Activists versus Dialogue at the Parliament.

Last updated on: November 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm by Robert Hunt

Activists versus Dialogue at the Parliament. 2015-11-01T17:19:25-07:00 Robert Hunt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Would the fundamentalists have shown up for a pluralistic conference that respects multiple viewpoints anyway” This was a recent posting I saw regarding the Parliament of the World’s Religions failure to engage Christian conservatives as well as many other groups.

It makes a big assumption: that conservative religious groups aren’t interested in dialogue, which really isn’t the case. I regularly host and moderate dialogue involving conservative Jews, Muslims, and Christians along with those from far more liberal traditions. Conservatives are willing to dialogue about social issues, as long as the results aren’t determined in advance.

Recently I attended a meeting of leaders from different faith groups interested in politically engaged social action. And they ran the gamut from conservative Christians to liberal Jews. One thing quickly became clear: they could not and would not form a coalition around a single issue. Each constituency they represented had its own constellation of concerns, and none of these was identical with those of others.

For example: a conservative evangelical Baptist group was very much in favor of immigration reform and a path to citizenship, a concern the shared with Roman Catholics. But like the Roman Catholics the Baptists were opposed to easing restrictions of abortions.

A group representing LGBTQ interests found support from a Jewish group that also supported the Black Lives Matter movement. But an African American church leader made clear that his organization wasn’t on board with the LGBTQ agenda and resented having it compared to the Civil Rights movement.

And so on. Pick an issue from climate change to fracking and it both fractured the room and created the opportunity for unexpected coalitions.

Which was the weakness and strength of the recent Parliament of the World’s Religions. In its plenaries it effectively fractured the room, excluding groups that couldn’t by its progressive package of issues. But in the literally thousands of sessions it provided opportunities for dialogue and coalition building. It pity is that the Parliament organizers choose to divide the room in advance.

Which is a mistake that those of us engaged in inter-religious dialogue should not make. The way to write an agenda for dialogue is by engaging in dialogue: a dialogue in which there is no insistence on buying into a particular progressive or conservative package. A dialogue that recognizes divergent beliefs and interests and seeks only to provide a jumping off point for smaller coalitions around issues of mutual interest.

Indeed, such inter-religious dialogue begins to look like the way democracy should work. Not the polarization that marginalizes minorities, but constant forming and dissolving of temporary coalitions around shared concerns, points of view, or strategy.

Alas, political activism in its current American form has become almost completely incapable of just that kind of dialogue and strategic coalition forming. Which is why when activists took over the Parliament it meant the practical end of dialogue. As it has meant that when activists take over congress there is an end to legislation.

Christian Identity

Christian Muslim Relations

Inter-Religious Dialogue

Previous Post

November 1, 2015

American Idolatry

Next Post

November 4, 2015 Do Unto Others . . . ? Not so much.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Identity Christian Muslim Relations Home Page Inter-Religious Dialogue Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 May 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz