![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Working with idolaters, infidels, and the impious: can interfaith discourse work?
I've seen interfaith dialogue work really well, kind of ineptly, and really, really badly.1 I've noticed some things that make a difference in where on the spectrum an effort is likely to fall. So, some observations.
To people who are interested in it at all, religion is generally an important and deeply personal subject. If not handled well, it can also be extremely polarizing -- wars, pogroms, and jihads have been conducted over religion, to say nothing of people merely getting beat up. Some perceive a critical duty to convert or "save" others, and setting aside that duty would be wrong. And it seems that everybody has an opinion about those heretics over there who are destroying the world. How do you bring people together under these circumstances? How do you have a civil conversation that sheds more light than heat? It's tempting to say that this is fundamentally impossible, except that, as I said, I've seen it work sometimes.
First, of course, everybody needs to actually be there for the purpose of learning and sharing. If people are there primarily to preach, then just give up -- you cannot have a dialogue under those conditions. (In my experience, this is particularly a problem with evangelical Christians, but certainly not only them.). But even if everybody has the right intentions, there are pitfalls. And that's what I'm going to talk about in this entry -- presuming that people have good intentions, what else can go wrong?
I see two critical elements beyond the right intentions: the language people use, and how these conversations are moderated.
Language
When interacting with people who you know are wrong -- not just wrong, but idolaters, heretics, or blasphemers -- it's critical to avoid truth assertions and to use descriptive language. It's one thing to say that "we believe X" or "we read this biblical passage to say Y" or "we connect with God by doing Z". It's quite another to say that "X is true" or "this means Y" or "the correct way to connect with God is by doing Z". You would think this would be obvious, but it fails over and over and over again.
Look, I know deep in my heart that certain religions are wrong, and that some people have tragically rejected God. And some know deep in their hearts that I'm a stubborn idiot who has thrown the gift of salvation in their savior's face and who is going to hell as a result. These things happen. Get over it. We will never persuade each other, but as soon as somebody says "Jesus died for your sins" or "treating a man as God is idolatry" or, more subtly, "when Isaiah prophesied the messiah as the suffering servant he said...", you've elected to shut down dialogue and fire up a fight. And if the people you're talking with are extremely gracious, they might be able to defuse it... once. Or might not. If you want to have a respectful conversation, you just shouldn't go there.
Why is this hard? It shouldn't be, but it fails enough to make me wonder. I think part of the problem is that some traditions have a bombastic preaching style, plus street-corner and TV evangelists, and this dulls everyone's sensitivities. It becomes perfectly normal to accuse another of killing God or of refusing to submit to God's will or of rejecting the law. It may seem normal, but it's wrong. Unless the terms of a discussion explicitly allow this kind of heated discourse, you have to leave the "I know the truth and I must proclaim it to all!" rhetoric at the door. Because to at least one person in the room, you are Deeply Wrong -- and that person might be willing to argue the point. Loudly, like you. And then we all lose, because you lose any claim that you are interested in learning and listening.
Moderation
It's human nature to mess this stuff up. It's hard for people to learn a new style of interacting, one that may run counter to what they hear regularly in their places of worship. So the other key is moderation.
Somebody has to oversee the conversation and nip problems in the bud. If a particular community has an ongoing interfaith dialogue it might be possible, in time, for the community itself to perform this moderation -- the regulars will help guide the newcomers, gently steering them toward the kinds of interactions that work, and if necessary being more firm. That's a great goal -- but you don't get it right out of the gate, and sometimes you never get it at all. So it's important that, regardless of the good intentions of everybody in the room, there be someone who has the community-granted authority to say "stop" or "let's talk about X instead".
This is a skill and must be learned. Some seminaries teach "people skills" and psychology and systems alongside bible and theology, and plenty of lay people are exposed to training in these areas professionally. And we all (I hope) know someone who's a natural diplomat, who may not have any formal training but just knows how to defuse problems and redirect discussions. These people, whether trained or instinctive, are essential.
There's a challenge to being a moderator, though -- you're there at all because you care about the subject, but moderators are accountable to the whole community. So, first and foremost, your job is to be fair. You've got to be willing to call out the people who are right, not just the ones who are wrong, so to speak. And that requires a special type of perception, to be able to listen to somebody who is speaking the Truth but doing it disruptively and to step in and say "no".
The usual failure of moderation is not having it. But sometimes the failure is of the other type -- there are moderators, but they're caught up in the content enough that they lose the ability to do their job for the whole community. They're great at challenging the heretics but not so great with the defenders of the faith. And once you lose the perception of fairness, it can be really hard to recover.
Bottom line
So, bottom line -- I think it's possible for interfaith dialogue to work, even on deeply personal and polarizing topics, if everybody works hard to keep it respectful and descriptive and if there are moderators who keep an eye on the discussion and apply correction as needed -- even at the cost of some of their own participation.
If a community can do that, it can have a productive discussion. If it can't, you may as well just give up on those idolaters and infidels -- it's not like they're going to listen to your preaching anyway (since they are, after all, idolaters and infidels), so you may as well just go home.
1 The original version of this post linked to a user-profile page that has since been deleted. I've updated the link to point to an explanation of that problem.
To people who are interested in it at all, religion is generally an important and deeply personal subject. If not handled well, it can also be extremely polarizing -- wars, pogroms, and jihads have been conducted over religion, to say nothing of people merely getting beat up. Some perceive a critical duty to convert or "save" others, and setting aside that duty would be wrong. And it seems that everybody has an opinion about those heretics over there who are destroying the world. How do you bring people together under these circumstances? How do you have a civil conversation that sheds more light than heat? It's tempting to say that this is fundamentally impossible, except that, as I said, I've seen it work sometimes.
First, of course, everybody needs to actually be there for the purpose of learning and sharing. If people are there primarily to preach, then just give up -- you cannot have a dialogue under those conditions. (In my experience, this is particularly a problem with evangelical Christians, but certainly not only them.). But even if everybody has the right intentions, there are pitfalls. And that's what I'm going to talk about in this entry -- presuming that people have good intentions, what else can go wrong?
I see two critical elements beyond the right intentions: the language people use, and how these conversations are moderated.
Language
When interacting with people who you know are wrong -- not just wrong, but idolaters, heretics, or blasphemers -- it's critical to avoid truth assertions and to use descriptive language. It's one thing to say that "we believe X" or "we read this biblical passage to say Y" or "we connect with God by doing Z". It's quite another to say that "X is true" or "this means Y" or "the correct way to connect with God is by doing Z". You would think this would be obvious, but it fails over and over and over again.
Look, I know deep in my heart that certain religions are wrong, and that some people have tragically rejected God. And some know deep in their hearts that I'm a stubborn idiot who has thrown the gift of salvation in their savior's face and who is going to hell as a result. These things happen. Get over it. We will never persuade each other, but as soon as somebody says "Jesus died for your sins" or "treating a man as God is idolatry" or, more subtly, "when Isaiah prophesied the messiah as the suffering servant he said...", you've elected to shut down dialogue and fire up a fight. And if the people you're talking with are extremely gracious, they might be able to defuse it... once. Or might not. If you want to have a respectful conversation, you just shouldn't go there.
Why is this hard? It shouldn't be, but it fails enough to make me wonder. I think part of the problem is that some traditions have a bombastic preaching style, plus street-corner and TV evangelists, and this dulls everyone's sensitivities. It becomes perfectly normal to accuse another of killing God or of refusing to submit to God's will or of rejecting the law. It may seem normal, but it's wrong. Unless the terms of a discussion explicitly allow this kind of heated discourse, you have to leave the "I know the truth and I must proclaim it to all!" rhetoric at the door. Because to at least one person in the room, you are Deeply Wrong -- and that person might be willing to argue the point. Loudly, like you. And then we all lose, because you lose any claim that you are interested in learning and listening.
Moderation
It's human nature to mess this stuff up. It's hard for people to learn a new style of interacting, one that may run counter to what they hear regularly in their places of worship. So the other key is moderation.
Somebody has to oversee the conversation and nip problems in the bud. If a particular community has an ongoing interfaith dialogue it might be possible, in time, for the community itself to perform this moderation -- the regulars will help guide the newcomers, gently steering them toward the kinds of interactions that work, and if necessary being more firm. That's a great goal -- but you don't get it right out of the gate, and sometimes you never get it at all. So it's important that, regardless of the good intentions of everybody in the room, there be someone who has the community-granted authority to say "stop" or "let's talk about X instead".
This is a skill and must be learned. Some seminaries teach "people skills" and psychology and systems alongside bible and theology, and plenty of lay people are exposed to training in these areas professionally. And we all (I hope) know someone who's a natural diplomat, who may not have any formal training but just knows how to defuse problems and redirect discussions. These people, whether trained or instinctive, are essential.
There's a challenge to being a moderator, though -- you're there at all because you care about the subject, but moderators are accountable to the whole community. So, first and foremost, your job is to be fair. You've got to be willing to call out the people who are right, not just the ones who are wrong, so to speak. And that requires a special type of perception, to be able to listen to somebody who is speaking the Truth but doing it disruptively and to step in and say "no".
The usual failure of moderation is not having it. But sometimes the failure is of the other type -- there are moderators, but they're caught up in the content enough that they lose the ability to do their job for the whole community. They're great at challenging the heretics but not so great with the defenders of the faith. And once you lose the perception of fairness, it can be really hard to recover.
Bottom line
So, bottom line -- I think it's possible for interfaith dialogue to work, even on deeply personal and polarizing topics, if everybody works hard to keep it respectful and descriptive and if there are moderators who keep an eye on the discussion and apply correction as needed -- even at the cost of some of their own participation.
If a community can do that, it can have a productive discussion. If it can't, you may as well just give up on those idolaters and infidels -- it's not like they're going to listen to your preaching anyway (since they are, after all, idolaters and infidels), so you may as well just go home.
1 The original version of this post linked to a user-profile page that has since been deleted. I've updated the link to point to an explanation of that problem.
no subject
I am sorry all over again for what they put you through. :(
no subject
no subject
Privilege. Look who does it and who would never do it.
no subject
no subject
This will allow you to filter on those who are at least able to own their tradition in speaking about it; whether the privileged will resist the temptation to not do so is another question.
But it is vastly easier to control a group by controling its membership than to police the general public.
no subject
no subject
no subject
This. So much, this. This happens over and over and over.
Also, zing: "We had every bit of technology we needed to do weblogs the day Mosaic launched the first forms-capable browser. Every single piece of it was right there. Instead, we got Geocities."
His comments about one user/one vote are also interesting. I wish he'd done more with that -- that is, given that kind of voting structure, how does Slashdot or Reddit or Stack Exchange allow the core members to nonetheless enact what is good for the site? (It's entirely possible that "aside from really effective rabble-rousing, this is unsolved" is the answer. :-( )
no subject
Beside privilege (which I'm taking to mean, "part of the locally dominant group") and not being used to opposition, there's probably also a reason to be found in absolute phrasing being a form of identity assertion. Inversely, relativizing or limiting language would be a form of self-denial. You can do it with effort but judging from its general lack in many areas it's not a natural mode of speaking. Relatedly:
because you lose any claim that you are interested in learning and listening.
Preachers participating under false pretenses--yeah, ban those guys. But there are types that're actually interested but will unexpectedly explode later.
I'm sure you've heard of the psychological thing where someone who's doubtful about an important belief of theirs will try to convert others to it? And the one where people presented with belief-contradicting evidence will see it as an attack and double down on the belief instead of giving it up?
These conditions can sneak up on you. The internet has a low barrier to entry, letting in the curious and inexperienced as well as the dedicated and aware. People who would be able to pass a test of language the first, second, or third time, but the fourth hits the wrong topic and they respond without thinking, trying to 'win' rather than 'discuss'.
You may want these people to stick around despite this. Assuming they apologize and it only happens rarely. Or maybe you'd be happier avoiding it.
(I used to do this unfortunately often. Nowadays... I do it less. But if you invite me to a discussion and I decline then it's probably why. Instances of it are rather disconcerting in hindsight.)
no subject
One Christian on that site has said publicly that to qualify his language in any way is to deny his faith. I had hoped he was unusual in being that extreme, but I'm starting to think he's unusual not in that but in admitting it. There are several users who routinely assert their beliefs as truth -- and get away with it because of majority privilege, including moderators who agree with them. (A new moderator was recently appointed who is more sensitive to these matters. Time will tell if he makes enough of a difference. It's not like any moderator really likes to confront a fellow moderator, after all.)
I'm sure you've heard of the psychological thing where someone who's doubtful about an important belief of theirs will try to convert others to it? And the one where people presented with belief-contradicting evidence will see it as an attack and double down on the belief instead of giving it up?
I hadn't thought about that, but yeah, that makes sense. This is why these conversations can't (usefully) ever be about "what I believe"; there be minefields. It's only possible for it to work if people can step back from that -- but for many people, it's the (perceived) opportunity to express their beliefs that attracts them in the first place.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
no subject
I suspect that to some extent this breaks down by evangelical/non- as well. Traditions with other foci for spiritual fire seem like they should do better when asked to stop spilling it on everyone;--since they don't define themselves as much around pure charismatics it'd be less of a self-denial.
(At least in the RC Church, I saw a good emphasis on evangelization through virtue of action rather than by haranguing. In this context it would presumably translate as "win followers through welcoming treatment and compelling explanation rather than by force of opinion and/or the moderator's hammer." This is, of course, an ideal--individuals' implementations vary.)
no subject
Yes, and I should have called that out. On the site where this is working very badly, it's coming from the evangelists. One prominent user is Eastern Orthodox and he is not part of the problem; he's serving as a good example, not a bad one. The site hasn't had too many (known) Catholics, but from what I've seen there, and what I've seen from my Catholic friends, they don't tend toward this sort of thing either.
Thoughts from an atheist
(Anonymous) 2014-01-15 03:54 am (UTC)(link)If you approach a discussion as "we are all parties who are interested in this topic" and allow your beliefs to inform your opinions on how to address the topic you might be able to skirt the problem of dogma, but as long as your opinions are defined by a belief that you are certain is "truth" it is hard to see how compromise could be reached on areas of disagreement. Of course if your purpose is to just find areas of common ground and not persuade anyone to your point of view than you may also be able to have productive discourse.
Re: Thoughts from an atheist
I think you're right that the key is whether you're there to share perspectives or to share The Truth. As
Interesting thoughts!
Also, those who mix mostly with people who believe the same as them - I think for them it's more difficult to appreciate the subtle nuances of how what they're saying may come across to someone who believes differently. Maybe that's one of the things those people need to learn from interfaith dialogue.
So yes, I think good, robust moderation is a must for this sort of thing to work as an ongoing thing. And I loved what you said about being willing to call out the people who are right too - this has been one of the challenges I've faced as a blogger, where at times I had to call out people who share my beliefs (who were commenting on my blog) because they were expressing it inappropriately and I felt they were killing the possibility of open and constructive dialogue with those who don't. I guess this would be easier on a discussion forum which has been specifically defined as a forum for a specific purpose, with ground rules and guidelines - on my blog it's a lot more fluid and messy.
Re: Interesting thoughts!
Oh man, not religion, but in The Other Horrible Land-Mine Topic of Politics this seems to happen at work moderately frequently since certain companies attract certain political views. So I get to encounter D.C. clients who are way Red, west-coast contractors who are way Blue, entrepreneur coworkers who are... uh, what's the color for Hardcore Libertarian? But you have to work with them so you just speak circumspectly and just smile and nod if it gets too heated.
And this more or less works, because everyone involved loses if the metaphorical boat tips over. Does this translate into an interfaith forum at all? Maybe what it could use is some way that everyone loses if there's a problem, not just the 'losers' of the argument who get driven off. I have no idea how to implement that though.
Gold mine here....