Introduction: Educating for Engagement

Abstract

This special roundtable of essays for the Spring 2024 issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs features eight reflections on the concept of cross-cultural religious literacy (CCRL), focusing in particular on potential implications for education across multiple sectors and levels of society, and the state. These authors were all participants in a June 2023 convening at The Fetzer Institute in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which brought together several chapter contributors to discuss The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement, co-edited by Chris Seiple and Dennis R. Hoover.

Keywords:

• covenantal pluralism
• religious literacy
• freedom of religion or belief
• character virtue
• mutual engagement
• education
• training

We seem to be amidst a new low in the world’s political, religious, and academic discourse. With shovels ready to dig a deeper hole, some on the left and the right continue to accuse the other in a manner that betrays the values they say they embody. University presidents resign as the very purpose of the university is contentiously debated. There is no “dignity in the discourse.”¹

Our world today urgently needs a framework for actually engaging the other in a dignified manner, such that the model and the methodology of engagement reinforces the message of seeking a deeper whole of society. One example (among others) of just such a framework took place in June of 2023 at The Fetzer Institute in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This three-day meeting brought together chapter authors from different continents, different religions (and secular worldviews), and different political persuasions to further reflect on their contributions to The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement (Seiple and Hoover 2022).²

This special roundtable of essays for the Spring 2024 issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs shares some of the participants’ reflections on the meeting, focusing in particular on potential implications for education across multiple sectors and levels of society, and the state. I trust these essays will be a source of encouragement to you, as well as an example of practical initiatives that you might take, in concert with others, in your context.

I helped open the meeting by providing a baseline for considering cross-cultural religious literacy,³ noting that: “The vision of cross-cultural religious literacy is to prepare individuals to love their neighbor in a language and logic that their neighbor understands, by equipping them to engage elicitively and empathetically, and thus share their own sacred story in a manner that it can be received, and respected.”

The meeting had a twofold purpose:

1. reflect, together, on the methodology of cross-cultural religious literacy (CCRL)—as a dignified and practical means of engaging others and building the model of covenantal pluralism (Stewart, Seiple, and Hoover 2020); and,

2. consider, together, how these ideas might be better integrated with various educational and training initiatives—based on the broad assumption that education (how to think) changes the mind, and that training (what you do) changes behavior.⁴

The participants represented the full range of the theological, political, and vocational spectrums, but they were also good and decent people of common values who not only cared about those in the room, but cared about operationalizing a new concept in innovative ways that could serve others.

In other words, as Hien Vu, who as Vietnam Program Manager at the Institute for Global Engagement has long worked for a social cohesion that includes all religious and ethnic groups, summarizes: “Our work is different, but our commitment, efforts, and engagement have the essential nature of CCRL, even if we do not all use this precise lingo in our endeavors. And we all agreed on the need for some type of toolkit or a curriculum to conceptualize our approach and to be able to share it.”

I was pleasantly surprised by the essential unanimity of that June meeting regarding the model of covenantal pluralism and its methodology, CCRL, as the discussion moved quickly past the concept and the diction to implementation. The group developed a common understanding of the demand for, the discussion about, and the delivery systems of mutually respectful engagement that serves the common good. They agreed that:

1. the world cries out for new methodologies, models, and messages regarding mutual engagement (demand); but,

2. the capacity of leaders across the sectors of state and society to respond is limited and/or unavailable, in part because of how they conceptualize and articulate the need (the discourse); and,

3. even if the discourse could meet the demand, the mechanisms available to catalyze and sustain positive change (the delivery systems, e.g., how the academy is organized) are irrelevant and/or incapable of innovation.

Regarding the global need, Bob Roberts—co-founder of Multi-Faith Neighbors’ Network, which brings rabbis, pastors, and imams together to build relationships and serve their cities—writes: “Every religion is now present in every place, geographically and culturally. Therefore we must learn to relate to one another. Not knowing anything about the other makes a person susceptible to stereotypes and misinformation.” And clerics, generally speaking, have much more influence over society than other (political) leaders. He further observes: “Clerics utilizing CCRL for peacemaking is not the path of least resistance. Leading congregations in such difficult times is very hard. It is difficult if not impossible to please everyone. The answer is to do right, lead right, have courage, and move forward. If you’re going to suffer anyway, suffer for what is right.”

The susceptibility to stereotype is particularly true at the university. Jim Wellman, Chair of the Comparative Religion Program at the University of Washington’s Jackson School of International Studies, starkly states the challenge before the academy: “One of the great problems in the Western academy is precisely the lack of any knowledge of comparative religions, the diversity of faith traditions, and the actual beliefs and practices of religious traditions. As academics, if we said it is okay to make judgments on a phenomenon that exists in nearly 70 percent of the world, we would say, “Of course not.” And yet, some academics are broadly uninformed about the breadth and scope of religious practice and belief across the world.”

The need is not just among religious and academic leaders, it is across society. For example, Stephanie Summers makes the following observation about faith-based organizations that serve the entire public: “Great care may be taken in training board members for their governance role and fiduciary responsibilities, yet little attention is paid to education for CCRL. This lack of preparedness has in recent years led faith-based social service organizations’ boards to stumble in both the proactive and responsive public dynamics of CCRL, leaving staff without guidance and making decisions that seem arbitrary in the minds of beneficiaries, donors, and the public.”

Regarding the general lack of capacity in the different sectors of society and the state to engage respectfully, and practically, there are examples from outside the academy to inspire it forward. Chelsea Langston Bombino, for example, writes that the FoRB Women’s Alliance⁵—which was founded by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim women—“embodies and demonstrates—rather than simply paying lip service to—CCRL education for those at the intersection of human rights, FoRB, and women … . The competencies and skills of CCRL help women find ways to honor their faith tradition while also identifying and leveraging elements of that tradition to challenge cultural norms and practices that harm women.”

Another example comes from Wendy Cadge, the founder and leader of the Chaplaincy Innovation Lab, who reminds us of the holistic meaning of CCRL: “As a case study, chaplains remind those invested in CCRL that much of the work is not exclusively about ‘religion’ narrowly defined but related to the broader ways in which people find and create meaning.” She says that chaplains “by design, serve individuals who are similar and different to them around religion and spirituality as well as race, ethnicity, gender, class, and other factors. While religious leaders in congregations typically work with people who share their spiritual and religious commitments and are often similar to them in terms of race and class, chaplains often do not. They work—every day—across many axes of difference, ideally embodying the mutual engagement which builds mutual respect, mutual reliance, and resilience that is core to covenantal pluralism.”

Regarding the need for innovation, the group had several ideas about how to move forward. Ebrahim Rasool, former South African ambassador to the United States, sums up the opportunity for innovation this way: “This pedagogy for CCRL, informal and experiential as it is, has the best chance of success because it holds out the possibility of a pluralism that is covenantal. It is covenantal because it has a literacy that unites people and aggregates collective strengths, but it remains robustly plural because it does not fundamentally threaten or alter each one’s founding and innate belief.” He goes on to call for better measurement, evaluation, analysis/accountability, and learning from those conducting CCRL, to better make its case: “CCRL must further calibrate milestones of success, from the micro to the macro, that are proactively known, carefully pursued, then joyfully achieved. This is the reinforcing characteristic of a pedagogy for CCRL.”

The University of Washington’s Jim Wellman provides more specificity about the innovation needed, suggesting that “CCRL should be a requirement for incoming students across all colleges and universities.” He further welcomes CCRL as an “essential tool toward greater public understanding and a more productive dialogue between religionists and secularists in the academy and beyond,” while also calling for the development of “cross-cultural secular literacy (CCSL),” especially for (urban) places like Seattle.

Hien Vu recommends that “CCRL education in Vietnam should be pursued via a two-tiered model. Tier one is short-term training on CCRL capacity building for all parties involved in policy-making and implementation to address immediate needs. Tier two is long-term education on CCRL for the whole society through elementary schools and through an ongoing dialogue and process of reviewing and improving all religious policies.”

And Peshawar University’s Minhas Khan proposes that in order to “promote religious literacy and interfaith understanding in Pakistan’s education system, several constructive CCRL courses and modules can be introduced. These include an introductory course on world religions to provide a foundational understanding of different faith traditions, including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and others. Interfaith dialogue and cooperation courses can foster respectful communication and collaboration among individuals from diverse religious backgrounds. Modules on religious diversity and social harmony can explore successful examples of interfaith collaboration and peaceful coexistence. Courses on ethics and social justice can explore the ethical teachings of different religions and how they contribute to the advancement of human rights and equality. Comparative scripture studies can offer an in-depth analysis of holy texts, encouraging critical thinking and appreciation for religious diversity.”

In conclusion, I pray that these reflections on the means of cross-cultural religious literacy pursuant the ends of covenantal pluralism—vis-à-vis educational (how to think) and training (what to do) initiatives in humanitarian organizations, in religious traditions (and secular traditions), and especially in higher education—are not only helpful to you but inspirational as well. Know that there are good people everywhere, doing the best they can with what they have, according to the best of their beliefs. Perhaps you could convene a similar type of gathering at your work, house of worship, or school. And if you do, please let us know, because we walk together.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chris Seiple

Chris Seiple (PhD, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy) is Principal Advisor to the Templeton Religion Trust’s Covenantal Pluralism Initiative and President Emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement. He is also a senior fellow at the University of Washington's Comparative Religion Program and the University of Haifa's Laboratory for Religious Studies. A pioneer in the field of religion and international relations, he has held numerous leadership positions, including senior advisor to USAID (2020), heading up the research committee in support of USAID’s Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement.

Notes

1 My brother, Jesse Seiple, who has an M.A. in conflict resolution from the Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, coined this phrase (as far as I know).

2 The Fetzer Institute has kindly made this book free, forever, online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003036555/routledge-handbook-religious-literacy-pluralism-global-engagement-chris-seiple-dennis-hoover.

3 The term “cross-cultural religious literacy” was chosen as a framework for engagement because everyone lives in multiple cultures—e.g., spiritual, global, national, organizational, family, etc.—and those cultures provide meaning to life. That meaning is often a moral framework—say, an explanation of right and wrong—that is often rooted in religion. Thus CCRL is a framework for crossing from the meaning of one’s culture to another, and there needs to be as many onramps to this kind of bridging as possible—which is why the competencies and skills of CCRL are non-religious terms, meant to be accessible to as many people as possible in bridging the meanings and beliefs that make up culture, without diluting and/or sacrificing the substance of them.

4 The Handbook was published in 2022, featuring 33 chapters from different regional and religious perspectives that examine how the competencies and skills of cross-cultural religious literacy are relevant to the building of covenantal pluralism. The first two chapters of this book were previously published as articles in this journal: Stewart, Seiple, and Hoover (2020), and Seiple and Hoover (2021), respectively.

5 “FoRB” is an acronym for Freedom of Religion or Belief. FoRB is the first enabling condition of covenantal pluralism. The other enabling conditions are cross-cultural religious literacy and character virtues. See Stewart, Seiple, and Hoover (2020).