Interfaith on Campus

by Gary Berg-Cross

The British Religion in Numbers website is an online resource of survey and other data. You can see charts on church numbers and belief such as:

 Belief in the Afterlife, 1939-2008.

7.2 Belief in Angels, 1995-2009.

7.3 Belief in Guardian Angels, 1998-2009.

7.4 Belief in Astrology, 1985-2008.

7.5 Belief that the Bible is of Divine Origin, 1984-2008.

7.6 Belief that the New Testament is of Divine Origin, 1960-1993.

7.7 Belief that the Old Testament is of Divine Origin, 1960-1993.

7.8 Belief in Black Magic, 1973-1995.

7.9 Experience of Déjà Vu, 1973-2003.

7.10 Belief in the Devil, 1957-2006.

 It useful since many religious debates get down to questions of how many or how large or is this typical?  And of course trends are important.

And one trend at least has gotten some recent attention based on results from the first stage of the 2015 British Election Study.  This is a survey of more than 20,000 people conducted by a team of academics from Manchester, Oxford and Nottingham universities.. Apparently, as reported in Christian Today, the results show that in roughly the last five decades, the number of people reporting no religion in Britain:

 “has grown from just 3 per cent of the population to nearly half, according to a new survey. “

It’s roughly a 1% change a year going from 3 to 50% in 40 years.  Similar trends are reported in the US and even in the US South there is movement.  The Public Religion Research Institute's recent report noted that 14 percent of Alabamians describe themselves as "religiously unaffiliated." That’s a long way from Britian but as a local paper worried “In a state that put the King James Bible in "Bible belt," that's downright shocking.”  Let's see 30 years of 1% for Alabama would put them up to Britain.

And it is more of a trend for young adults aged under 25. In Britain nearly two-thirds define themselves as "nones", or people with no religious affiliation.

Part of the turn off is attributed to disgust with male-dominated church leadership who’s orthodoxy abides traditional discrimination against women and homosexuals.  One notes that Pope Frank and others are on to this issue and searching for ways to mitigate the orthodox image at least.  One worries that this is just a kinder, gentler form of orthodoxy. After all if its God's word and you're infallible.  Well there may be a ceiling effect.

Another  reaction was noted on NPR with a segment by MONIQUE PARSONS (October 16, 2014) called: Interfaith Chaplains Revitalize An Old Role On College Campuses.

The broadcast started by noting that a third of young Americans report no religious affiliation – well behind the Brits, I guess, but hope still bubbles in chaplain's offices according to the report. And why not? There was free pizza for the casual drop in!  The real innovation noted was the pull and soft sell of the new, trending Interfaith Councils aspect. “Come in and shop.  Try on my religion.  It goes well with your hair color.”

At USC's interfaith council there was a noted a mix of Muslim students, Catholics, a Sikh, an agnostic and a few unclassified or hybrid identities.

VARUN SONI provided examples of some hybrid ID :

·       I'm a Zen Christian,

·       I'm sushi. I was like, what's sushi? Oh, my mom is Sunni and my father is Shia, so I'm sushi.

·       I'm a Hin-Jew,

·       I'm a Jew-Bu.

These may evoke a degree of tolerance mixed and respect for difference, win-win overlap with occasional bumps into ritual, observance conflicts & paradox. We do know that interfaith marriages, which in part produce these hybrids, are on the rise in the U.S. but there seems to be a wrinkle. According to one study, interfaith couples are more likely to keep their separate religious affiliations than ever before (40% keep there's compared to 20% 40 years ago - gee, less

compromise and more stick). So there is a practical limit to this blending. Sill I've long become familiar with the Atheist-Unitarians (AUs) blend that may be more tolerant than some mixes. Exposure to, and experience practicing, different religious faiths may breed some tolerance and put people on a better path.  I generally feel that way about AUs. There is even some Humanist hybrid possible -AHU is quietly in the mix.

But what about the professionals?  The chaplains and the organizations that employ them. Are they bystanders, facilitators, and participants with their own agendas?  Hard to say. Certainly they continue to churn out graduates who then seek jobs.   And the show made clear that campus chaplain offices are dynamically reconfiguring their approach to connect with those trending hybrid identities. 

I don't know if this is as much of phenomena in Britain, but the Chaplin at USC is an interesting example. Hi is named Soni.  Turns out he is not a trained clergyman. He's a Hindu with a law degree and a PhD in religious studies.  Well at least he’s found a career path. Indeed as reported, he is not the only one on the new Interfaith chaplaincy cruise path:

“In a way, chaplains like Soni are more like interfaith cruise directors than traditional pastors. Soni oversees 100 student religious groups and 50 chaplains of different faiths, including a new atheist chaplain to serve secular students. At Yale, a Catholic laywoman runs the religious life office. At Emory, in Atlanta, a school affiliated with the Methodist Church, an Imam recently made the shortlist for chaplain. Seminaries are taking note. At the Claremont School of Theology in Southern California, a student practices piano inside the chapel. There's a big cross up front, but also symbols from other faiths. The school has partnered with local Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish seminaries. It's also created new degree programs to reach millennial's interested in ministry.”

Some of the activities at USC mentioned included invites to star athletes to talk about spirituality or actor Rainn Wilson to give a lecture on his Bahai faith. There's also a popular lunch series with professors called "What Matters To Me And Why?"  Sounds like it could be a mix of Philosophy and Psychology, but Interfaith offices lay some claim to that turf too now less oriented around God and more around the big, existential questions of meaning and purpose, of significance and authenticity.  
Religions have historically crafted simple memes to appear to address these Big Questions and in the process pull shop-oriented people into a religious, cultural identity . That’s evolving and perhaps there will studies of where the interfaith path takes us.  In the meantime it is a bit of an opening for the Humanist message about life's big questions.  Along with the free pizza some humanist teachings seem like a good addition to the interfaith discussions.

Challenges of Extending Inter-Faith Conversations

by Gary Berg-Cross

I generally like conversation and the free exchange of ideas. There is a pragmatics to it, as Albert Einstein noted, "the free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life." Recognizing this conversation itself becomes a value to individuals and groups. It is not hard to believe that in the long run the public, as well as to group and personal interests, can, and generally are, well served by the free exchange of ideas.

But there are limits. Not all types of conversations are equally useful. There are some that are frustrating and maybe even counter-productive. I'm thinking of some forms of political, religious and sports "debates" that seem to do little good. These are the kind where cultural & factional prejudice are in control and serve narrow goals and interests.

Such contrasts of good versus poor conversations run through my mind when I hear about Interfaith dialogs between religious minded and freethinkers. Every now and then an Interfaith group reaches out to someone like Christopher Stedman, Interfaith & Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and the Founder of the first blog dedicated to exploring atheist-interfaith engagement, NonProphet Status. (see also his Faitherst book site).

Stedman is a natural candidate for such dialogs but some of the questions in my mind are what topics of conversations can they be, what would we in the WASH community have to say in such dialogs?

For some parts of the interfaith community productive or potentially productive conversations seem possible at least for some topics. Discussion of topics like ethics are possible with "faithful" people who are not worried about definitions of religion or they are progressive thinkers engaging in interfaith work and see such conversations as a natural extension of religious pluralism. The assumption is that all sides will just welcome a conversation in the hope that each may profit from frank exchanges within open and searching dialogs. It's an appealing idea to launch such conversation in an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance. These may be enhanced with the idea that we are all just human individuals forging our personal paths forward and than all sides can learn from others experience and thinking. This conversational spirit may appeal to some believers - ones who's value acceptance & dialog over the dogmatic creed & ritualistic parts of religion.

Creed and ritual are 2 of the 4 common characteristics of religions that Catherine Albanese discusses in her book America: Religions and Religion. Some of these may come up in Inter-faith-Freethinker discussion with varying expectations of acceptance.

Discussing creeds or explanations about the meaning or meanings of human life might raise some issues for both sides. On the religious side the discussion might focus on systematic theologies, but also oral traditions, narratives, and so forth. Secular Humanists have such explanations of human life although we might not call them creeds, We even have a bit of interesting history which standard religious groups may know little about and this might be something worth communicating. We would probably also want to talk about science as a method that promises to improve our understanding & explanations of the natural world.

A 2nd characteristic is Codes - rules that govern everyday behavior. Religious conversations can range from complex, formalized systems of laws to unwritten customs or to general ethical ideas. Secular Humanists may want to emphasize the rational aspects of ethics and demote customs frozen from ancient history. In the right environment a conversation seems possible here, although as with creed religious groups may feel they have much more to say and a freethinker may feel the basis of their codes are questionable and need to be challenged.

Number 3 is Cultuses - rituals that act out the understandings and insights of the creeds and codes. This is more problematic to me, since it builds on, and potentially amplifies, areas of disagreement from the earlier 2 topics. Of course they aren't necessarily discussed in sequence but are munged together and can be hard to untangle. Freethinkers are not partial to rituals, although we have,for example, developed cermonies for the big events of life - birth,marriage and death. Still religious rituals outnumber ours by a quite a bit. This point was well out by a Secular Humanist who said when discussing the topic of Secular Communion http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/can_we_at_least_demand_secular.php , "It's not like secular humanists have to swear allegiance to Homo sapiens sapiens and forgo all other concern for other life forms.

The last characteristic, and a frequent discussion topic between faiths is that of Community. These are groups of people who are bound together by the previous 3 characteristics - creed, code and cultus. People like to compare and contracts these which can take the form of ethnic or cultural groups or formal institutions such as churches, denominations, or a group like WASH.

We can probably agree that many aspects of 3C's are on informal and varied side with Freethinkers. We have our own Inter-Belief spectrum so communities may be as diverse as found within the entire Intefaith community. All of which suggests we might have more diverse representation within such discussions. How about a dialog that adds to the faith community atheists, skeptics, and secular humanists. Not something I see happening soon, but I'm open to discussing it.