peace

Fundamentalists are those who when traditional exclusive attitudes are challenged reassert them in defiance of the ‘modern world.’ Martin Marty, who headed a major study of Fundamentalism, has argued that Fundamentalism is essentially oppositional and rejects new ways of thinking. Fundamentalists may exploit modern means of communication, but they vigorously reject any change to their religious beliefs. They adopt an a-historical attitude to the central truths of their religion, which are unchanging and not open to reinterpretation in a changing world. They reject historical criticism of their scriptures. They also reject the idea of symbolism, taking their particular myth as true in a literal sense. This implies that other religions are false. It is therefore a religious duty to oppose false teaching and those who try to change traditional beliefs and practices. This is even more the case when it is felt that the undermining of tradition is orchestrated by outsiders.

The enormous economic and cultural impact of the West is associated in the minds of many Muslims and Hindus with Christianity because America and Western Europe are supposedly ‘Christian’ countries. Western Europe is also remembered as the agent of imperialism, whilst the USA defends ‘the Zionist state’ of Israel and continues its economic and military aggression against Iraq and some other Muslim countries. Thus some extreme Muslims, for example members of Hamas, see military opposition to Israel as a defence of their faith. Even terrorist bombing against Israelis or Americans may have a religious sanction.

Despite media coverage, it is very important to make clear, however, that Muslim fundamentalists speak only for a small minority of members of that faith. There is a real contemporary struggle for the soul of Islam. A moderate Muslim recently said that instead of the affirmation that ‘God is most great’, fundamentalists are in effect saying ‘Islam is most great’. Whilst there is no excuse for the criminal behaviour of terrorists, injustice and oppression breed conditions which create sympathy for them among the marginalised. It is important, for instance, to try to see how the world appears say to a Palestinian who has lived in a refugee camp for most of his life.

Fundamentalists may reaffirm traditional oppositional attitudes to members of other religions, but as Dr Jonathan Sachs said in his Reith Lectures, ‘The fact that the great universal monotheisms have not yet formally endorsed a plural world is still the unexorcised darkness at the heart of our religious situation.’ Mention has already been made of the way in which religion creates and reinforces identity. This may have a theological under-pinning. Religion when it creates an ‘in-group’ at the same time creates an ‘out-group’? What does the existence of a ‘chosen people’ imply about other ‘unchosen people’? Yesterday I attended a Christian service which spoke of members of the church as ‘the people of God’. Are others not people of God? Indian writers often speak of the poor as the chosen of God.

It would be hoped that those who value religious commitment in their own lives would appreciate its importance in the lives of people of other faiths. This is in part the basis for tolerance, but a number of writers suggest that tolerance is not enough. It allows others the right to be wrong, but does not remove the discriminatory influence of much traditional religious teaching. As Alan Race, Editor of Interreligious Insight, has written, ‘as a form of minimal acknowledgement that plurality is a fact of existence, [tolerance] is not enough for more complex multifaith and multicultural societies.’

Shaye Cohen, Professor at Harvard University, has written ‘It is not enough simply to believe in tolerance, not enough simply to allow the other’s existence, rather, what we need is a theology on each side to validate the other’s existence.’ Cohen goes on to suggest that Jews should try to answer the question, ‘How is the divine cause somehow advanced by having millions and millions of Christians in the world?’ and that Christians should answer the question, ‘Why are the Jews still here?’

The relation of religions to each other has become an important issue for theological debate in most religions. In Christian circles, for example, a rough distinction is often made between three approaches. The exclusivist insists that only members of the church or those who have faith in Jesus will be saved and go to heaven. The inclusivist recognises that God’s loving concern is for all people, but insists that God’s final and full revelation is in Jesus Christ. The pluralist suggests that the mystery of God is present in Jesus Christ but not only in him but also in other great spiritual figures such as the Buddha, or Rama or Krishna. The third option obviously facilitates interfaith co-operation, but some question whether it is faithful to the Bible and Christian witness, whether it side-steps the issue of truth and whether it robs faith of the total commitment which it demands. The Bible, however, is open to different interpretations and Christian tradition is not monolithic. Faith is primarily in the Living God not in doctrines. Further many Christians who are well versed in interfaith dialogue testify that it has both broadened and deepened their Christian faith.

In Judaism, although God’s covenant with Abraham is central to Israel’s self-understanding that they were a people chosen by God, several modern writers, however, emphasise that this covenant was preceded by God’s covenant with Adam which was a covenant with all people and also by the covenant with Noah. The choice of Israel becomes a special calling which does not exclude the possibility that God calls other nations to other tasks. In a footnote to the sentence quoted above, Dr Sacks writes ‘my own understanding of religious truth is that it is covenantal, and that one covenant does not exclude another’.

Islam recognises Moses and Jesus as prophets and the Qur’an states that God sent a prophet to every people. The message of these prophets was one and the same, but it has been distorted by their followers. The only true and uncorrupted version of God’s message is to be found in the Qur’an. So there is a universalism in Islam, especially in Sufism, but most Muslim scholars would claim that Islam is true and is the standard by which other religious teaching is to be corrected.

Many in the interfaith movement, who are appreciative of the mystical dimension in religion, suggest that we need to recognise that Ultimate Reality transcends any creedal definition or formula. Different religions express particular insights into the Divine mystery. Together through dialogue human appreciation of that Mystery may be enhanced. Difference is not to be feared but to be valued. This view also reflects an understanding of knowledge which rejects absolute truths and suggests that all statements are conditioned by the person who makes them.

Fundamentalists in their opposition to interfaith dialogue and co-operation may be right in seeing it as subversive of claims to absolute truth. Many others support interfaith co-operation at a practical level but try to hold on at the same time to claims to a definitive revelation. This position is not, in the long run, tenable. Dr Sacks calls on religions ‘to formally endorse a plural world.’