This episode is a real treat: a recording of a panel discussion held at the Limmud Festival in Birmingham UK on 23 December 2024.
This is my first post in a while, due to a situation that emerged in Religious Education in Berkshire, which has absorbed almost all of my time in recent months.
The new Religion and Worldviews framework has been accompanied by an increasing emphasis on truth-seeking in religious education, as students are encouraged to examine which religious beliefs are more reasonable and look at arguments between competing religious and non-religious “worldviews.”
As I worked to tackle this dangerous change in pedagogy, numerous theological questions emerged. My conversations with Father Patrick Morrow developed into an interfaith session. We were honoured to be joined by Muslim scholar Dilwar Hussain, MBE. Bios for all participants are below.
Session Description (as in the Limmud Handbook):
Judaism does not proselytise, but this is unusual among faiths in Britain. And do we Jews really have no firm beliefs that we wish others would share? Can we teach about our own faiths passionately, without the conversation slipping into persuasion? Can we allow for multiple religious “truths”, and still be rational? What is religious “truth”?
The panel includes:
Father Patrick Morrow, a Church of England Priest and Secretary to the Theology Committee of the International Council of Christians and Jews
Dilwar Hussain MBE of the Woolf Institute, University of Cambridge and Chair of New Horizons in British Islam
(me) Dr Shira Batya Lewin Solomons, Rebbetzin of the Jewish Community of Berkshire, and Director of JCoB Education (provider of RE Judaism support to schools across England and Wales)
Background
This conversation emerged as a product of the ongoing challenge that I have been facing due to the new Religion and Worldviews framework in Religious Education (RE), which is shifting the focus of learning towards truth-seeking and exploration of “big questions”, as opposed to more traditional RE, which prioritised understanding the beliefs and practices of others without making judgments or seeking answers.
The new approach to teaching RE seeks to avoid claiming to be able to teach Religions as coherent well-defined traditions, due to a post-modern critique that emphasises the diversity within religious traditions. From this perspective, there are many “Judaisms”, “Islams”, “Christianities” etc. - each individual with their own “personal worldview” based on their own “lived experience” that cannot ever really be fully communicated or understood by others.
Teaching has therefore shifted towards developing each child’s “personal worldview”, through the exploration of “big questions” and a shift towards philosophy and theology. This involves students exploring and even debating issues such as “Does God exist?” “Where did the universe come from?” “Is religion dangerous?” “What happens after we die?” In the first draft of the new Berkshire RE Syllabus, children were even asked to rank beliefs for their reasonableness.
This sort of focus raises major concerns as it had been a rule in RE teaching that we were never meant to ask whose beliefs were right or wrong or make judgments as to whether religious beliefs were reasonable or well founded in arguments. Persuasion and proselytising should have no place in RE, which is about listening, learning, and understanding.
When I pushed back at this change in pedagogy, I faced two primary counter-arguments:
There are some matters (ethics, public policy) that relate to religion, where we need to debate, make arguments and reach consensus.
By demanding no persuasion, proselytising, (it is argued that) I am imposing my Jewish or liberal view on others. (Andrew Wright) What if a religion believes in proselyting - what if that is part of their religious expression? Can we really share our faiths without making any truth claims?
In my next Substack piece, I will carefully document what has been happening in RE based on our recent experience with the new Pan Berkshire Syllabus. I will look at where this framework came from and at the serious consequences. The discussion here will not address those issues but will focus on the philosophical challenges. I am arguing for RE that is scrupulously free of attempts to persuade, but how do we do that? It’s easy enough when teaching Judaism, as we Jews do not seek converts. But what about Christianity and Islam, which traditionally have sought converts? Are we asking Christians and Muslims to be inauthentic?
Below is an outline of the contributions of the panellists, with some links to material in case you want to read more. Before reading further, I recommend that you listen to the audio, which is the real event. Note that the notes on Patrick and Dilwar’s presentations were written by me and are therefore less detailed.
Shira Solomons (Judaism)
I focused on the teachings of two great rabbis: · Joseph Soloveitchik (the Rav) and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik
Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik = Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (1903-1993) “The Rav”
Famous essay: On Interfaith Relationships (1964)
Impossibility of interfaith dialogue on theology etc.
Different religions essentially speak different languages.
Different categories and “incommensurate frames” for understanding our place in the world.Because we speak different languages, we each have our own “unique relationship to God… moulded by different historical events”
We cannot understand the “private” elements that express their “individual religious commitment”
When we can and should engage.
Role of interfaith is to work together in matters for which our beliefs are the same.
Certain values in common between Jews and Christians such as human beings in the image of God, Imitatio Dei.
We use our common religious language to work together for things like civil rights, morality, fighting poverty, seeking peace. (Remember he is writing this in 1964.)
Secular people will find it difficult to understand our shared religious language. [Like tone-deaf people who cannot understand music.]
My evaluation of Soloveitchik
Judaism has a concept na’aseh venish-mah - In order to understand you must do the action first. So yes, it is impossible to understand fully the religious experience of another faith when we do not and should not share in the practice.
Soloveitchik is not saying Judaism has a monopoly on truth.
Argument relates to our ability to learn from others who are different.I ask: How does Soloveitchik know about the beliefs we have in common (or not) with Christians? Surely we found this out by having conversations.
How do we deal with disagreements when they matter? We do need to agree on some things in order to live together? Not addressed by Soloveitchik at all.
Jonathan Sacks
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020)
Controversial book: Dignity of Difference (2002) (Avoid later editions)
All quotes are from the first edition (2002), not the adulterated second edition (2004).
First editions are readily available very cheaply on Amazon.
The 2nd edition radically altered the core chapter (Exorcising Plato’s Ghost pp. 45-66).
Gil Student summarises all the changes Sacks made for the 2nd edition here: https://www.torahmusings.com/2007/10/differences-of-dignity/
Tower of Babel / Exorcising Plato’s Ghost
Yes different religions speak different languages, but this is something to be celebrated. The will of God.
Babbling of the languages of the people building the Tower is something wondrous and good.
Oppressive and totalitarian for everyone to think and speak exactly like each other.
Let there be Diversity:
“Religion is the translation of God into a particular language … God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims.” (p. 55)
[A core lesson of the Torah is that] “God is God of all humanity, but no single faith is or should be the faith of all humanity.” (p. 55)
Myth that “If I am right, you are wrong”… “you must be converted, cured, and saved” (p. 50)
Universalism is dangerous
Sacks is scathing of those who “attempt to impose a man-made unity on divinely created diversity”
Greatest crimes in history come from attempts to impose universalism on the diversity of human beings.
“Babel - the first global project - is the turning point in the biblical narrative. From then on, God will not attempt a universal order again until the end of days.”
[Related to the Talmudic concept of Teiku - pushing off disputes to be resolved at the end of days, acknowledging the limitations of human beings to attain the Truth on certain matters]
Particularity / Covenants
Myth that universal morality is morally superior to particular moralities. Criticism of Jews for being parochial, only marrying each other, taking care of our own before others. This is prejudice, chauvinism.
“We are particular and universal, the same and different, human beings as such, but also members of this family, that community, this history, that heritage, our particularity is our window onto universality” (p. 56)
We understand the human experiences of others by having our own particular human experiences.
“… we learn to love humanity by loving specific human beings. There is no short-cut.” (p. 58)
Engagement
Not only are there multiple truths out there, but we can learn something by engaging with them. Unlike Soloveitchik, does not want to hide away, avoid understanding the other.
Importance of conversation, as opposed to debate (politics).
“entering into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to my own” (p. 83)
In a conversation, you don’t win or lose. You grow. You learn something as you “know what reality looks like from a different perspective.” (p. 83)
Religion and Politics
How do we deal with difficult questions where we need to agree to live together?
We first have those conversations, so that we understand each other.
Then political conversations resolve what we actually do as a society together.
Consequence: Need to be very careful how and where such political debates occur, as they may eclipse the conversations that are really necessary, particularly in educational settings.
Patrick Morrow (Christianity)
Historical tendency of the Church to assumes it possesses all Truth. Vast majority of Christians wish to leave that behind.
Christians tend to prefer Sacks over Soloveitchik. The idea of private truth is very foreign to Christianity due to opposition to Gnosticism (esoteric knowledge). Christianity has taught that its teachings are available to everyone.
Three-fold typology of approaches to non-Christian faiths (proposed by pluralists):
exclusivism (we alone have the religious good)
inclusivism (we have the religious good fully, and others may share part of it with us)
pluralism (no way to distinguish who has more or less of the religious good; we are all equal)
Another approach: Most takes on other faiths are variations on inclusivism. They can tip into exclusivism (one type of error) or into pluralism (another type of error).
Mainstream Christian Inclusivism in the Catholic Tradition
Karl Rahner was a Jesuit, before, during and after Vatican II. 1961 lecture: “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”. Published as pages 115-134 of Theological Investigations Vol 5 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd) Available here
Rahner offered four theses. We will look at three:
Christianity is the absolute religion intended for all. This applies only when Christianity enters with existential power into the life of a person or a community. This happens only when a person has a Pentecostal experience. This cannot be seen, and it cannot be forced.
Therefore, it is likely that the other religion in which a person finds himself is legitimate (in God’s eyes).
Therefore, a missionary, meeting someone from another faith, should treat them as an anonymous Christian. (God will be working in that person’s life. Who is God? For Rahner it is the Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity is present for that person and that person is therefore a Christian.)
Catholicism has moved on from here, but this position does mean treating a person from another faith as someone who has their own relationship with God from which one can learn. They may have precisely the teaching that I need right now.
[For those who want to read further, Patrick Morrow has written about this issue at length here. Karl Rahner also entered a dialogue with Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide that included such matters as the Jewish debate about whether Christianity is monotheistic.]
Dilwar Hussain (Islam)
Importance of humility. Quran teaches people be in awe and wonder of the vastness of Creation and therefore of the Creator.
Three main points:
1. God has an infinite amount to say to us, so cannot be contained in any finite text.
If we believe that all of God’s wisdom is contained in the Quran or in any holy text, then we are making God finite. In the view of Islam (with the focus on monotheism), then lends towards idolatry.
“If all the seas of the earth were turned into ink and all the trees of the earth were turned into pens, then the wisdom of God would not have been exhausted.”
[I shared a laugh here with a fellow Jew in the audience as this is so, so similar to the text in the Jewish prayer Nishmat. “If our mouths were full of song as the sea is with water… we would not be able to sufficiently praise you.”]
2. Diversity is created by God
If diversity is in the world, God intended it to be there. Just like we cannot understand evil, we cannot understand why it is there, but it is there for a reason.
“We created you from one soul, and we created you into nations and tribes, that you may come to know each other.”
Diversity is a source of wonder and learning. This is part of the Divine intention and part of the human journey.
3. How to deal with difference?
There are universals. But there will be differences. We will disagree. This happens both within and between religions and across humanity.
Some disagreements can be resolved. Others cannot and we leave them to the Day. Right and Wrong in the universal sense is the language of God. We cannot know absolutely so must focus on living in peace rather than who has the right or wrong answers.
4. Relevance today / challenges
Why is this such a cause of anxiety for us today? Historically Islam was more inclusive as it saw teachings of Judaism and Christianity as part of its heritage. Today we have too much “brittle religion” because of political conflicts.
Religion that is not soft and flexible, and can break. We end up with “brittle, broken religion” (Hamas, Isis etc.).
It’s not most Muslims, but it is some Muslims and must be acknowledged. A lot of work to do within Islam to reclaim the flexible tradition that is possible.
Share this post