The developing field of Interreligious/Interfaith Studies asserts something radical: that the phenomenon of religion isn’t something that can be meaningfully understood in the singular; that the study of religion should actually be the study of religions-in-relation; that—to quote Max Müller— “those who know one, know none.” In addition to this important insight, Interreligious/ Interfaith Studies asserts something even more radical: that this field of study should do more than just explain these relations, that it should train students how to help religious communities foster and nourish healthy relations with each other and with secular society at large. While the former assertion has, for the most part, been well-received, the latter is much more contentious, with many scholars arguing that this represents a type of “activism” has no place in the university classroom.
My time at the Parliament helped clarify my resolve to advocate for this pedagogical orientation, despite the formidable challenge it represents in terms of navigating the boundary between scholarship and activism. An overarching theme of the Parliament was the multitude of disasters facing the world—our growing environmental crisis, the growing inequities between the rich and the poor, racism, sexism, bigotries of all kinds, the COVID-19 pandemic, the list goes on. These are problems that humanity needs to work on urgently, earnestly, and most importantly, collectively. A second overarching theme was to highlight the important resources the world’s religions contain for addressing these disasters. While holding compassion for those who are other to us is one of these resources, this, the Parliament asserted, is not enough: we must turn compassion into action. While intercultural and interreligious dialogue initiatives can be powerful agents of change in addressing the intolerances that arise from the problems of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc., fostering healthy intercultural and interreligious dialogue is not an easy feat—stereotypes, prejudices, power imbalances, and negative emotional responses (among other factors) all represent pitfalls that must be overcome.
Interreligious/Interfaith Studies asserts that, as researchers and teachers, scholars have an important role to play in 1) devising strategies for overcoming these pitfalls through research, and 2) preparing students to meet these challenges in the real world. The Parliament helped me see that, although breaking down some of the barriers between scholarship and activism can seem scary, the alternative—maintaining the status quo in the name of safeguarding academic integrity—is even scarier. Why? Because this move isn’t a threat to academic integrity if we approach this project thoughtfully and with care.
That is why I was so happy to see Dr. Eboo Patel and Dr. Paul Knitter participating at this year’s Parliament. Both Dr. Patel and Dr. Knitter are scholars and interfaith activists, and both have led the way in articulating how we can negotiate this task thoughtfully while maintaining the academic integrity critics of this approach feel is at risk.
I would like to end by invoking some wisdom shared by Xhosa Elder and Professor Nokuzola Mndende in her remarks at the Opening Plenary: “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am.” We can’t tackle the global problems facing us without remembering these words, without remembering that, without “we” there is no “I.” We must work together to tackle the challenges we face today, and we must accept that this will involve discomfort, the rethinking of norms, and radical shifts to the current status quo.
Elyse completed a PhD student in Ă山ǿĽé's School of Religious Studies. Her primary area of research is in interreligious dialogue.
Originally published in the Fall 2021 issue of Radix Magazine
