Faiths in Creation: An Introduction

Dr Catherine Cowley introduces Faiths in Creation, a collection of papers from the Heythrop Institute for Religion, Ethics and Public Life – the fruit of a bold experiment in inter-faith conversation – which will be serialised on Thinking Faith.

It is usual in an introduction to a collection of conference papers to provide a brief overview of their contents, as this is normally seen as the main research outcome, and that will be the case here. The papers in this volume of the Institute Series, however, are the result of a particular process which itself is offered as a second research outcome, and it will be helpful in understand­ing their contents if that process is explained first. The usual process is that contributors are given a briefing for their papers and these are then read to those attending the conference. There will normally be a fairly limited time for discussion with possibly a panel session at the end. For this project, however, every stage was marked by the desire to move beyond an inter-faith ‘dialogue’ and into ‘conversation’. This necessitated a different process from the usual for the preparation of the conference which in turn led to a day which was also different from the usual.

The contributors met for a series of workshops where we sought to move beyond an informative ‘this is our beautiful text’ followed by ‘that is indeed beautiful – now here is ours’. We worked towards having the sort of conversa­tion where it is possible to think out loud, to change one’s mind, to admit that perhaps one’s own tradition has not really grappled with a particular point. This move into conversation is important because conversation changes us, both by what we learn and by the very process of conversing with others. We listen, we are touched, and we understand better and see life differently. Conversation demands that we expend time and energy in understanding the relevance or importance of someone’s contribution. Conversation is a way of God’s presence, transforming the consciousness of those involved. The new awareness which this brings can mean that we see what before was hidden from us.

It would have been easy to stop at the identification of what our various tradi­tions have to say about certain actions or states of affairs. Each of the traditions has important insights and teachings about the issues affecting the integrity of creation, our attitudes towards the environment and so on. It is demonstrable, however, that we have not got the perfect argument, that the teachings have not been appropriated and acted on – if they had, we would not have the mess that we are in. We therefore wanted a conversation which was rooted in the realities of the lives of the members of our traditions, seeking to keep in mind the quality of our attention to that, so that we could speak from and to where they are, not speak of some sort of idealised situation.

Convinced that difference from the other may also be a gift for the other, we did not set out, either explicitly or implicitly, to develop a single answer to any question. To do so would, inevitably, smooth out differences and obliterate any distinctive voice - although, as one would expect, commonalities did emerge. Instead we wanted to speak from our different traditions on common questions and concerns in ways which would resonate with those of other traditions. We therefore sought to preserve our individual voices, but those voices have been clarified - purified even - by our discussion. What we have done, and the way in which we did it, witness to the fact that diversity is not, in fact, an impenetrable barrier between people of different traditions. Some aggressive secularities have sought to portray religion as automatically and inevitably divisive. What we have done (and obviously we are not the only ones to do this) is to model a way of arguing respectfully. That verb – ‘arguing’ - has been chosen deliberately, because sometimes the verb ‘discuss’ can obscure the passion which nourishes and sustains us. Religious passion is almost invariably presented in the media as a negative; yet in the lives of religious believers that is by no means always the case. Love is a passion, and love of God and neighbour is what gives our lives and actions meaning. It is the source of our energy. Showing that it is possible and fruitful to work together as people of passion is an urgently needed model.

The desire for conversation in which all voices could be heard was not lim­ited, however, to the preparation stage. It was integral to the way in which the conference itself was organised. The draft papers were sent out electronically to all participants two weeks before the day so that everyone would have a chance to read them before attending. This is because usually at conferences questions and discussions are severely limited due to the time needed to present the papers.

Furthermore, many people find it difficult to formulate their contributions quickly enough, having only just heard the paper. It was our wish to facilitate an informed, reflective discussion where everyone had an opportunity to par­ticipate and greater depth of insight could be reached. Therefore, on the day, only a brief presentation drawing out the main points was given as a reminder; conference participants were then divided into smaller groups with the authors of the papers (two in the morning and three in the afternoon). The discussion session of an hour began with the opportunity to ask the author questions for clarification only. Then, in order to ensure that it was a conversation among the whole group rather than a question and answer session, the author was obliged to remain silent for 15 minutes. After that he or she could rejoin the conversation. Following the discussion session there was a plenary at which a brief report back was given by the chair of the discussion group, after which discussion was opened up to the whole conference. This enabled all participants to hear something of the discussion of the paper(s) they had not attended, as well as giving an opportunity to take further aspects of interest to the whole group. The day ended with a panel session which sought to bring together the main strands of the day.

Our attention to the question of voice led to that of tone. Too often the dominant tone taken when people speak on issues about the environment is one which seems calculated to create guilt and/or fear in the listener. This may induce short term action, but negative emotions rarely produce long term com­mitment. It can come across as hectoring which, from an educational point of view, is a waste of time because it does not lead to deep behavioural change. Those on the receiving end may well experience this as verbal bullying. All of this can leave people feeling disempowered, hostile and discouraged. Yet if we are serious about having a coherent religious world view, then the values we proclaim must be present in the means we use. We have, therefore, sought – both by the process used and in the content of the papers – to be respectful of our audience, recognising that often people want to do ‘the right thing’ but are unsure of what that right thing is or how to go about it. What we hope to do instead of hectoring is to empower people to enact their religious understand­ing. This helps to ensure that we do not end up instrumentalising religion, or make it one more item in the armoury of manipulation.

This focus on language is reflected particularly in the papers by Gorsky and Poulsom, because changing how we say what we say changes how we do what we do. Poulsom contrasts the logic of difference, which leads to a logic of op­position (or at least a polar structure), with a logic of distinction. This enables him to explore what contribution the concept of creation can make, seeing the world as something given by a gracious God, not merely there as a ‘brute fact’. This non-oppositional approach can also be seen in Gorsky’s paper which examines prophecy and law, both of which are models of personal and social transformation within Judaism. He argues that too often ‘prophetic’ statements are in the key of guilt and anxiety. He explores ways in which prophecy can, however, be transposed into the key of hope through the use of poetic language. The hope which a religious perspective can bring is one which challenges the angry despair which is becoming so prevalent and which results in a sense of desperation. This hope is not a hope which seeks to abrogate our responsibility, but it is one which is conscious that we do not just rely on ourselves. Hope frees up creativity, enables us to see the value in small actions, and gives us reasons to keep on keeping on.

Doubts about the possibility of hope often lie behind consumerist attitudes. Both Gorsky and Freeman remind us in their papers that consumerism is not a simple phenomenon, rooted in materialism. Both identify aspects of the psychological and spiritual pathos which often lies underneath such behaviour. Freeman in particular draws attention to the need for rootedness and security through her careful reading of the Genesis account of creation.

Shomali too examines what difference viewing the world as creation makes, this time from an Islamic perspective. He goes beyond the Qur’an to include the wisdom found in the hadiths and explores how these provide an integrated environmental ethic. His paper highlights the view of the human person in Islam as the vicegerent of God and shows how this shapes the requirement for humanity to channel the mercy of God to everything within our reach.

Religion does not provide precise, concrete, technical or scientific solutions. One of the most important things it can contribute to such solutions, however, is a clarification of values and disvalues. It can cut through cultural assumptions and so it can highlight those things which can be overlooked even in the most sophisticated analyses, because it is prepared to look at those things which are not easily quantifiable. For example, it helps identify the roots of many of our behaviour problems as lying in an economic model that reflects distorted views of the human person. Rahim examines these within a discussion of the purpose of the economy and economic activity in general. Arguing that the economy can only be understood rightly once that purpose has been identified, he seeks to establish some of the principal differences it makes when a religious perspec­tive is brought to bear.

These papers, though different in style and emphases, demonstrate ways in which the three traditions speak both to each other and to the secular debate. The questions they raise about the nature of the human person and our place within the world are ones which every society needs to address. They also dem­onstrate that rather than adopting a purely secular agenda, it is by living out our deepest religious insights that we have most to contribute.

Dr. Catherine Cowley RA is Associate Director of the Heythrop Institute for Religion, Ethics & Public Life.

 Part One of the series: Judaic Models of Social Transformation

 Part Two of the series: The Place of Humanity in Creation

 Part Three of the series: A Faith Perspective on the Economy

 Part Four of the series: Coping with Insecurity, Uncertainty and Risk

 Part Five of the series: Aspects of Environmental Ethics: An Islamic Perspective


 Heythrop Institute for Religion, Ethics and Public Life

Share this article on: Delicious    Digg    reddit    Facebook    StumbleUpon