhism has been known to make impositions.

            The great emperor of ancient India, Asoka in the 3^rd century BCE, repented of the human carnage he caused in subduing the territory of Kalinga.  In one of his public edicts posted around the empire on rocks and pillars, he related his remorse.  “Now the Beloved of the Gods,” Asoka wrote, using a rhetorical flourish in referring to himself, “regrets the conquest of Kalinga, for when an independent country is conquered people are killed, they die, or are deported, and that the Beloved of the Gods finds very painful and grievous.”  Therefore, Asoka now intended “to follow Righteousness, to love Righteousness, and to give instruction in Righteousness.”  The greatest victory, he proclaimed, comes not from the sword; “the greatest victory is the victory of Righteousness.”

Asoka became a lay follower of the Buddha, and although he honored all religions in his kingdom, Asoka’s pronouncements and policies drew deeply from Buddhist sources and ethical norms, imposing a Buddhist common ground on the realm, benign though it might be in most respects.  Still, lest anyone be confused about the benevolence of a righteous emperor, Asoka recorded this warning: “The Beloved of the Gods will forgive as far as he can, and he even conciliates the forest tribes of his dominions; but he warns them that there is power even in the remorse of the Beloved of the Gods, and he tells them to reform, lest they be killed.”[6]  A Buddhist emperor practicing “tough righteousness” to preserve the peace.

Buddhist Heilsgeschichte (Sacred History) portrays Asoka as the ideal “Defender of the Faith,”[7] the purifier of the monastic ranks.  He expelled dissident, corrupt, and lax monks, unifying the Bhikkhu Sangha or Monastic Order.  Subsequent Buddhist kings in Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) followed Asoka’s lead; for instance, in the 12^th century CE “Parakkama Bahu I set up a single authority structure for the national Sangha, and had all ordination ceremonies performed at one time of year in the capital, presumably so that he could supervise them.  Though the [historical] chronicle says that he reunited the Sangha, this expression glosses over the fact that what he did was to abolish” two of the three monastic groups in the land.[8]  The legendary Asoka and several of his historical successors enforced the disciplinary common ground within monastic Buddhism.  Eliminating the opposition certainly creates unity—but without diversity.

            Other attempts to impose religious common ground can be cited from Buddhist history.  Pre-modern Japan was especially prone to a “militant spirit [in] religious circles” and sectarian “uprisings” one against another.[9]  These are but Buddhist variations on the theme of one religious group attempting to dominate kindred religious groups.  Religious nationalisms and theocratic governments extend the same crusade across religious lines.  The Ottoman Muslim takeover of Constantinople that so disturbed Nicholas of Cusa stretched into centuries of second-class citizenship for Orthodox Christians.  However, as one Orthodox historian points out, “The Muslims in the fifteenth century were far more tolerant towards Christianity than western Christians were towards one another during the Reformation and the seventeenth century.”[10]  The Orthodox Church survived—its Ecumenical Patriarchate is still located in Istanbul, the former Constantinople—and prospered to a certain extent as a recognized millet (“nation”) within the Ottoman political system.[11]  Even so, Orthodox Christianity’s place was dictated by the religious group in political control.

In our own nation’s history, voices have been raised to establish one religion over others and over the body politic as a whole.  During that disputatious 17^th century of European Christianity, the Puritans came here to build a “City on a Hill” in New England, “to create a pure church and to conduct a holy experiment free of opposition, distraction, and error. . . .  Freedom of religion across the board was never the plan, never the commission or errand.”  The Puritans “never intended to launch a colony that would be open to all people of all religious persuasions—or of none.”[12]  So, in the 1630s the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered Roger Williams to “depart out of this jurisdiction” and banished Anne Hutchinson for antinomianism and religious enthusiasm.  Again, eliminating the opposition creates unity without diversity, an all-encompassing common ground with no space left for difference.

Elsewhere in the colonies, voices called for the establishment of the Anglican Church.  In Virginia, Patrick Henry proposed to establish a generic Christianity, but he was defeated by the political philosophy of Madison and Jefferson, and by the political reality of too many churches and too little consensus.  This led to a new idea—a nation that established religious liberty rather than one particular religion.  Which brings us to the second type of common ground in a multi-religious world.

Type 2: Common ground imposed by a secular authority on religions

Despite the unquestionable and important influence of Christianity in American history, this country is governed by a Constitution that, in principle, imposes a civic common ground upon which all religions are treated equally and none is granted special privilege.  This arrangement has not only served us well as a nation, it is a model for other nations.

            In 2002 a conference on Religious Pluralism in Democratic Societies was convened in Kuala Lumpur by the Malaysian Association for American Studies in cooperation with the US Embassy Malaysia.[13]  That conference addressed the challenges and possibilities of creating civic common ground in the multi-religious nations of Southeast Asia and the United States.  The shockwaves of September 11^th and the US response in Afghanistan rippled through the proceedings—Malaysia is a majority Muslim country, its neighbor, Indonesia, has the largest Muslim population in the world.  Issues of religious and civic discord were immediate and palpable.

            The US Ambassador to Malaysia began her keynote address to the conference[14] with a familiar appraisal of the world’s religions, both positive and negative.  “[P]eace is truly at the core of every major religion,” she said.  “Unfortunately, every religion has its share of extremists, people who prefer to intimidate those of the same faith and threaten those of other faiths with whom they disagree.”  “Religion is not the problem,” the ambassador argued, religious extremism is.  “Religion is the solution. . . .  If we all make a sincere effort to learn more about the core values and beliefs of others, we will easily see how much we have in common and how little really separates us.  And when honest people of every faith are willing to confront those who cloak themselves in piety while committing violence against others, their distorting influence will end, and a new era of peace and mutual respect can arise.”

            Tellingly, the ambassador did not conclude with this fond hope for a multi-religious common ground that would usher in universal harmony.  In her next breath she identified what she considered to be the actual arbiter of religious and civic strife today: “Peace and mutual respect flow from the strong foundation of democratic values that our many societies share—and the tradition that the government must either stay out of religious issues entirely or be as even-handed as possible in treatment of all religions. . . .  In this new global era, democratic societies that embrace a plurality of views, including a plurality of religions, are the ones that are best equipped to prosper.”

            In other words, according to the ambassador, religion may hold the ideal solution to strife, but a secular democracy insures that religious groups and individuals respect a real civic common ground and live harmoniously.  In my own small contribution to the Kuala Lumpur conference I shared my sense that “most Americans . . .  are willing to tolerate a wide diversity of religious groups as long as their own religious rights are protected and the laws of the land are respected.  A deeply held American value is that people should be allowed to follow their own conscience in religion.”[15]  I am not surprised by the Gallup Poll suggesting that the largest category of Americans on Gallup’s Religious Tolerance Index have a “live-and-let-live” attitude toward religion.[16]  Some observers are not content with such a passive approach to religious diversity,[17] but I think live-and-let-live tolerance resonates with more Americans than any other position.

            Indonesia offers an interesting model of a secular government imposing civic common ground on religions in order to further the public good.[18]  As noted, Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population.  It is currently undergoing a transition toward democracy.  Many sought to establish an Islamic state after independence, while secular nationalists and most Christians favored a religiously neutral government.  Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution enshrined something of a compromise.

The new nation, with its five major religions—Islam (87% of the population), Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Hinduism—would be guided by the Pancasila, the Five Principles of the state: monotheism, humanitarianism, national unity, representative democracy by consensus, and social justice.[19]  Each religious group may define the first state principle of monotheism in its own way, but all are expected to contribute their visions for the peace and prosperity of the whole nation in implementing the other four principles.  Ideally, “such a contribution from each [religious group] would work toward complementarity and cooperation rather than support the domination of any one.”[20]

As we might expect, these ideals have been threatened throughout modern Indonesian history, and relations between Muslims and Christians especially ebb and flow.  Still, national constitutions that value and protect religions without establishing any one of them can be very effective in imposing a relatively workable civic common ground in a multi-religious society.  Political realism may require this more than doctrine, but religious groups can literally live together with the practical outcome.  In the wake of the recent natural disaster, the head of the Indonesian Communion of Churches remarked that “the tsunami opened the eyes of this republic . . . to its many social conflicts.”  Indonesians “should go back to the vision of the founding fathers,” he said, “back to the ideals of Pancasila.”[21]

            Religions are not always enamored of imposed civic arrangements.  Subjection to secular standards can sit uneasily with worldviews claiming transcendent authority.  Still, even the most ardent proponents of religious truth claims have set aside those claims in adhering to civic restrictions.

World Relief presents a notable case.  Active in 20 countries as the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, World Relief provides a variety of services in such areas as health, poverty, agriculture, and emergency care.  The US State Department contracts World Relief to resettle refugees from all over the globe.  While precluded from directly evangelizing its clients, World Relief does not discourage its local church partners from doing so.  Self-consciously motivated by evangelical principles, World Relief has found a way to do wonderful humanitarian work within governmental restrictions, abiding by rules of civic engagement imposed upon it.[22]  Commonly accepted protocols for civil discourse represent another secular standard by which religious partisans abide when seated at the public table.[23]

            I would mention one other powerful secular authority that can “impose,” so to speak, common ground on diverse religious groups and adherents.  I call it the profit authority—“p-r-o-f-i-t”—not to be confused necessarily with the prophetic voice.  It simply makes good business sense to market your products to as many consumers as possible.  Thus two related companies in Chicago produce halal (Islamically acceptable) and kosher prepackaged meals, filling the US military’s annual order alone of 6 million cases.  “Production of kosher and halal food occurs at separate times, under the direction of rabbis from [the] Organization of Orthodox Kashruth Supervision in Chicago or inspectors from the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America.”[24]  OK, so there is still some separation here, but the power of the almighty dollar has shown Muslims and Jews the light of cooperative economic enterprise.  Here is an important lesson about common ground: it can be profitable.

Type 3: Common ground emerging from the respective authority of each religion

In contrast to the previous type, where a secular authority imposes from without, here the religions draw upon their own resources to create common ground among themselves.  In Singapore, wrote one of my students, “religious and cultural sensitivity is required in everyday life . . . in order to live in harmony . . . .  Lack of sensitivity has led to social unrest, violence and even murder, as we have seen over time.  However, certain common ground exists between religions . . . , especially in the ethical dimension. . . .  This common ground also enables one to live in harmony with those of other religions.”[25]

The modern interfaith movement seeks to promote both religious harmony and the greater civic good.  The Interfaith Association of Central Ohio, for instance, hopes to “create an inter-religious community based on understanding, friendship, and trust” and to “promote social justice, peace, and human dignity” in the wider world.[26]  Similar goals motivate the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions, the group that has organized three global religious assemblies in the past few years.  The Council’s mission is “to cultivate harmony between the world’s religious and spiritual communities and [to] foster their engagement with the world and its other guiding institutions in order to achieve a peaceful, just, and sustainable world.”[27]

As anticipated by my student’s remarks cited earlier, interfaith initiatives often find moral imperatives a promising topic for dialogue, which is why the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions crafted a document entitled Towards a Global Ethic, rather than a “Global Belief” or a “Global Ritual.”  The Global Ethic paper did not come off without debate and disagreement, however, and in the end it was published with the subtitle An Initial Declaration, not “A Final Agreement.”[28]  As one interfaith veteran confided to me, it can be difficult for religions to implement the moral imperatives they agree to in principle.

            Hans Kung was the primary author of the Global Ethic.  I mentioned his first proposition earlier: “no peace among the nations without peace among the religions.”  He follows this up with three more propositions: “no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions; no dialogue among the religions without common ethical standards; and finally, no peace without a global ethic.”[29]  Much good has been accomplished by joint religious action from an ethical common ground, where doctrinal, historical, and other real differences are intentionally set aside—not ignored or resolved—in order to address social and political problems.

I think of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, whose motto is “Different Faiths, Common Action.”  For nearly a decade the WCRP has brought together Muslim, Serbian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Jewish leaders in the strife-torn Balkans in order to address their mutual plight.  In 1997 the heads of these communities in Bosnia-Hercegovina produced a “Statement of Shared Moral Commitment” which said, in part, we “recognize that our Churches and Religious Communities differ from each other, and that each of them feels called to live true to its own faith.  At the same time we recognize that our religious and spiritual traditions hold many values in common, and that these shared values can provide an authentic basis for mutual esteem, cooperation and free common living in Bosnia-Hercegovina.”[30]  Since 1997 the President of the Jewish Community, Jakob Finci, has spearheaded the widely supported drive for a truth and reconciliation commission for the nation, modeled on the experience of post-apartheid South Africa.  Says Finci, “I think this will be some kind of psychotherapy for all the people that survived the war in Bosnia. . . .  Truth and reconciliation is our only hope.”[31]  It seems to me that we hear more about ethno-religious conflict than about such efforts at conflict resolution.

I recall the recent visit to Brazil by the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia, who met with representatives of several religious groups, including Candomble (an Afro-Brazilian religion), the Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church.  Calling inter-religious dialogue “an alternative to atomisation and religious fundamentalism,” Kobia explained that “through dialogue and co-operation we will discover what we really have in common and how we, each from the heart and soul of our religious traditions, can be of service to humankind.”[32]

What attracts religious groups to one another can be most intriguing.  Usually birds of an obvious feather flock together.  Thus we find ecumenical Christian associations with mutually exclusive memberships, like the American Council of Christian Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the National Council of Churches.[33]  But the religious feathers of some flocks can baffle at first glance.  What could possibly bring Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Mormons, and Muslims to see eye-to-eye?  Common concerns about “traditional family values,” of course.  What moved African-American pastors and their counterparts in Minister Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam to coordinate the Million Man March in 1995 and to continue cooperative efforts afterwards?  Conditions in the African-American community, of course.[34]  What motivated St. Paul’s United Methodist Church and the Islamic Society of the East Bay to build adjacent houses of worship in Fremont, California?  At first, just the serendipity of a city auction of abutting properties, but of course it took more than that for the two congregations to decide to share a parking lot and facilities, and to name their common frontage road the “Peace Terrace.”[35]  And what created a seminary consortium in greater Columbus, Ohio?  Recognition of common goals and needs beyond the abilities of any one member institution, such as training seminarians for faithful participation in multi-religious encounters and informed leadership among fellow Christians.  Of course, we thank our mutual God for that!

The “best way” to create common ground in a multi-religious world?

We have reviewed three ways to create common ground in a multi-religious world.  In the first way, one religious authority imposes common ground on other religious groups, or even beyond.  This is the way of Emperor Asoka and the Puritans.  In the second way, a secular authority imposes common ground on religions, as in certain constitutional arrangements.  Thirdly, common ground emerges from the respective authority of each religion, as in ecumenical and interfaith initiatives.

            So, which is the best way to create common ground in a multi-religious world?  Specifically, which holds the most promise for promoting peace among the faithful and the nations?  I find redeeming merit in all three, although I favor one practically (civically) speaking.  I also believe that the implications of all three should be seriously considered in a seminary curriculum.  Taking them in reverse order now:

            Many in the audience tonight might prefer the third approach, where the religions take the initiative and search deep within themselves for mutuality and shared goals.  As we have seen, much good can come of this.  But it has drawbacks.  It requires strong motivation and large investment, meaning that most religious groups and individuals will not make the effort.  This approach can also be quite polarized, creating pockets of like-minded associations, sometimes in active opposition to each other.  Moreover, we must admit that religious movements always carry the potential to become self-serving or to cause civic mischief.

            This argues for the value of the second way of creating common ground in a multi-religious world, where a secular authority imposes ground rules and sets limits on religions.  We can see this as drawing the boundaries of the public sphere within which religions have both the freedom to act and the duty to contribute positively.  As much as I love religious folks, I don’t trust them all to be good citizens.  I think the relationship between secular and religious authority is a crucial topic for seminary education.  Even one course in American religious history can helpfully inform Christian leaders of the workable civic arrangement that has evolved in this country,[36] in contrast to European models that would remove religious voices from the public sphere altogether,[37] and also in contrast to secular totalitarian regimes that persecute religion.[38]

            This leaves us to evaluate that first way of creating common ground in a multi-religious world, where one religious authority imposes it on other religious groups or beyond.  Here, too, I find merit, but not as sometimes articulated.  Some might consider a benevolent theocracy the ideal polity.  But I cannot imagine a theocracy that could work in a diverse religious society.  Every theocracy, real or imagined, will have its minorities and dissenters, from Asoka’s forest tribes, to agitators in the Puritan commonwealth, to Sunnis in predominantly Shi’ite countries and vice versa.  Theocracies find benevolence difficult to maintain in the face of opposition.  And those that resort to religious cleansing will find that it works no better than ethnic cleansing.

Let’s go back to where we began, with Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.  Recall that his multi-religious and global assembly, where everyone agreed with the Christian understanding of Truth, convened in heaven and postponed fulfillment to a future Jerusalem rather than imposing itself on contemporary cities and nations.[39]  Discussions in seminaries and other religious venues feature such topics.  I respect many of the utopias and apocalypses preached by the religions of the world—the New Jerusalems, the Last Judgments, the Messianic Kingdoms, the Armageddons, the Shambhalas, and the Kalki Avataras that will usher in a better age for all—or at least for all the survivors.

I respect these hopes as long as their proponents are content, like Nicholas, to await them in the fullness of time, drawing upon their ideals to promote the common good in the interim age.  In this real world, religious inspiration must be tempered by the civic rights of neighbors.

            The deepest unity in the diversity of the world’s religions is the agreement that something is wrong with us, that life is not the way it should be, that peace-producing common ground too often eludes us.  Without this claim, and its correlate of salvation or liberation from our predicament, religion would frankly be out of a job.  The religions differ in the details, but they all agree on the reality and the need for resolution.  As long as resolution is still to come, we live in the predicament together, however we might separately define it.

I pray for any meritorious common ground we can occupy together until such a day when the whole notion is taken out of our human hands.  Thank you.

Back