People arrive at the table of interreligious engagement for various reasons. After spending some time in the world of interfaith engagement, I began to notice common narratives emerge in regards to how people come to be involved. In this short article, I focus on three interdependent gateways to the table. These three need not be mutually exclusive, nor always thought of as “gateways” necessarily. Rather, they are also levels of religious diversity, modes of religious inquiry, and facets of the architecture of religious diversity. The three levels are: 1) intrareligious, 2) interreligious, and 3) intrasubjective.

Perry Schmidt-Leukel, scholar of religious studies and theology at the University of Münster, recently published his Gifford Lectures. In these lectures, he proposes a rather innovative and groundbreaking way to understand and appreciate religious diversity (i.e., the relations within, between, and among religions). In addition to proposing a “fractal interpretation of religious diversity,” ^[1] he draws on the three levels of cultural diversity in Swiss philosopher Elmar Holenstein’s “architecture of cultural diversity” (intra-, inter-, and intrasubjective) and applies them to religious diversity.^[2]

In brief, the level of intrareligious diversity refers to the diversity found within a religious tradition, interreligious diversity to the reality of the existence of various religious traditions on a global scale, and intrasubjective religious diversity to “the diversity found within the mental cosmos of individual persons.”^[3] Schmidt-Leukel’s fractal interpretation argues that features that distinguish religions from one another (interreligious diversity) also appear again in the other two levels. This fascinating insight helps to explain how and why these three levels function interdependently and can often serve as gateways to each other.

 

Intrareligious Encounter leads to Interreligious Engagement

It is not uncommon to venture into intentional interreligious engagement after recognizing the diversity that already exists within one’s own tradition. A Christian might reframe this by saying ecumenical dialogue can often lead to interreligious dialogue. For instance, Leonard Swidler, well-known “pioneer and peacemaker”^[4] in interreligious dialogue, reports first becoming interested in Protestant Catholic dialogue as a graduate student at the University of Tübingen in the late 1950s.^[5] Today, Swidler remains one of the most recognized and prolific scholars and leaders in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue in the West, and his journey began with an interest in the internal diversity of his home religion,Christianity. This narrative is not uncommon, regardless of one’s religious identity. After recognizing the important distinctions in their home tradition, people often realize that not only must there also be important differences lurking within other traditions but that these differences matter.

Recognizing the internal diversity of religions is important for understanding not only our own religious traditions but also the traditions of others. A major obstacle to constructive interreligious engagement today lies in oversimplifying traditions other than our own, ignoring the vast diversity that exists in other religions. Examples of this might be to conclude, “All Muslims do X, all Jews believe Y, or all Christians forbid Z.” This ignorance is not often born out of ill intent; rather, it arises simply out of a lack of basic religious literacy and exposure to religious diversity. Thus, elsewhere I have proposed the cultivation of interreligious wherewithal and (inter)religious literacy.

 

Interreligious and Intrareligious Encounters lead to Intrasubjective Reflection

Encountering the diversity that exists internally and externally to our own traditions often turns us inward to reflect on our own religious identity in a deeper manner.

Not only is this part of the methodological spirit of comparative theology, as I understand it, but it also gets at what Raimon Panniker had in mind when he wrote about the “intra-religious dialogue,” the conversation that takes place within oneself about one’s own religious identity following an encounter with other religions.^[6] This is akin to the intrasubjective level of religious diversity. Pannikker famously said about his own religious identity, after returning from India to study Indian philosophy and religion, “I left Europe as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be Christian.”^[7] His encounter with external traditions (interreligious encounter) led him to reflect on his own religious identity (intersubjective religious diversity). Interior reflection takes place when he recognized that diversity is not simply something outside of him, but also within him.

Drawing on William James, Schmidt-Leukel recognizes that there is “psychological correspondence between the diversity of religions and the diversity of different types of religious personalities as they are found within each religion,”^[8]  thus implying a relation between a relationships between religious diversity at the inter- and intrareligious levels and different psychological profiles at the intrasubjective level.” Diane M. Millis identifies three “conversations” always taking place in a gathering of people: external (spoken words between people); internal (dialogue in the head interpreting what is seen, heard, etc. in the exterior world); and interior (the conversation “that happens in the deepest core of our being,”^[9] which is akin to intrasubjective reflection). Millis teaches that silence is key to cultivating interior reflection; she writes, “When we get quiet—really quiet—we become more aware of all the noise around us, between us, and within us.”^[10] Dwelling in such silence, one might begin to recognize the many different religious identities she potentially carries with her. She is not unique. For those who identify with a particular tradition, this deep reflection on interior religious identity can prompt considering how they might also identify with multiple religious identities (MRI), whether via “multiple religious belonging” (MRB) or “multiple religious participation” (MRP).^[11] For the growing number who identify as “Nones” or “Spiritual-but-not-Religious,” this could mean reflecting on how even though they may not identify with any particular tradition, they might still participate in one or more traditions. This might be “single religious participation” (SRP) or MRP, but not “single religious belonging” (SRB) or MRB.

 

Intrasubjective Reflection leads to Intrareligious and Interreligious Encounter

Intrasubjective religious reflection also entails the possibility of leading one (back) to interreligious and intrareligious engagement. The conversation that takes place within one’s self (one’s own intrapersonal dialogue) can serve as a “microcosm” of the dialogue that takes place both within one’s own religious tradition and between the religious traditions of the world.^[12] These three levels of religious diversity, or modes of religious inquiry, are most certainly interrelated and interdependent. As gateways to encounter, they are not mutually exclusive, nor do they function independently of one another. Rather, they flow concurrently and harmoniously. As such, they have important practical implications for interreligious relations.^[13]

Photo: ©Hans Gustafson, 2007

Image: ©Hans Gustafson

 

Endnotes

^[1] In Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology: The Gifford Lectures, Schmidt-Leukel’s innovative “fractal interpretation of religious diversity” shows how the diversity and insights within particular religions can often be seen in other traditions in the same way (Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology: The Gifford Lectures [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2017]).

^[2] Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology, 226-27.

^[3] Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology, 227.

^[4] Harold Kasimow, “Leonard Swilder: Dialogue Pioneer and Peacemaker,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 50, no.1 (Winter 2015), 37-41.

^[5] River Adams, There Must Be You: Leonard Swidler’s Journey to Faith and Dialogue (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2014), xxiv.

^[6] Panikkar describes this as the “something [which] stirs within us;… the internal dialogue triggered by the thou who is not in-different [sic] to the I. Something stirs in the inmost recesses of our being…. It takes place in the core of our being … an internal dialogue in which one struggles with the angel, the daimôn, and oneself.… [It helps] us discover the ‘other’ in ourselves” (Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue [New York: Paulist Press, 1999], xvi-xix). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html).

^[7] Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue, 42; William Grimes, “Raimon Panikkar, Roman Catholic Theologian, Is Dead at 91,” The New York Times, September 4, 2010, accessed January 8, 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/05panikkar.html.

^[8] Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology, 223.

^[9] Diane M. Millis, “Silence and the Art of Conversation,” Faith and Leadership, November 18, 2013, accessed March 16, 2018, https://www.faithandleadership.com/diane-m-millis-silence-and-art-conversation.

^[10] Millis, “Silence and the Art of Conversation.”

^[11] I distinguish between “multiple religious belonging” (MRB) and “multiple religious participation,” (MRP) both employed here under the rubric of “multiple religious identity” (MRI). “Multiple religious belonging” refers to the complete, simultaneous embracing of, and commitment to, two or more religions. The phrase MRB has become more popular in the West, especially with Catherine Cornille’s recently edited volume, Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity, Faith Meets Faith Series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002). In a 2013 paper delivered at the American Academy of Religion in Baltimore, John Thatamanil argued for the use of “multiple religions participation” since it is broader and can seem less scandalous. In cases of MRB, there is often a dominant tradition that takes precedence over the other(s) in cases of conflict. With MRP, one can identify with a single tradition yet participate in other traditions without worrying about wholly adhering to both. Thatamanil importantly reminds us that “belonging” is not universal nor does it apply to all traditions, especially non-Western traditions (John Thatamanil, “We Are All Multiple: Identity and Conversion after ‘Religion,’” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in Baltimore, MD, November 25, 2013); Gustafson, “Descandalizing Multiple Religious Identity with Help from Nicholas Black Elk and His Spirituality: An Exercise in Interreligious Learning,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 51, no. 1 [Winter 2016], 83n-84n.

^[12] Schmidt-Leukel recognizes this and references scholars Rose Drew and Mira Niculescu and their studies of the multiple religious belonging of “JuBus” (Jewish-Buddhist identity). He writes that Niculescu “describes the spiritual attitude of so-called ‘JuBus’ … as a ‘perpetually ongoing inner dialogue,’” and that “Drew concludes that in this kind of internalized spiritual dialogue dual belongers ‘become microcosms of the dialogue as a whole’” (Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology, 234; quoting Rose Drew, Buddhist and Christian? An Exploration of Dual Belonging [London: Routledge, 2011], 209; and Mira Niculescu, “I the Jew, I the Buddhist: Multi-Religious Belonging as Inner Dialogue,” Crosscurrents 62, no. 3, 2012: 350-59).

^[13] The implications all of this has for forging constructive interreligious relations is substantial. I recommend two resources: Jeannine Hill Fletcher, “Shifting Identity: The Contribution of Feminist Thought to Theologies of Religious Pluralism,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 19, no. 2 (2003): 5-24; and Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology.