Recently, I was invited to lead a workshop on using technology as a tool for interfaith dialogue and action at the John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue’s 10th Anniversary Commemoration Conference in Rome.

Having had some experience doing interfaith work and using social media as a vehicle for creative storytelling and advocacy, I was delighted to share my thoughts as well as concrete tools that might help the attendees in their communities around the world.

Part of the workshop was centered on “controlling the troll,” and I gave a few tips on how to deal with trolls online and when to engage.

When finishing the workshop, I asked for questions, and a man stood up. He explained that he was a priest from the Philippines and how due to major conflicts in his country, it is now difficult to speak out without fear of retaliation. He said he knew of people in his community who have spoken out online against the current political leadership and have been killed for it. “I believe that I must do anything in my power to speak the truth, but I am rightly afraid to do so. Do you have any advice to ensure safety and speaking out online?”

Not the type of question I was prepared to hear at a conference.

This took me aback. My remarks were geared towards using social media as a tool for engagement, and I didn’t even think to address that concept.

My first thought was to look to people who have also moved our species forward in the name of truth. Gandhi, MLK, Francisco Romero. The problem is that all of them paid the ultimate price for their work. I was stuck.

My experience of doing interfaith work in the United States and using social media afforded me the relative comfort of not having to think about my personal safety or that of my loved ones when calling for interreligious cooperation. Intellectually, I knew the concept was not the case everywhere in the world, but to be confronted with a real story gave me a pause. I struggled to find an appropriate response.

The bottom line is, as much as people sometimes dismiss it as “free-spirit” or “kumbaya,” interfaith work is difficult. And if we are truly going to move our world closer to justice, freedom and respect for all in a way that is rooted in truth and change, there will inevitably be those who don’t agree, those who will resist progress, and those who sow discord. There will also be those who choose to use violence against those who speak out.

In the context of using the tools of social media to bring people together, how can we guarantee safety and progress?

The Tanenbaum Foundation defines their peacemakers as having five distinct qualities:

• Their peacemaking work has been fueled by their religious and/or spiritual beliefs.
• They work or have worked in an area of armed conflict.
• Their lives and/or liberty have been at risk as they pursued peace.
• They are closely connected to the conflict situation at the local level.
• Despite their impact, they have not received significant international attention or support at the time of selection.

We live in a world where the spotlight is what is revered more than the actual hard work needed for progress to happen. Instagram personalities are carefully managed and controlled through Instagram or Twitter. You can now use your digital footprint to advocate change and progress, which is admittedly a good thing. But true interfaith understanding cannot happen solely by those on the front lines or those behind a keyboard. It will take all of us to work together and support one another’s efforts.

Just as any farmer will tell you, there is plenty of work for everyone when raising crops. All the jobs from clearing the fields and planting the seeds to harvesting and preparing the crop are all essential and require a specific skill set. In short, it will take all of us with our natural talents and unique perspectives—both online and in the real world—to work for a more equitable, bountiful tomorrow.

Not all of us can be this type of peacemaker, for the world needs so many more people in a diverse network of roles and skill sets that define the robustness of progress.

Eventually, I asked this gentleman how far is he willing to go to speak out for peace. Therein lies the answer on how to move forward. It’s a question we all must ask ourselves. If your answer compels you to pursue the path of a peacebuilder, then there are consequences that you must consider. Yet, there exist allies and advocates who work to support peacebuilders. While there is no guarantee of safety, we do not walk this road of interfaith engagement and advocacy alone.