The Pluralism Project at Harvard University

Description

“The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) represents the interests of more than one thousand Unitarian Universalist congregations. The UUA grew out of the consolidation, in 1961, of two religious denominations: the Universalists, organized in 1793, and the Unitarians, organized in 1825.”

What life and career experiences have led to your present engagement in interfaith work?

“My introduction to interfaith work really began when I was in high school when I became a Unitarian Universalist (UU), then called a Unitarian, in Cincinnati, Ohio. I became very involved with the UU youth program at the time. My local UU youth group and the local Reform Jewish youth group in essence functioned as a single entity. We went to each other's conferences, and there was a lot of socializing that took place. We got together often, and always within the context of the reality that we were different faiths. Even though politically, we were as close as could be—we could've been identical—there were different faiths that were involved when we came together. And the only way we were able to sustain the relationships was to be deeply respectful of the traditions of the other partner. So, I had that early experience of having to begin at a space of radical respect in order for the relationship to work. I think this was formative in my ability to do the work I do now.”

How did the partnership between the UU youth group and the Reform Jewish youth group come about?

“I helped form it and deepen it. It came out of friendships that I had made at a particular high school where I attended. It just turned out that my friend was the president of his local youth group, and I was president of mine.”

Was there any discussion on a theological level?

“There was some; it was adolescent, and therefore incredibly deep and penetrating. But perhaps the most effective thing was attending a Reform Jewish conference and actually seeing Jewish rituals and having conversations about what they meant in the lives of people who were my age. We were engaging with the tradition as lived, rather than as written about or analyzed by scholars, no offense, Diana. I trace whatever skills I have back to these experiences. The work of the Unitarian Universalist Association, as with any other religious community, is complicated because we have strands of history and relationship that we inherit and in which we live. For example, we have a history of supporting the International Association for Religious Freedom (IARF) that we helped form one hundred plus years ago. We try to maintain these relationships, while at the same time recognizing that we are actually a very small faith community, even though Unitarian Universalists would like to believe that we are central to the religious story of the United States. For us to be effective, we simply have to be in partnership with other people of faith. It's not a choice. To have an impact in the world or in society, we have to be in partnership. I have brought that clearly to my presidency, although I must acknowledge that we are always standing on the shoulders of those who went before us. Both the Rev. Bill Schultz and the Rev. John Buehrens, past presidents of the UUA, were active in forming some of these relationships that I've been able to build upon in my work.”

What do you think are the key interfaith organizations active today?

“Another critical organization, again this is one that we co-founded, is the World Conference of Religions for Peace, which has now renamed itself Religions for Peace (RFP). Religions for Peace was created in the 1960s in partnership with our liberal Buddhist friends, the Rissho Kosei-kai, and has transformed itself into a very effective international interfaith organization. Religions for Peace sponsored the gathering in Amman, Jordan that I attended in May, 2003, where they called together religious leaders in Iraq, including Shi’ite, Sunni, and Christian leaders, to create an inter-religious council. This council is still functioning in Iraq, attempting to bring the religious community together to help rebuild Iraqi society. The primary programmatic thrust of Religions for Peace is to create local inter-religious councils, not in an abstract sense, but to fulfill specific local purposes. For example, Religions for Peace has had significant success in Africa. The purpose of the councils is not merely to come together for dialogue, but to provide support in fighting the AIDS pandemic in Africa. RFP helps to facilitate the distribution of what now, thanks to former President Bill Clinton's work, is an affordable drug treatment for HIV and AIDS in the African subcontinent. It's a very hopeful approach, and it truly is interfaith.”

What is the makeup of the council, for example, that is operating in Iraq?

“In Iraq, the council is made up of leaders from the Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim faith, and from several Christian denominations that are at this point indigenous to Iraq. At least as far as I know, there is no Kurdish representation, but it does capture the primary religious groups in the nation. These inter-religious councils are national or regional bodies. Religions for Peace is an international organization, so when we went to Amman, Jordan, the religious leaders from Iraq sat in an inner circle, and those of us from around the world sat in an outer circle. We simply had the privilege of listening to the Iraqi leaders have a conversation, one that they hadn't had since Saddam Hussein came to power. It created the space, both literally and figuratively, for Iraqi leaders to come together.”

Was there any interaction between the Iraqi leaders and world religious leaders? How was this dialogue managed so that the “first world” didn't come across like it has all the answers?

“The simple answer is that those of us from the “first world” have to remember that we don’t have the answers. When we speak, it needs to be more the questions that occur to us, and affirmations of the tremendous courage of these religious leaders. In a time when their country was under attack, just after victory had been declared, the Iraqi leaders decided to come to Jordan, to gather in the presence of a group of international leaders that they didn't know. This took considerable courage, just as it did to be present to one another after not being in conversation for forty years. This is a whole new generation of leaders: they have no previous experience in working together across lines of faith.”

How did the conversation get started? What were the preliminaries?

“There were a couple, but those of us from Religions for Peace, the international body, had some time to get clear on how we would “show up,” how we would find a way to be respectful. Then the Moderator of Religions for Peace, H.R.H. Prince El-Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, did a series of introductory remarks, in which he laid out the terrain and the hopes for the session. I think, in large part, it was his credibility that encouraged the religious leaders to attend. The Hashemite dynasty ruled in Iraq before Saddam Hussein came to power. H.R.H. Prince El-Hassan bin Talal has exercised decisive leadership in the international interfaith arena.”

What would you say are the leadership qualities necessary in an interfaith setting?

“I'll say a couple of things. There are some simple things: when you're in an interfaith gathering that's truly interfaith, you don't assume that everybody prays before a meal, or before you break bread. You acknowledge that not everyone has the same traditions about how we come together to eat. And you invite people to enter a moment of silence rather than asking someone to offer a prayer, or a blessing, because these words are deeply connected to specific religious traditions. So, there are certain specific things that you learn. But the skill sets you need, I believe, are actually deeply spiritual skill sets. I'm thinking here about the role that humility needs to play in our work together generally. It's particularly true when you're working across lines of faith. Humility lets you know that, although your individual faith tradition is supportive of you as a person, other people can have a very different experience, but yet be equally religious, called, and committed to making justice. There can be no assumption that there is one right religious or spiritual approach. There simply isn’t. You have to find a way—I think humility is how you get there—to believe this, and not just at the cognitive level, but to live it. It's really been a huge privilege for me to do this work for the UUA, an enormous privilege.”

What about believers who maintain that their way is the only way?

“What I've found is that, in these international interfaith gatherings, and I think it's true domestically too, you tend not to find the fundamentalists of any religion showing up. You just don't find the fundamentalist Christians or the fundamentalist Muslims. Generally, you find a subset of people that are less committed to there being a single source of salvation, or a single right path.”

These representatives seem like a self-selecting group of people who have to be good at talking with others of their same faith who may be more fundamentalist in their beliefs.

“Did I say this was simple work? It's not simple at all. To use Christian language, if the Kingdom of God were already here, we wouldn't have to do this work. The Kingdom of God hasn't yet arrived, we haven't created it yet, so you start where you can. If Religions for Peace can call together a group of progressive representatives of the world's religions, it's a good place to start. The conservative elements of any one of the given faiths at least have to notice that it is possible to convene, although their response can be varied. They can demonize the folks that sit down at the table, and that happens occasionally. But eventually, you have to have faith that you can bring people of the more progressive persuasion around a table, despite the divides that separate us, and that something salvific will happen, to use Christian language. I don't have a simple formula or a routine answer.”

Looking back on the history of international and interfaith work at the UUA, what have been your distinct contributions to this work?

“Each UUA president since the first, the Rev.Dana Greeley, has had a somewhat different take on what our international work should look like. Right now, I have asked the Board of Trustees to be in on the conversation so that they can engage with what our work should be. I have my fingers and toes crossed that this will be a healthy and productive conversation as it moves forward. There are several different viewpoints that are going to be helpful here. The view of the International Association of Religious Freedom (IARF) has been that if you bring individuals together of various traditions and various cultures, something positive will come out of those relationships. Former UUA president Bill Schultz, for example, was one of the strongest supporters of our partnership with Japan through the IARF. I have a somewhat different view of what we need to be doing. It is far more programmatic. I’m inclined towards the work of Religions for Peace, which is bringing people together across the religious divide in a very effective way, but with a purpose. It’s not merely the experience of cross-cultural dialogue; there's a reason for coming together. To the extent that the work of Religions for Peace in Africa facilitates the distribution of reasonably priced HIV medicine, I believe the folks working together can feel proud of that. When the more fundamentalist folks—the folks who haven't agreed to join the conversation—when they look in from the outside, they will say, ‘This is not just about sitting around a table, this is actually about trying to save lives. We have to respect that.’ So, that's one of my reactions regarding what we should be doing. I'm also mindful that other people who have sat in my chair, who are very smart and very committed, have had different views.”

You have just talked about the concrete goals of Religions for Peace in Africa. Is there a similarly concrete vision for their interfaith work in Iraq?

“The most concrete thing that came out of the meeting in Amman, Jordan was an agreement on the part of the Iraqi religious leaders to continue meeting. Each particular situation is going to have it's unique set of circumstances, and in this case, the level of fear in Iraq was such that the mere act of meeting was a very significant action.”

What specific issues are being addressed by the inter-religious councils that Religions for Peace is helping to set up around the world?

“That's up to the religious leaders from the particular country or local area; in other words, the local or national leaders have to identify what their priorities are. For example, in West Africa, the work of the inter-religious councils may well begin with the educational system, and the aftermath of colonial education. They may tackle the difficulty of setting up an effective indigenous public education system. That's one of the topics of conversation in Nigeria, for example. The issues on the table are determined by the religious leaders of each local area; they themselves determine what their focus will be.”

So, religious leaders from local areas are discussing local concerns within inter-religious councils that are supported by Religions for Peace, a group of international leaders that offer a worldwide perspective?

“Yes, and it is done with as much relationship as possible. Dr. William Ventley, General Secretary of Religions for Peace and his staff traveled extensively in Africa, talking with religious leaders, before they began convening inter-religious councils. You just can't show up from the outside and knock on doors and say, ‘Hi, I'm Religions for Peace. Let me in.’ You can't do it that way; you have to build relationship. Religions for Peace provides the inter-religious councils with ongoing staff support and access to funding, but the decision-making power is clearly local. The hope is that these interfaith councils will eventually become institutionalized; in some places, governments are now funding them.”

Would you say there is a spiritual component to this interfaith work?

“There's a significant spiritual depth to this work; it's no different than the interfaith work that takes place in the United States, that our congregations are getting increasingly involved in. There is a kind of spiritual deepening that takes place as people engage with spiritual leaders and practitioners of other faiths, both in reflecting upon our own automatic beliefs and actions—‘Why do I do that?’—and in reflecting upon the interfaith conversation itself. I’ve spent a fair amount of time with the Rissho Kosei-kai leadership within the last three years and thoroughly enjoyed and benefited from it. Most particularly, I’ve noticed that we UUs in the United States tend to be motivated by justice as a work. The making of justice is a powerful concept for us, such as in the hymn 'Let justice roll down like waters.' But for liberal Japanese Buddhists, they are leery of justice in some senses. For them, what is motivating is the concept of harmony. So when a Westerner, or another liberal religious partner, talks to them about the need to create justice, their reaction is, "Well, we're not really sure that's what we want to be about." And when they talk to us about the need for harmony, I initially react with, "Harmony, that's a really soft approach if there ever was one." It's a question of moving into a deeper understanding. What does harmony mean to the Japanese, and what does justice actually mean to us? And what can we learn from each other about how we walk about in the world?"

Aren’t harmony and justice, in the end, very similar concepts?

“No, they share some things, but they are different, very culturally different. ‘Justice’ is a hard-edged word. It suggests the just and the unjust, the sinner and the pure. ‘Harmony’ suggests that we are all in this together; it reflects more of the seventh principle of Unitarian Universalism—respect for the interdependent web of all existence—than the first principle, or the inherent worth and dignity of every person."

What if you translate ‘harmony’ as ‘equality’ or ‘balance,’ which would have implications for social justice work within the realm of human interactions?

“Yes, I’ve worked hard on the translation. You can find common ground down underneath, but the reality is that we have been called to do different things, to be in the world differently by these different words. The Westerners show up, and we want to change everything, to fix the world. The Japanese want to cure the worst results of the world’s ills, but basically, they have a different way of being in the world. I'm a neophyte at this. I have begun the process of understanding, but this could be a lifetime's work.”

It sounds like this work requires much patience and endurance.

“All of this work grows out of relationship. It's not an abstract enterprise, so relationship means that you're learning things about the other party, and they're learning things about you. You're making mistakes because, Lord knows, you make mistakes all the time in interfaith work. It kind of comes with the territory. You're making mistakes; you're finding a space for forgiveness; you're trying to build enough trust so that you can move forward. It's a very delicate kind of relationship building.”

Have you just returned from a trip to Rome with Religions for Peace?

“This trip to the Vatican was wonderful. We stayed in the Papal apartments, where the Cardinals will be staying when they elect a new Pope when Pope John Paul II dies, as his days are not many. Being at the Vatican again for the first time in 35 years was a wonderful experience, just simply to be present there. The meetings were astounding. Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abd-Rabbo, the drafters of the Geneva Accord, talked to us for the better part of an evening about the process of crafting the accords. This Israeli and this Palestinian spent three years saying, ‘Let's actually see what this would look like if we were to find a solution here—a concrete one, not a theoretical “road-map.” Where would the line be drawn? What about that well and those trees and that wall?’ It was an extraordinary experience, a model of what can be. I was struck that they are both deeply in and of their own culture. But they were able, out of acute need, to come together and do this work. Part of the equation in some interfaith work is the depth of the need for it. The alternative to collaboration, in many cases, is actually very grim. The current situation in Israel and Palestine is one good example of that."