![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioBut that's not what I'm here to write about...
My rabbi does a lot of interfaith work locally, mostly dialogue and education. I got a call from him on Friday asking if I could talk to some folks at a local college who are trying to do some sort of interfaith services; they want lay people for some reason, so they didn't want to talk to him. So I gave the person a call.
A local college acquired a building that used to be a church (Carlow and St. Agnes, for the locals), and they want to use the space for non-denominational worship, and they've got plenty of Christians involved but they're light on Muslims and have no Jews involved. (She didn't mention other faiths.) I suspect I know the reason for that, after talking with her, but I will go to their organizational meeting and find out what they're trying to do. Conveniently, the meeting is the night before the next meeting of our worship committee, so if it sounds like any action on our part should come out of it, we'll be able to discuss it promptly.
They've had one event already (in September), and she thinks it went well and they want to do more. She hopes they can improve attendance; I suggested that publicity might be a factor. (This was the first I'd heard of the group.) It sounds like this is being driven, in part, from the fact that they have a beautiful space that is conducive to worship (she says), so they want to find some way to use it for the larger community. I suggested that they pursue education, not just worship, but she didn't react. I suspect that's where the good hunting is, though.
I can't help thinking that efforts like this face a real uphill battle. There's a lot that can be done to educate folks about different religions, and to create dialogues and the like, and that would be effort well-spent. Cross-religious worship, though? There are aspects of any worship service that some religions consider to be required and others consider to be anathema -- how do you handle that? How do you create a service that is authentic for its participants but offensive to none of them?
I suspect you do it by watering things down, and you end up with prayer to "whatever higher power(s) are out there". But if you're trying to draw people in from the community, well, who's going to attend something like that when they could just attend targetted services in their own congregations? Communities come together for these types of services in the face of major events (9/11, for instance), but this group wants to create an ongoing series of worship services.
(Aside: efforts to be all-inclusive at the cost of anything more than vague references to greater powers sit poorly with me. I dislike some of the ultra-liberal liturgy within my own religion for that reason. I have to be careful not to let my personal prejudice here come out, though; some people go for that sort of thing.)
There are a lot of Christian denominations, and they disagree with each other on lots of things, but they still have enough in common that non-denominational Christian services can work. Once you throw in even just Judaism and Islam, I suspect that breaks down. I'm sure it does if you also try to throw in Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc.
I will go to the meeting as my rabbi's representative, with an open mind. If there are things we can do to help them out without violating our own principles, we can do that. And maybe they have a viable idea for a service that can address the challenges I've mentioned, and if so that's great.
The rest of this entry should be read as "Monica doing contingency planning", not "Monica making premature judgements about the group". I often find it helpful to play through what-if scenarios before events that could be delicate (or contentious).
All of this has caused me to think about how one handles the "diplomacy" involved in such efforts. I mean, everyone has to compromise for such a thing to work, but there are things we (I) cannot compromise on, and it'll make us (me) look stubborn, but it can't be helped. For example, suppose the Catholics agree to not include any references to the trinity in the service text (something I think the Muslims would also require). That's a pretty big step for them, because the trinity is a fundamental principle of Catholicism, but I can't meet them halfway on this and say that it's ok to talk about Jesus absent that. (The Muslims would presumably be ok with that, so they would be seen as compromising while I would be seen as stubborn.) But it's just not ok, if you want Jews to participate. Ok, they might say, we'll just talk about God and grace and salvation. Oops -- we have very different ideas about that, too. So I could steer things in the direction of deeds, and get some of the Protestants behind me in the process I'm sure, but then that would be too watered-down for the Catholics (I'm guessing). But... I want to be a good diplomat, as I'm representing not just me but the entire Jewish community to this group, but I suspect I'm going to have to choose my words very carefully. Ah, a challenge. :-)
(Fortunately, I don't completely suck at that with warning, which I have, and I suspect the background prcesses in my brain, fueled by comments I get on this entry, will anticipate many of the issues so that I can consider reactions to them before they happen..)
I also have to keep in mind that my personal reactions are likely to be stronger than those of the average Jew on the street. And I know I hold a minority opinion with respect to presence at (certain) Christian practices -- that I would absent myself from certain things does not mean that they're necessarily wrong for others. On the other hand, it would behoove me to determine, in advance, a diplomatic explanation for why some Jews will have strong negative reactions to some things, so that they can decide whether they want to aim their events at Jews.
It should be interesting.
And all that said, if I can do a credible job with this, it's probably another indicator that I'm not a bad choice for the sh'liach k'hilah program. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 05:18 pm (UTC)That being said, I think you're right. This is the sort of effort that can lead to good educational opportunities, or come together around some major event in the shared community, but regular worship by definition creates community even if it doesn't already exist, and the community's social enforcement mechanisms are going to undercut any attempt to keep it inter-faith. It will either lean quickly toward one group, or nobody will show up after the first few weeks.
As for specific strategies for this case, I'd look and see how much buzz she has at the meeting. If this is actually getting traction, I'd get on board with the idea of pulling it away from generic "worship light" and toward ongoing discussion and education once there are stakeholders other than the organizer who can be lobbied. On the other hand, if she's got a lot of noble ideas and no execution potential, that will probably be pretty clear in the first meeting too.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 08:34 pm (UTC)Good suggestions. Thanks!
She didn't say what frequency they're aiming for (I suspect they don't know yet), though I got a vague impression of "monthly". That's infrequent enough that they could probably assemble several themed services like you suggested, but it's still regular. On the other hand, I would worry about maintaining momentum, especially in the beginning, with something that infrequent.
If this is actually getting traction, I'd get on board with the idea of pulling it away from generic "worship light" and toward ongoing discussion and education once there are stakeholders other than the organizer who can be lobbied.
Good point. I don't even know how many people she's got coming to this, so there are a lot of unknowns right now. I think the community could really benefit from a more education-oriented plan, but would probably say "ho hum" to "worship light", as you put it. So I'll try to nudge things in this direction.
On the other hand, if she's got a lot of noble ideas and no execution potential, that will probably be pretty clear in the first meeting too.
Yup. I've gotten fairly decent at spotting those. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 07:33 pm (UTC)Have no meaning to you perhaps, but that's an awfully broad brush you're using there.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 08:37 pm (UTC)I would think that the point of an inter-faith service isn't to emphasize the differences, but rather, the similarities.
Instead of "my experience is weaker because it misses X-essential-part-of-my-faith", sort of a "my experience is richer because it includes everyone".
Not that THAT is a viewpoint I agree with, but it is a different way to view it.
Unitarians
Date: 2004-01-24 08:29 pm (UTC)Unitarians do have a set of beliefs that they expect their members to agree to. I expect they are things we would not have a problem with, though I no longer remember the list. At the time I encountered them, I objected to one on a technicality and had no problems with the other six. I hadn't yet encountered secular humanists, but I suspect they have a lot in common.
Any group (or individual, for that matter) can infuse ritual with meaning. So the things the Unitarians do have meaning for them; presumably, as with any religion, there's an education process that has to happen. (If you take some secular Jew off the street and teach him how to lay t'fillin, he's probably not going to see the meaning right off either.) I've only been to a few Unitarian services and they were neither recent nor mainstream, so I don't have a lot to share on this point. (For those who are wondering: CUUPs, the pagan subgroup. I was a hired musician, not a worshipper. This was more than ten years ago.)
One challenge for this interfaith group will be to infuse a "consensus" set of rituals with broad meaning. That sounds about as hard as making up a new religion would be.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 08:44 pm (UTC)I don't think the meaning comes from an educational process; the UU services I went to had meaning from the first service, before I went to educational classes ABOUT Unitarian Universalism.
Why did they have meaning? I think it had something to do with the place I was in my life and that I was looking for some guidance. UU's (at least, the congretation I attended) focus on guidance through thought. How do you worship God? How do you better yourself? Etc. Through introspection and the resulting actions, I can make my life better.
I wasn't being told what to believe, either. I was free to choose what I believed was "good" and what would make my life "better". It struck me as being very oriented towards your individual needs (and you got out of it what you put into it).
I don't feel I'm explaining this well (perhaps because I'm not in that place anymore?). If you want further clarification, just ask.
7 principles
Date: 2004-01-24 08:50 pm (UTC)We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
(from UUA)
Re: 7 principles
Date: 2004-01-25 02:24 pm (UTC)in Palo Alto. I don't know much about what is taught, as far as
membership or worship goes, but one thing I have seen is an attempt
to educate people on the many religions of the world.
At one service I thought was pretty interesting, the minister
gave a sermon on having and raising children. She made a lot of
points that made sense to me (it's not for everyone, it requires
a serious commitment, etc.). However, some people in my chorus
didn't like it.
Re: 7 principles
Date: 2004-01-25 02:44 pm (UTC)And education about other religions is a good thing, IMO.
Re: 7 principles
Date: 2004-01-25 04:07 pm (UTC)thought it was an appropriate choice for a sermon, considering kids
from the congregation performed some of the service on that day.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 07:35 pm (UTC)A link for you if you're interested, or to pass on if it might be helpful: http://www.urcsjc.org/
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 08:43 pm (UTC)I assume I'm supposed to be able to see content at that site (beyond the "who we are") blurb, but I'm not seeing it. Just a missing image at the top and an address in the left-hand frame. I wonder what's wrong. (Hmm. Popped it into IE and it wants me to download a Flash plugin. I didn't, but I now see at least three places-where-things-should-be indicators in the left frame. Still don't see any text/html, though.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 09:54 pm (UTC)... I think I remember a group of Christians who kept some of the dietary restrictions of Judaism.
Or maybe I'm misremembering. :) I don't know. But something like that might explain it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-25 10:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-24 10:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-25 10:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-25 04:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-25 10:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-27 10:34 am (UTC)It seems that "interfaith" services are, more or less inevitably, sort of meta-religious. That is, it's difficult for them to propound a complete dogma, since that inevitably steps on some peoples' toes. But they can extract parts of dogma that are common to some faiths, and present those.
My viewpoint on this is somewhat unusual -- I'm not involved with any formal religion, but I'm a Freemason. Masonry is very loudly not a religion itself (that's basically a FAQ), but it's effectively a meta-religion. That is, its ritual contains certain dogmae that certainly fall into the realm that most people would consider religion (continuance of the soul, moral principles, etc), but it tries to do so very ecumenically.
Still, even Masonry's ecumenicism has its limits. While the theory is just that it doesn't accept atheists, it was clearly designed by people with some blinders. Masonic ritual *does* include at least a bit of religious dogma (again, continuance of the soul is a good example) that some religions (some forms of Buddhism) wouldn't necessarily agree with. It's implicitly monotheistic in its ritual -- indeed, you have to profess belief in a "Supreme Being" in order to join, which might not sit well with some pantheists. And the core of the ritual is based on the Old Testament, which works quite nicely for people in Scripture-based faiths, but I suspect is awkward for others. (Indeed, there is a very deep-seated assumption that any valid faith involves a central book. I'm not sure how one would adapt the ritual for a candidate whose faith didn't have one.)
It really seems to boil down to what you're trying to accomplish. The more "meta" you go, the more inclusive you can be. But it clearly isn't possible to satisfy everyone -- for example, I've talked with folks who find Masonry very interesting, but cannot join specifically *because* of its ecumenical attitude. (That is, their religious views specifically forbid recognizing other religions as valid.) And presumably you lose more and more "meat" the higher you abstract things: eventually, it seems like it has to become meaningless.
So the real question is: how far up do they go in the levels of abstraction, and what do they do there? I'll be interested to hear about it...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-28 09:54 am (UTC)Last night's meeting was cancelled due to snow, and it looks like it'll be rescheduled in two weeks. So I won't know what they're trying to do for a while, but I'll post about it when the meeting eventually happens.