Journal of Diversity in Higher Education Critical Reflections on the Interfaith Movement: A Social Justice Perspective Sachi Edwards Online First Publication, December 15, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000053

CITATION Edwards, S. (2016, December 15). Critical Reflections on the Interfaith Movement: A Social Justice Perspective. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000053 Journal of Diversity in Higher Education © 2016 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education 2016, Vol. 10, No. 1, 000 1938-8926/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000053 Critical Reflections on the Interfaith Movement: A Social Justice Perspective

Sachi Edwards University of Maryland, College Park

There is a burgeoning interfaith movement in U.S. higher education, inspired, in large part, by global events, and aimed at promoting tolerance of religious diversity. While there are various supporting arguments and approaches to this type of student pro- gramming, social justice oriented approaches—that is, approaches specifically centered around addressing systemic oppression and uplifting marginalized perspectives— remain rare. This lack of critical social justice reflection in the interfaith movement puts institutions at risk of alienating and/or further marginalizing religious minorities, despite intentions to do otherwise. In this article, I describe the current trends in the interfaith movement, reflect on them from a critical social justice standpoint, and envision a future for the movement that is more inclusive of, and attentive to, religious minorities. Specific critiques from a social justice perspective include (a) the lack of overt examinations of power dynamics and Christian privilege, (b) the tendency to ignore the sociocultural nature of religious identity, and (c) the frequent exclusion of non-Abrahamic religious groups.

Keywords: interfaith dialogue, Christian privilege, religious oppression, religious identity, social justice education

Interreligious conflict has existed throughout trend is a response to the ongoing religious vio- human history, and understanding it—its contexts, lence internationally, and increasing religious ten- actors, and outcomes—is an important part of sion domestically. understanding our world and the people in it. While curriculum, pedagogy, and programming Moreover, addressing and attempting to resolve intended to address religion and religious diversity this conflict is integral to achieving a peaceful in schools varies greatly, social justice oriented global community. Yet, modern Western ideals of approaches remain rare. Thus, in this article, I separating religion and government have caused describe the current trends for interfaith program- many societies to shy away from dealing with ming in U.S. higher education (their various man- issues surrounding religion in the public sector, ifestations and supporting arguments), and I use a especially in the realm of education (Marshall, critical social justice lens to reflect on and envi- 2010; Prothero, 2007; Wimberley, 2003). Never- sion a future for this movement. Critical theory theless, around the world, scholars, educators, ad- helps to focus attention on sociopolitical power ministrators, and policymakers are beginning to dynamics between religious groups and the recognize the importance of integrating conversa- unique perspectives of religious minorities—that tions about religion into our educational spaces. is, how might religious minorities experience or

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Here in the United States, for instance, there is a be affected by these various interfaith initiatives?

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualburgeoning user and is not to be disseminated broadly. interfaith movement taking place on Similarly, social justice education literature ex- college and university campuses. In large part, this plains the importance of using curriculum and pedagogy as a transformative tool for advancing sociopolitical equity. As such, reviewing this body of literature from a critical social justice perspec- tive is an attempt to bring oppressed religious Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- groups/individuals into the center of our conver- dressed to Sachi Edwards, Higher Education, Student Af- fairs, and International Education program, University of sations about why and how to incorporate inter- Maryland, College Park, 695 Kalalea Street, Honolulu, HI faith dialogue and programming into higher edu- 96825. E-mail: [email protected] cation in the United States.

1 2 EDWARDS

Why Talk About Religion at School? tradition: discussing religion in intergovernmental co- operation breaks a longstanding convention, reflecting Indeed, there is a growing movement to in- deep respect for freedom of conscience and religion as well as the consensus support of the historic confes- corporate education about religious diversity sions for the European ideal. The second is that the and interfaith dialogue into our higher educa- Council of Europe is a public body, and as such re- tion curricula and institutional priorities. There mains resolutely neutral in the debate within and be- are varying motivations for this, however. The tween religions about ultimate truths. (Wimberley, three primary arguments supporting this move- 2003, p. 200) ment found in existing scholarship are (a) the This statement illustrates how including is- need to promote religious literacy among stu- sues related to religion in the public agenda is dents/citizens, (b) the need to attend to students’ often conflated with promoting one religion identity development in a more holistic way, over another (or over no religion), and thus, is and (c) the need to broaden the discourse on discouraged—a sentiment that is common in diversity and multiculturalism. Western countries, including the United States. Recently, however, scholars in the United Promoting Religious Literacy States have been calling for inclusion of reli- gion, spirituality, and interfaith dialogue into The need to promote religious literacy, and education and other public initiatives as a way thereby (in theory) interreligious harmony, is to increase religious literacy and interreligious likely the foremost argument for the inclusion of interfaith dialogue in education. As Kung understanding (Kazanjian & Laurence, 2007; (1987) famously stated, there can be “no world Marshall, 2010; Patel & Brodeur, 2006). Pro- peace without peace among religions, no peace thero (2007), for instance, explained that edu- among religions without dialogue between reli- cation about religion is essential to effective gions, and no dialogue between religions with- civic engagement and participation in public out accurate knowledge of one another” (p. life. 194). Unfortunately, however, our tendency to Today, when religion is implicated in virtually every avoid education about religion has led to igno- issue of national and international import (not least the rance among the general population about the nomination of Supreme Court justices), U.S. citizens increasingly diverse religious landscape in need to know something about religion too. In an era in which the public square is, rightly or wrongly, awash which we live. Prothero (2007) called this phe- in religious reasons, can one really participate fully in nomenon religious illiteracy and identifies it as public life without knowing something about Christi- a major problem in the United States. In 2001, anity and the world’s religions? (p. 12) the religiously charged terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, New Perhaps even more importantly, Prothero York, along with the increased religious bigotry (2007) described a number of ways (e.g., hate toward Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus that fol- crimes against religious minorities, ineffective lowed (Blumenfeld, 2006; Radomski, 2010; Ta- international diplomacy efforts, even unsuc- kim, 2004), came as a wake-up call to educators cessful negotiations between U.S. citizens and and government officials around the world, and law enforcement officers) that religious illiter- inspired a number of interfaith and intercultural acy can actually be a matter of life and death. initiatives. The Council of Europe, for example, It is for these reasons that an increasing num- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. immediately began developing a new strategic ber of educators are advocating for more atten- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualplan, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. one that would encourage all of its mem- tion to, and concern for, the development of ber countries to incorporate intercultural and religious literacy. Purposeful promotion of reli- interfaith dialogue practices into their public gious literacy in this way would help students education (Halsall & Roebben, 2006; Wimber- not only to be well-informed citizens, but also ley, 2003). Doing so seemed to go against their to be more critical consumers of media messag- own understanding of their role as a nonreli- ing related to religion (i.e., less influenced by gious international organization: prejudiced generalizations) and to be more un- derstanding (and less fearful) of the behaviors Religion is obviously a major dimension of cultural diversity. Why then was it not addressed for decades? and practices of people from religious traditions There are two sources of this sensitivity. The first is other than their own (Gallagher, 2009). CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 3

Attending to Students’ need to pay more attention to students’ spiritu- Spiritual Development ality and internal selves, while also attempting to teach them about the world and their external Another claim supporting the interfaith dia- realities. The project’s principle investigator, logue movement is that avoiding such dialogue Alexander Astin (2004), noted, neglects our responsibility to help facilitate stu- What is most ironic about all of this is that while many dents’ spiritual development. In this context, the of the great literary and philosophical traditions that term spiritual (or, spirituality) typically refers to constitute the core of liberal education are grounded in one’s individual quest to understand the inter- the maxim, “know thyself,” the development of self- connectedness between internal and external re- awareness receives very little attention in our schools and colleges, and almost no attention in public dis- alities (Spirituality in Higher Education, n.d.), course in general or in the media in particular. If we which is often related to or influenced by one’s lack self-understanding—the capacity to see ourselves religious background and orientation. Indeed, clearly and honestly and to understand why we feel and “growing disillusionment with religious institu- act as we do—then how can we ever expect to under- tions in western society” has caused many to stand others? (pp. 34–36) separate spirituality from religion (Hill et al., Beyond the Higher Education Research Insti- 2000, p. 58). Nevertheless, Hill and colleagues tute study, the 2000s saw a massive increase in (2000) explained (after acknowledging the scholarly literature calling for student affairs pro- range of definitions used for each term) that fessionals (in particular), faculty, and administra- because the sociological and psychological tors to support students’ spiritual (individual) de- overlap among religion and spirituality are so velopment and to make higher education a substantial, social science research attempting welcoming environment for the exploration of re- to understand notions of identity and experience ligion (cultural/group phenomenon) and interfaith related to either or both should avoid treating dialogue (Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm Auer- the two concepts as if they were unrelated (Hill bach, 2006; Ingram, 2007; McCarty, 2009; Nash, et al., 2000). 2001; Seifert, 2007; Small, 2009; Tisdell, 2003). Given the complexity of these terms, in ad- This new discourse on spirituality in education dition to the hesitance around discussing reli- emphasizes the need to recognize students’ reli- gion in the public sector (described above), re- gious identities as a legitimate part of their overall search into, and our understanding of, this selves and to treat their curiosity about religion as aspect of college students’ identities and expe- a legitimate part of their college learning process. riences has, until recently, been minimal. In Facilitating students’ individual spiritual develop- 2003, to address this lack of knowledge, the ment in this way then also makes interfaith dia- Higher Education Research Institute launched a logue and interreligious understanding more fruit- 1 nationwide longitudinal study that sought to ful, because, as Panikkar (1999) asserts, one provide data on college student religious/ cannot begin to understand another religious tra- spiritual identities in the United States, and to dition until they understand their own—or at least examine the extent to which their time in col- their own interpretation of it. lege facilitated their spiritual development. The project, which ended in 2010, found that 83% of college students identify as religious and affili- Broadening the Discourse on Diversity and ate themselves with a religious group, and that Social Justice This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 80% of college students are interested in explor- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ing their spirituality (Spirituality in Higher Ed- A final, less acknowledged reason for engag- ucation, n.d.). ing students in interfaith dialogue is the need to Dozens of publications have been produced include religious identity into our discourse on using these results,2 (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, diversity and social justice. In the United States, 2011; Bryant, 2006; Bryant & Astin, 2008), education (particularly higher education) has through which authors have argued that spiritu- attempted to address social inequalities by es- ality and religious dialogue are essential com- ponents of higher education. Findings suggest 1 http://spirituality.ucla.edu/ that spirituality is extremely important in most 2 For a full list, see: http://spirituality.ucla.edu/public students’ lives, and for that reason, educators ations/academic-articles/ 4 EDWARDS

tablishing policies and initiatives that seek to similar way. According to Patel (2012), if col- foster diversity on campus and increase social leges and universities were as deliberate about, justice for disadvantaged groups. Yet, such ef- and attentive to, issues of religious diversity as forts have not been made to the same extent for they have been about issues of racial diversity, religious minorities. we would see a drastic change in the way reli- According to education historian John R. gious minorities are viewed and treated in this Thelin (2004), the first call for reorienting country. higher education toward issues of minority eq- I’m pretty convinced that one reason Barak Obama is uity and access came in 1971 from the govern- president is because of the 1990s-era multiculturalism ment commissioned Newman Report, which movement on campuses. A generation of college students pointed out the system’s lack of attention to the caught a vision of what a multicultural nation should look increasingly diverse student population. How- like—and those were the people who staffed the moon- ever, substantial changes in governance and op- shot Obama campaign. Imagine the impact a 21st-century campus interfaith movement would have on the nation erations on college campuses were not realized over the course of the next 30 years. Perhaps we will not until the 1990s, when larger social movements be Googling “Sikh” when we hear of a hate-fueled mur- began to demand recognition and equality for der in Milwaukee; perhaps we’ll be electing a Sikh pres- minority racial groups, women, and lesbian, ident. (Patel, 2012, para. 11) gay, or bisexual individuals (Thelin, 2004). In The interfaith movement Patel (2012) spoke particular, campus-based multicultural pro- of is certainly making its way into the realm of graming and curricula sought to advance voices higher education in the United States. However, and issues from marginalized racial minorities, just as there are differing reasons for encourag- as racial tension throughout the country was ing interfaith dialogue or interaction in higher rampant in the 1990s (Engberg, 2004; Patel, education, there are varying manifestations of 2012). Today, racial tension and inequality per- this type of programming. While not all of them sist, which colleges and universities are con- include formal dialogues between students from tinuing to confront. Likewise, there are increas- different religious backgrounds, the label “in- ingly well-established campus movements and terfaith dialogue” is often used rhetorically academic disciplines for addressing gender and when describing the range of interfaith student sexual orientation issues, fueled by ongoing so- programs or services. cial injustice for women and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer community. Despite the advances that have been made in Current Trends in Interfaith the last several decades with regard to issues of Student Programming identity and social justice, there has been rela- tively little headway in the effort to understand As described above, many scholars have sup- and address religious identity and oppression ported the idea of including lessons and learning (Blumenfeld, 2006; Patel, 2012; Schlosser, opportunities about religion and religious diver- 2003). In view of that, Nash and Scott (2009) sity in education (particularly higher education), have suggested that incorporating education especially in the last decade or so. While there about religion and religious difference into our are various ways individual colleges and uni- systems of higher education is the “the next versities have chosen to implement this idea, I logical step for enlarging the meaning of cul- have identified three general trends in current This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tural pluralism and diversity” (p. 132). Doing so models of interfaith student programing based This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. would push students, educators, and administra- on my own involvement with campus-based tors to understand the concept of multiple per- interfaith programming over the last five years, spectives on a whole new level (Nash & Scott, conversations with colleagues doing similar 2009). work at other institutions, observations from Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith Youth Core relevant presentations at academic conferences, (IFYC), believes that the emphasis on racial a review of the available scholarly literature on diversity in higher education has had a positive this topic, and a survey of institutional and impact on race relations in our society, and is organizational websites describing their inter- optimistic about the potential for campus-based faith initiatives: (a) interfaith community ser- interfaith work to alleviate religious tension in a vice programs, (b) multifaith spirituality cen- CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 5

ters, and (c) facilitated dialogues between an IFYC conference, Elmhurst College’s then- religiously diverse students. president reflected on the interfaith initiatives (he refers to them as dialogues) at his own Interfaith Community Service Programs school (Ray, 2010). Among them, he describes encouraging students to work with Habitat for The predominant form of interfaith engage- Humanity and organizing various interfaith ser- ment found on college campuses attempts to vices and rallies against poverty and gun violence. create opportunities for students to have posi- A service-related event like this, Ray (2010) ex- tive interactions with peers from other religious plained, “brings religious and nonreligious stu- groups through service projects and other extra- dents together in the service of the homeless and or cocurricular activities (Patel & Brodeur, communities lacking adequate facilities” (p. 45). 2006). In the rhetoric surrounding this model of Indeed, such efforts are commendable and likely interfaith programming, the term “interfaith di- do contribute positively to the communities and alogue” is often used, with the claim that people involved. Nevertheless, it should be noted through bringing students from different reli- that they do not actually ensure dialogue about gions together in this fashion, interfaith dia- religion between religiously diverse students. La- logue occurs organically. However, formal dia- bels like “interfaith collaboration” or “interfaith logue is not emphasized in these programs (so, engagement” are appropriate in this case, but cer- I choose not to label them as dialogues at all). tainly not “interfaith dialogue.” Instead, interfaith community service programs attempt to help students build interfaith rela- tionships (thus, presumably reducing their fear Multifaith Spirituality Centers or bias toward religious others), by engaging religiously diverse students in collaborative Another approach to interfaith programing projects that highlight their shared value (reli- that is common on college campuses is to create gious or otherwise) of helping others. multifaith spirituality centers—also called inter- This model of interfaith engagement is heav- faith centers, interfaith prayer rooms, and med- ily promoted by IFYC, and with an increasing itation rooms, among other names. These cen- number of partnerships in colleges and univer- ters typically host events such as multifaith sities across the country, they have built quite a panel discussions, religious festival celebra- bit of momentum around it. Community service tions, or interfaith prayers. In this way, campus- projects as an interfaith engagement strategy is based interfaith centers often serve as a space a trend that has also been fueled by The Presi- for students to explore their spirituality through dent’s Interfaith and Community Service Cam- 3 learning about their own and other religious pus Challenge, which was introduced by Pres- traditions. At Wellesley College, for instance, ident Barak Obama in March, 2011. Within one the Multifaith Center (attached to the campus’ year of the launch of this presidential call to chapel) is home to their Religious and Spiritual action, over 250 new interfaith initiatives were Life Program. This program is guided by a team formed on college and university campuses of chaplains and religious advisors, as well as a around the country, all organized around com- multifaith student council, that assists in devel- munity service as a means of advancing inter- oping campus-wide campaigns to inspire stu- faith collaboration (The White House, Office of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dents, staff, and faculty members to engage in Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. interfaith dialogue and increase their apprecia- n.d.). tion of religious diversity (Kazanjian & Lau- According to Patel, as stated in IFYC’s pod- rence, 2007). The emphasis at Wellesley is on cast, “What Is Interfaith Literacy?”, the solution celebrating the traditions of all religious groups to interfaith conflict and prejudice is simply to on campus, and by doing so, educating the build appreciative knowledge of other religions and being able to identify shared values with campus community about the different religious individuals from different religious identities identities that make up their college. Addition- (Interfaith Youth Core [IFYC], 2013). The in- terfaith service program strategy seeks to do 3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/ exactly that. For example, after participating in interfaithservice 6 EDWARDS

ally, they staff chaplains4 from a range of reli- and comfort levels, allow students gain expo- gious traditions and facilitate opportunities for sure to other religious beliefs/traditions and to students to receive pastoral counseling if they so ask questions about religion they may not feel desire. comfortable doing elsewhere. Similarly, the University at Albany’s Inter- More highly structured interfaith dialogues faith Center features an interfaith meditation are typically sustained for longer periods of and prayer room, an interfaith library, an out- time (once a week for an entire term, for in- door labyrinth, and a meditation garden.5 The stance), and are more closely guided by one or Center organizes various interfaith meals, field more trained facilitators. At the University of trips, workshops, and speaker series, often fa- Michigan, for example, the Intergroup Dialogue cilitated by chaplains and religiously affiliated Program offers semester-long discussion-based student groups. Despite a lack of academic pub- courses where facilitators lead students through lications describing this type of programming in discussions about issues pertaining to a single more detail, a web search for “campus interfaith social identity chosen for the class. Among dialogue” or “campus interfaith program” will other identity themes, religious identity dia- surely produce numerous links to campus inter- logue courses are offered where students learn faith centers describing initiatives much like to examine their own religious socialization, those at Wellesley College and University at and the structural privilege or oppression they Albany. These types of spaces and events on and their peers experience (Dessel, Masse, & college campuses are certainly useful in provid- Walker, 2013). The University of Michigan’s ing exposure to a range of religious traditions model of interfaith dialogue places less (if any) and, in that way, can help students achieve a emphasis on religious belief or ritual, and more basic level of religious literacy (which can make on comparing the lived experiences of reli- interfaith dialogue more effective). However, as giously diverse students based on the cultural much of the activities that take place within and social nature of religion. these multifaith centers lack formal dialogue Intended outcomes of facilitated interfaith di- between individuals with differing religious alogues vary, from increased knowledge and identities, “interfaith dialogue” is, again, an in- friendship potential to increased awareness of accurate label; perhaps “multifaith education” religious stratification and inequity. All of them, should be used instead. however, are different ways of attempting to address religious conflict and improve interfaith Facilitated Interfaith Dialogues relations. Formalized interfaith dialogues (in contrast to interfaith community service pro- Formalized, facilitated interfaith dialogues grams or interfaith prayer services) seem, for represent a final version of interfaith program- the moment, to be the least common form of ming found in colleges and universities in the interfaith programming found on college cam- United States. These range from less structured puses. Nevertheless, they are becoming more to highly structured, but all bring together stu- widespread as the interfaith movement grows. dents from different religious backgrounds to discuss their respective beliefs, traditions, A Critical Social Justice Approach and/or experiences. A less structured approach to facilitated interfaith dialogue includes the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. While all of the approaches to interfaith pro- types recommended by IFYC, such as “pop-up

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. gramming described above certainly seem like conversations” (creating a space for people to positive steps toward interfaith harmony, there drop in for a brief interfaith conversation) or are some potential negative consequences that “speedfaithing” (like speed-dating, where par- become apparent when analyzing them through ticipants spend a few minutes talking one-on- a critical social justice lens. The critical social one with each other person in the group) events (IFYC, n.d.). In dialogues like these, students show up voluntarily and exchange information 4 See Clark and Brimhall-Vargas (2003) for a discussion on why the use of the word chaplain to refer to religious about themselves to a peer(s) with a different advisors from non-Christian traditions is indicative of religious identity. These casual conversations, Christian privilege. guided by students’ own interests, curiosities, 5 http://www.albanyinterfaithcenter.org/ CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 7

justice perspective asserts that an examination The adoption of a critical theory perspective of power and privilege are important in any in the field of education is commonly known as dialogue about identity (religious or otherwise) critical pedagogy. With his seminal book, Ped- to prevent the further marginalization of subor- agogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1968/2000), dinate identity participants. Many of the inter- used Hegel’s and Marx’s critical philosophies to faith initiatives described above fail to do so. describe critical pedagogy as a transformative, This is not to say that they should not be utilized social justice oriented approach to education. at all, or that they all must be changed to strictly While Hegel’s and Marx’s writings were situ- adhere to a critical social justice agenda. How- ated in the context of class oppression and ever, considering certain possible areas of workers movements in Germany, Freire wrote weakness that a critical social justice perspec- about the impact of class oppression on educa- tive elucidates would help practitioners within tion in the context of poor, rural Brazil. Ulti- the campus interfaith movement be more mind- mately, however, Freire’s description of critical ful of the ways religious minority participants pedagogy served as a guideline for a system of may be affected by the initiatives they pursue. education designed to facilitate the liberation of Before detailing the specifics of a critical social all systemically oppressed groups, not just the justice reflection on the current trends in inter- poor and working class. Since the initial publi- faith programming, however, I must clarify cation of his book in 1968, scholars and practi- what a critical social justice perspective is. tioners from around the world have adopted his The term social justice itself often means ideas to advocate for the liberation of many different things in education rhetoric, as North other oppressed identity groups. Thus, Freire’s (2006) detailed. Still, social justice education work, and other scholarship on critical peda- might be simply described as a philosophy of gogy (e.g., Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 1998), laid education designed to teach students about the a strong foundation for understanding how ed- various forms of inequality and oppression, and, ucation can also be used to liberate religious in turn, to promote equity and the larger social minorities from systemic social oppression. justice vision. Much of the theoretical founda- Distinctive subfields of critical theory have tion for this body of literature is grounded in also emerged to analyze power dynamics with critical theory, including the subfields of critical regard to a number of different identity groups: pedagogy and critical identity studies. If you race, gender, sexuality, ability, among others. trace the literature on social justice back to its For instance, critical race theory positions phil- philosophical origins, you will find that it is osophical reflection about racial identity in the rooted in the works of Hegel, Marx, and other context of the sociopolitical history of White German scholars of the 1800s. It was Hegel supremacy in this country (Crenshaw, Gotanda, (1807/1977) who first combined traditional phi- Peller, & Thomas, 1995). In the same way, losophy with an evaluation of current political feminist theory examines gender identity in the and economic policies and Marx (1848/1964) context of the context of our country’s history who famously analyzed class conflict in light of of male domination—social, political, and eco- sociopolitical power dynamics. Drawing from nomic (hooks, 2010). When it comes to reli- these ideas, Horkheimer (1972) explicitly de- gious identity, however, there remains a dearth veloped critical theory as a unique theoretical of literature, certainly not an entire field of This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. perspective with a primary concern for satisfac- study, dedicated to philosophical analyses with This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualtory user and is not to be disseminated life broadly. conditions for all people. Thus, through a similar critical lens. Nevertheless, there is a situating philosophical reflection in the context growing community of scholars, and a growing of sociopolitical history, coupled with an em- body of scholarship, that represent a critical phasis on human wellbeing, we can understand perspective to analyzing religious identity (Ad- critical theory as a foundation of current day ams & Joshi, 2010; Blumenfeld, 2006; Clark, literature on equity and social justice. As Ras- Brimhall-Vargas, Schlosser, & Alimo, 2002). mussen (1996) explained, critical theory was These authors argued, as I do, that religion is born out of the realization that “theory, when socially constructed identity (rather than a set of allied with praxis has a proper political end, personal beliefs) that is shaped by the past and namely, social transformation” (p. 12). present structural domination of Christianity— 8 EDWARDS

also known as Christian supremacy (Todd, not be erased (Tatum, 2010), we can understand 2010)—in the United States. that individuals may continue to experience Discussing religious identity with a critical privileges or oppression associated with the re- social justice orientation requires careful con- ligious culture of their upbringing, even if they sideration of the historical, social, political, and no longer subscribe to certain specific beliefs legal power imbalance between religious associated with that religion. In other words, groups. Just as White and male hegemony have one’s spiritual (personal, individual) beliefs hindered people of color and women, so too has may change, but their previous religious social- Christian hegemony in the United States caused ization and inherited religious (group, cultural) the social and institutional oppression of reli- identity can still affect their worldview, their gious minorities—including internalized op- lived experiences, and their societal interac- pression, whereby subordinate group members tions. Even if one chooses to transition to a new view themselves as inferior due to the normal- (or no) religious affiliation in adulthood, the ization of the dominant group (Blumenfeld & religious socialization that shaped their up- 6 Jaekel, 2012; Lipsky, 1977). While it may be bringing remains a part of their worldview and easiest to think about incidents of interpersonal their overall self. As Brimhall-Vargas (2011) discrimination toward religious minorities as explained in his phenomenological study of re- the primary manifestation of religious oppres- ligious conversion, “even when the external fea- sion, critical theory reminds us that “invisible tures of the religion are in alignment with a systems conferring unsought social dominance” person’s new internal beliefs, the old identity is of one group over another is far more prevalent still present as a nagging point of reference” (p. and detrimental to marginalized groups than 76). Therefore, while it is possible for a person “individual acts of meanness” (McIntosh, 1998, to eventually assimilate into a new religious p. 151). Thus, a critical social justice approach culture (and identity), doing so often requires to philosophical analyses of religious identity many years of dedicated self-examination and and oppression contextualizes experiences of community support; one does not switch from a religious identity within the historical backdrop privileged position to an oppressed position (or of Christian cultural domination. the other way around) in an instant. Social, A common opinion about religious identity is familial, and cultural influences can make reli- that individuals can choose and change that gious identity much more complex, and much aspect of themselves at any time. Yet, as many scholars have explained, the religion that one more deeply engrained, than a simple checklist adheres to, is most familiar with, and/or is most of spiritual beliefs. comfortable with is largely a matter of the way This perspective—that religion is largely cul- that individual is socialized (Adams & Joshi, tural and that affiliation with a religious culture 2010; Durkheim, 1912/1995; Eliade, 1969; has little to do with one’s individual beliefs— Harro, 2010; Smith, 1991; Tisdell, 2003). In aligns with characterizations of religion put that way, religious identity is not simply about forth by prominent scholars in the field of reli- personal choice. gious studies (Durkheim, 1912/1995; Eliade, 1969; Smith, 1991). Indeed, Durkheim (1912/ Our socialization begins before we are born, with no 1995) warned us against defining religion (or choice on our part. No one brings us a survey, in the religious affiliation, or religious identity) ac-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. womb, inquiring into which gender, class, religion, sexual orientation, cultural group, ability status, or age cording to beliefs alone, because some religions This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to bewe disseminated broadly. might want to be born. These identities are ascribed do not even espouse a specific set of beliefs. He to us at birth through no effort or decision or choice of admitted that it may be tempting for those from our own. (Harro, 2010, p. 46) religious traditions that do emphasize belief to Moreover, according to Tatum (2010), a per- define religion in that way, but warns that doing son’s identity throughout their life is developed so would be reflective of their own biases and by “Integrating one’s past, present, and future into a cohesive, unified sense of self” (p. 6). 6 It is beyond the scope of this article to address inter- Thus, if we recognize that religious identity is nalized oppression to the extent that it deserves. The works socially constructed, and we keep in mind that cited here provide additional discussion on this important experiences of privilege and/or oppression can- issue. CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 9

preconceptions about what religion is in the first plicit examinations of Christian privilege, (b) a place. Echoing this sentiment, Smith (1991) sug- tendency to overlook the socioculture nature of gested that what we think of as religion should be religious identity, and (c) the frequent exclusion separated into two things: “an historical ‘cumula- of non-Abrahamic religious groups/individuals. tive tradition,’ and the personal faith of men and women” (p. 194)—which is similar to the separa- tion between religion and spirituality I make Recognizing and Challenging above. One’s personal faith (or, spirituality) may Christian Privilege change over time, even day to day. One’s social- ization into an historical, cumulative tradition (or, An essential component of critical theory is religious identity), however, has implications for the recognition and examination of power and culture and worldview that are separate from be- privilege. Thus, acknowledging and purpose- lief. After all, even “the modern man who feels fully challenging Christian privilege is a neces- and claims that he is nonreligious still retains a sity for critical social justice oriented interfaith large stock of camouflaged myths and degener- dialogues, just as critical dialogues about race ated rituals” reminiscent of their religious culture should examine White privilege and critical di- (Eliade, 1959, pp. 204–205). alogues about gender should examine male Combining the emphasis on historical ineq- privilege (Zúñiga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron- uity and political power imbalance with the Walker, 2007). To this point, however, the in- understanding that religious identity is cultur- terfaith movement in higher education has not ally and socially constructed, a critical social prioritized examining Christian privilege. In justice approach calls for interfaith practitioners part, this may be because Christian privilege to acknowledge religious socialization and ex- itself is a fairly new concept. In 2002, Clark and amine systemic religious oppression. Applying her colleagues introduced the idea, relating this approach to our work within the interfaith Christian privilege to the concepts of White movement can help us think about how inter- privilege and male privilege made famous by faith programming can increase equity for op- Peggy McIntosh (1988, 1998). They described pressed religious groups, and when there may it as, “an invisible set of unearned and unac- be the potential for just the opposite. knowledged benefits with which Christians in the U.S. walk casually around” (Clark et al., Critical Reflections on the 2002, p. 54), and they adopted McIntosh’s Interfaith Movement (1988) famous list of White privileges to relate specifically to religious identity. A few exam- Reflecting on the interfaith movement in U.S. ples from this list include the following: higher education from a critical social justice perspective raises a number of concerns about • It is likely that state and federal holidays how the movement may be alienating or even coincide with my religious practices, further marginalizing individuals from minority thereby having little to no impact on my religious traditions. While there are undoubt- job and/or education. edly good intentions motivating most campus • I can share my holiday greetings (e.g., interfaith practitioners, and there are surely Merry Christmas, Happy Easter, etc.) with- many positive aspects of existing interfaith ini- out being fully conscious of how it may This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tiatives, there are elements of the movement impact those who do not celebrate the same This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. that fail to address key issues related to religious holidays. conflict, prejudice, and oppression. Interfaith • My religion and religious holidays are so programs that overlook Christian privilege and completely “normal” that, in many ways, religious oppression might make participants, they may appear to no longer have any particularly those from the dominant group (i.e., religious significance at all. Christians), feel gratified by the experience, but • I can deny Christian privilege by asserting may not make any substantive steps toward that all religions are essentially the same. social justice for religious minorities. Three pri- • The elected and appointed officials of my mary critiques of this movement from a critical government are probably members of my social justice perspective are (a) a lack of ex- religious group. 10 EDWARDS

• I can openly display my religious sym- flict at their schools than Christian students, and bol(s) on my person or property without experience more negative interactions with, and fear of disapproval, violence, and/or van- feelings of coercion from, peers with different dalism. (Clark et al., 2002, pp. 54–55) religious identities (Bryant Rockenbach & May- Since that initial introduction to Christian hew, 2014). Still, most of the interfaith program- privilege, several other scholars have also ming in U.S. higher education that is described in joined the conversation (Adams & Joshi, 2010; peer-reviewed journals, at academic conferences, Blumenfeld, 2006; Blumenfeld, Joshi, & and on institutional websites does not directly Fairchild, 2008; Case, 2013; Schlosser, 2003; question, address, or analyze the religious stratifi- Seifert, 2007). However, there are still many cation at the root of these conflicts and differences scholars who overlook, are skeptical of, or even in perspective. deny the existence of Christian privilege. For A critical social justice approach to interfaith instance, Kimmel and Ferber’s (2010) Privi- engagement contends that without adequately ac- lege: A Reader, which included sections on knowledging and managing the drastic power im- male, White, heterosexual, and class privilege, balance between different religious groups, edu- did not address Christian privilege at all. There cational programing that deals with religion and is a mention of anti-Semitism in one chapter religious identity can be damaging to religious (Sacks, 2010), but primarily in the context of minority students who may perceive the initiatives racial, non-Nordic prejudice rather than as a as hollow attempts to assuage them, while not discussion of religious oppression. Others, such actually addressing their marginalization (Seifert, as Nelson (2010), are expressly uncomfortable 2007). Thus, interfaith programs aiming to be with the full list of Christian privileges, and social justice oriented should overtly insert activ- assert that Christians are also oppressed.7 He ities, lessons, and other curricular or pedagogical critiqued, in great detail, the explanation of tools demonstrating the existence of Christian Christian privilege that Clark et al. (2002) put privilege. Moreover, they should attempt to in- forward, claiming that in secular settings like spire positive social action toward rectifying the schools, Christians find themselves stifled from imbalance and injustice created by the historical full expression of their religious identity (Nel- and political Christian hegemony in this country. son, 2010). Larson and Shady (2012) extended While there is a dearth of literature (both theoretical that perspective, claiming that Christians are and practical) that discusses how to successfully also marginalized by the media and secular pub- pursue or facilitate this type of interfaith dialogue, lic. Still others flat out reject the idea of Chris- models of social justice oriented race and gender tian privilege, suggesting that what some think dialogues, such as Intergroup Dialogue (Zúñiga et is Christian privilege, is really just White priv- al., 2007), can be adopted for this purpose. Strat- ilege. Stewart and Lozano (2009), for example, egies like ensuring substantial participation by argued that people of color who are Christian do non-Christians, having a Christian and a non- not benefit from Christian privilege because Christian cofacilitate the dialogue, and training they often do not fit in with White Christian facilitators to recognize manifestations of Chris- congregations, a claim that disregards the expe- tian privilege during the dialogue process can all riences of non-Christians altogether. be used to promote a critical social justice agenda That the legitimacy of Christian privilege is through interfaith dialogue. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. debated, even by those who are self-proclaimed Indeed, there are some colleges and universities This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualsocial user and is not to be disseminated broadly. justice scholars, has likely limited the de- that are pursuing interfaith engagement from a velopment of a critical social justice perspective in critical social justice perspective (or, at least at- our discourse about campus-based interfaith ini- tempting to). Those that are not, however, may not tiatives. Unfortunately, this may be preventing the interfaith movement from addressing the bigotry 7 While it is true that some Christians express feeling and oppression that religious minorities are expe- oppressed (just as some White people and men also do), a riencing on the very campuses they are operating critical social justice perspective analyses power dynamics between religious groups within historical and political con- from. Recently, the nationwide Campus Religious texts, and asserts that dominant group members may expe- and Spiritual Climate survey found that religious rience interpersonal acts of meanness or exclusion, but do minorities are more acutely aware of religious con- not experience societal level oppression. CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 11

recognize the ways their religious minority partic- tice approach is acknowledging and reflecting on ipants might be further marginalized through their the socially constructed nature of identity. How- programs. For example, if Christian participants ever, in current manifestations of the interfaith are dominating the conversation (in essence, ex- movement, religious identity is often spoken about hibiting their Christian privilege) and facilitators as a personal set of beliefs, where individuals are fail to intervene and make space for non-Christian identified according to their own self-chosen reli- participants to speak uninterrupted, religious mi- gious label. While self-identification is certainly a norities may come away from the dialogue feeling strongly held value in critical identity paradigms, disregarded and unappreciated (Edwards, 2016). carte blanch self-identification can also prove Similarly, if Christian participants suggest that problematic when attempting to address identity they are oppressed—either by claiming that oppression. For instance, when Rachel Dolezol, a Christians are oppressed, or by changing the sub- White woman born to two White parents, identi- ject to discuss a different identity for which they fied herself as Black, critical scholars decried her are oppressed—and facilitators do not step in to chosen identity label as racial appropriation and a ensure that Christian privilege and religious op- hindrance to the social justice efforts of the Black pression are validated and recognized, non- community (Caldera, 2015). Thus, as explained Christian participants may interpret that their op- above, from a critical social justice perspective, pression as religious minorities does not matter one’s upbringing and identity socialization needs (Edwards, 2016). Of course, the goal should not to be recognized as a part of their identity label— be to silence Christian participants; rather, discus- whether the individual wants to admit it or not. sions should be reframed to help all participants It is for this reason that interfaith dialogue (or recognize the historical context and reality of interfaith programming in general) seeking to Christian domination. Failure to do so, despite adopt a critical social justice approach should fo- good intentions, may put an interfaith program at cus not on “individual dimensions of faith and risk of reinforcing Christian hegemony without belief, but on the societal role of religion in justi- realizing it. Unfortunately, as Gorski (2008) ex- fying and helping to maintain a social system plained, when it comes to conversations about characterized by religious domination and subor- culture and power, good intentions are often not dination” (Adams & Joshi, 2010, p. 228). While enough. social justice oriented interfaith dialogue may (or Some interfaith programs even claim social jus- may not) share and compare participants’ beliefs, tice as a tenet, yet still do not align with a critical traditions, or values, it should certainly ask stu- social justice perspective on religion or religious dents to reflect on their own religious socializa- identity. The interfaith efforts at Elmhurst College tion, how it is shaped by Christian hegemony, and (described above) are an example of that. Unde- how it affects their lived experiences. It is possible niably, bringing a religiously diverse group of that an interfaith dialogue of this sort may not students together to build houses for economically actually spend any time at all discussing individ- disadvantaged families or raise awareness of gun ual participants’ spiritual beliefs or the beliefs violence is “critically informed work toward so- espoused by the religious tradition with which cial justice” (Ray, 2010, p. 44). These are not, they were raised. After all, enjoying school clo- however, forms of social justice work that specif- sures on your religious culture’s holidays (or, con- ically help religious minorities. Recognizing versely, having choose between school and your which form of oppression to target is an important This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. religious holidays) does not require you to person- aspect of a critical social justice approach to in- 8 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ally believe anything in particular. In other terfaith engagement. As such, attention to reli- words, experiences of privilege or oppression of- gious identity oppression and Christian privilege ten have more to do with the way Christianity specifically is invaluable for the interfaith move- ment. 8 According to a Pew Research Center (2013) poll, 87% of Acknowledging and Reflecting on the atheists and agnostics in the United States celebrate Christmas, Sociocultural Nature of Religious Identity substantially more than the percentage of religious minorities who do so. While this research does not mention what (if any) religious background these atheists and agnostics have, it does demonstrate Beyond recognizing and challenging privilege, that Christian holidays are celebrated as part of a Christian- another important aspect of the critical social jus- normative culture, regardless of individuals’ beliefs. 12 EDWARDS

shapes societal norms, assumptions, and routines participants to explain their religion to others, as than the specific details of people’s spiritual be- speedfaithing events or pop-up conversations liefs. might do, it is important to recognize that doing Asking participants to examine their own re- so may place disproportionate pressure on par- ligious socialization often means that those who ticipants from lesser-known and lesser-under- prefer to label themselves as atheist or agnostic stood religions traditions to articulate (and will have to acknowledge the way they are sometimes defend) their religion to their peers. culturally affiliated with a religious tradition— Hindus, for instance, may find themselves in a that is, acknowledge their sociocultural reli- position where they have to rationalize the con- gious identity. For instance, if a participant was cept of reincarnation or the existence of multi- raised in a Christian family and in a Christian ple deities, while their Christian peers are not social environment, and thereby was taught to likely to encounter such bewilderment at the see the world through a Christian lens, he or she idea of a single lifetime or god (Blumenfeld et should be asked to recognize and learn about al., 2008; Edwards, 2016). Likewise, when pro- their Christian privilege, even if they no longer grams organize educational lectures or panels of believe in the tenets of Christianity and no lon- religious leaders, they run the risk of leaving ger chose to call him- or herself a Christian. audience members exposed to only a single Similarly, if a participant was raised as a Mus- interpretation of a given religion—a risk that lim, has an entirely Muslim family, and at- threatens minority religions more than larger, tended a religious Muslim school all of their more common religious groups. That the vast lives, he or she should be encouraged to reflect majority of Americans are Christian makes the on the way their Muslim cultural identity has diversity within the Christian tradition more shaped, and continues to shape, life experi- widely acknowledged, a privilege that is not ences, even if he or she has recently adopted a afforded to most minority religions whose ad- new set of beliefs. Two atheist participants, herents are often assumed to hold a singular then, if one was raised as a Christian and the belief system or practice. Furthermore, when other as a Muslim, have entirely different levels programs are run by chaplains and in campus of religious privilege/oppression and, therefore, chapels (even if they are labeled as interfaith or have entirely different perspectives to offer in multifaith spaces), partner with local houses of an interfaith discussion. An interfaith program worship, involve religious ritual (such as an focused solely on participants’ individual be- interfaith prayer), or are centered on personal liefs overlooks this reality and misses an oppor- religious exploration, the entire experience is tunity to examine how Christians (even those foregrounded in a context of religious belief, who are only Christian by culture) are afforded and may exclude those who do not believe in a privileges that religious minorities are not. higher power. It is equally important, however, Critically examining the sociocultural aspects for atheists and agnostics to engage in interfaith of religion is important to do, not just in theory dialogue and to learn about how embedded or in rhetoric, but in practice as well. Research Christian hegemony is in our society, especially has shown that even programs following the because many of them may still have a cultural overtly critical University of Michigan Inter- worldview and identity rooted in the religious group Dialogue model may stray from its social tradition of their upbringing. justice mission if/when facilitators’ and stu- To be sure, belief is a big part of the way This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dents’ do not adequately understand the critical most people understand religion, despite some This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. perspective on religion and religious identity of the foremost authorities on religious studies (Edwards, 2016). When this happens, it be- explaining that religion and religious identity is comes possible that interfaith dialogue can, un- much more complex than that (Durkheim, 1912/ fortunately, perpetuate the marginalization of 1995; Eliade, 1969; Smith, 1991). Focusing religious minorities and further embed their in- solely on belief in an interfaith dialogue makes ternalized oppression. A critical social justice it possible for culturally Christian atheists to framework encourages us to consider how ignore their Christian privilege and the way they power imbalances between religious groups benefit from a system that oppresses religious might affect the way religious minorities expe- minorities by presenting themselves as separate rience these programs. So, when programs ask from the dominant culture. Additionally, it cen- CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 13

ters conversations about religious minorities on to recognize sociocultural nature of religion, their beliefs rather than their subordination. A non-Abrahamic religious identities are com- dialogue of this sort does not align with the pletely missing from this model. Where would a priorities of the critical social justice paradigm. student who practices Native Hawaiian religion fit? A Jain? A Taoist? In explaining her choice Religious Identity Inclusion Beyond the to put Jews and Muslims in the second tier of Dominant Abrahamic Traditions religious privilege, Small (2011) quoted a re- search participant who says, Another aspect of interfaith programming we all pray to the same source. . . . I mean besides. . . . that can be perceived as hollow or insincere to Judaism and Christianity and Islam are all. . . . Abra- some religious minority students is the bias hamic religions, they all pray to the same God, just . . . toward Christianity or the three dominant Abra- have a different name for God and have different views hamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Is- on who Christ was. (p. 113) lam) in much of the existing discourse and What about those who do not believe in the God practice. Again, this may be a result, in part, of of Abraham at all? Small complicates her own the lack of education research and literature model by suggesting that Evangelical Christians addressing non-Abrahamic religious groups. often face oppression because of their religious Much of the existing scholarship intended to identity and thus, are at once both privileged help student affairs professionals address issues and oppressed. Yet, she does not question the related to religion or spirituality with students is way various denominations of Judaism or Islam written from a Christian perspective, is based on are privileged/oppressed differently. research about Christian students, or has “lumped students of all religious groups into a Countless other authors contributing to discus- categorical definition aligned with mainstream sions on religion, religious identity, and interfaith Christianity” (Small, 2011, p. 4). The influential issues in higher education have also ignored non- faith development theory (Fowler, 1981), for Abrahamic religious traditions (Fowler, 2004; In- instance, which claims to separate faith and gram, 2007; Nash, 2001; Roozen & Hadsell, religion, defines and describes students’ spiri- 2009; Zúñiga & Sevig, 1997). Similarly, the dis- tual development from a Christian perspective course about religious oppression, even in recent (James Fowler was, notably, a Christian minis- publications, is often not inclusive of all religious ter and theologian). To address this problem, minorities; the term anti-Semitism, which refers Watt, Fairchild, and Goodman (2009), orga- only to prejudice against Jews, is commonly used nized a special issue of the journal New Direc- in place of the catch-all phrase, religious oppres- tions for Student Services to help push the field sion (Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2011; Ro- beyond its Christian orientation. However, in driguez, Rodriguez-Scheel, Lindsey, & Kirkland, this special issue they attend only to Jewish, 2011). Even the influential text by Adams et al. Muslim, and atheist students; no other religious (2010), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, identity is represented or discussed. In fact, in referred to religious oppression as anti-Semitism the introduction to the special issue, the editors in their first edition back in 2000. The complete list only Islam, Judaism, or atheism as nondomi- title of the first edition was Readings for Diversity nant belief systems (Watt et al., 2009). and Social Justice: An Anthology on Racism, Anti- Small (2011) also attempted to broaden the- Semitism, Sexism, Heterosexism, Ableism, and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. oretical literature in this area by developing a Classism (Adams et al., 2000). Clearly, the theo- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. three-tiered hierarchy of religious privilege. ries and frameworks for understanding religious Yet, she, too, only recognizes Christians, Jews, oppression need to be more inclusive and better Muslims, and atheists. While she acknowledges understood. that Christians have the highest level of privi- Slowly, academic publications are beginning lege in the United States, she claims that Jews to acknowledge the existence of non-Abra- and Muslims are more privileged than atheists hamic religious identities (Adams & Joshi, because they fit into the predominately religious 2010; Blumenfeld, 2006; Clark & Brimhall- society of the United States and have a shared Vargas, 2003). However, in many cases (not connection to Christians as members of the all), these acknowledgments come in the form Abrahamic spiritual lineage. Beyond her failure of a brief comment, much like a footnote, 14 EDWARDS

whereas the bulk of the discussion and descrip- spirituality, as some might suggest). Partici- tion covers issues pertinent to the three main pants from non-Abrahamic religions may be Abrahamic religions primarily. Also, while forced, then, to justify their tradition as an ac- some religious traditions are recognized (Bud- tual religion—a struggle that indigenous peo- dhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Native Ameri- ples, Buddhists, and others often face. From a can religions are most often mentioned) others critical social justice standpoint, this exemplar are still largely untouched; for example, Jain- of Christian (maybe even Abrahamic) hege- ism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Paganism, mony should be challenged in an interfaith di- Wicca, Voodoo, and many others. To be sure, alogue. Doing so requires substantial participa- the smaller number of Americans who identify tion by individuals with non-Abrahamic with these religions contributes to the lack of religious identities—not to teach others about data U.S. researchers are able to produce rele- their traditions, but to broaden the conversation vant to these identities. Nonetheless, it is nec- beyond Judeo-Christian-Islamic normative essary to call attention to the more privileged themes. Indeed, asserting a marginalized, mis- positions that religious traditions more well- understood perspective can be daunting when known by the general U.S. population enjoy in one is alone, or in the extreme minority. For that this country so as not to simply pay lip service reason, it is crucial that non-Abrahamic reli- to religious diversity, but to make a genuine gions are well represented in an interfaith dis- effort to incorporate all religious identities into cussion or event. this discussion. To be sure, organizing an interfaith dialogue (or A critical social justice approach to interfaith other interfaith initiative) with adequate participa- dialogue reminds us that it is important to in- tion from a wider range of religious identity clude individuals (both participants and facili- groups can be a difficult task, but it is important tators) and perspectives from non-Abrahamic nonetheless. A commitment to social justice often traditions—not as a token, in the form of a means spending more time and effort recruiting single participant, but as well represented and participants from underrepresented identity valued religious groups. At the most basic level, groups, and an interfaith dialogue is no different. an interfaith program that only involves or ac- What the critical social justice framework helps us knowledges Jews, Christians, and Muslims is an understand, in this case, is that simply including affront to the very existence of other religious two or three religious identity groups in an inter- groups. It should come as no surprise, then, that faith dialogue is not enough to truly combat sys- many students felt extremely offended when the temic religious oppression; that it is also necessary University of Maryland embarked on its Tree of to include, in a considerable way, those outside the Life9 interfaith needlepoint project and only three dominant Abrahamic religions. Of course, invited participants from the three dominant there may be reasons for limiting interfaith dia- Abrahamic traditions. Their rationale was that logue to just two or three specific groups—for the Tree of Life was a central symbol in Juda- instance, when the goal is to address the unique ism, Christianity, and Islam—neglecting to historical tensions between those groups. How- mention that the Tree of Life is also a theme in ever, programs attempting to reduce prejudice to- Buddhism, Hinduism, and virtually all indige- ward, and promote inclusion of, religious minor- nous religions. ities more generally, should avoid such a lack of On a more systemic level, excluding non- diversity. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Abrahamic perspectives limits participants’ ex- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. posure to different religious traditions, which The Future of Interfaith Engagement in may lead to a false sense that all or most reli- gions share certain ideas and principles found Higher Education: A Critical Social primarily in the Abrahamic traditions (mono- Justice Vision theism, a sacred text, weekly rituals that take place in particular holy building, among count- Despite the critiques of the interfaith move- less others). Perpetuating this myth reinforces ment I present above, I do see great potential in the Abrahamic yardstick as a measure of religi- osity, or even a determinant of what constitutes 9 https://www.facebook.com/TreeOfLifeUMD/info/ a religion (as opposed to merely a form of ?tabϭpage_info CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 15

campus-based interfaith initiatives as a means interaction among participants can get compli- for reducing interfaith tension and prejudice— cated when the group is too large, trying to not only on college campuses, but in our society construct an appropriately diverse group that is as a whole. My hope, however, is that a critical also appropriately sized can be quite challeng- social justice framework becomes further em- ing. I do not claim to know the perfect solution bedded into the discourse and practice of inter- to this predicament. Perhaps further research faith work, to ensure that religious minorities and theoretical contemplation can help shed are not further marginalized by these programs. more light on this issue. For now, I simply urge This vision for the future of interfaith engage- that we think critically and deliberately about ment in U.S. higher education includes five the composition of our interfaith dialogues (or specific recommendations, all designed to orient other interfaith initiatives), keeping in mind that the interfaith movement toward positive social (a) religious minorities may be unfairly bur- change. dened if they are they only participant with their First, when an interfaith program endeavors religious background, and (b) individuals with to be social justice oriented, all participants non-Abrahamic religious identities (Dharmic (students, staff, and faculty members alike) religions, indigenous religions, etc.) often have should clearly understand, from the start of the worldviews and experiences with marginaliza- process, exactly what that means; in other tion that differ greatly from religious minorities words, they should expect Christian privilege from the Abrahamic traditions. and religious oppression to be central themes of Undeniably, social justice work is difficult, their discussions. Second, interfaith initiatives and requires constant reflection and reevalua- should help participants understand the differ- tion. My intention here is not to reprimand or ence between religious identity (one’s sociocul- ridicule any of the programs or institutions men- tural, group identity) and religious/spiritual be- tioned throughout this article. Instead, my goal lief (one’s individual faith), and why discussing is to inspire those committed to social justice to religious identity is more important when the analyze their own processes, critically consider end goal is justice for religious minorities. how religious minorities are affected by them, Third, if social justice is a stated priority, par- and find ways to improve the initiatives they are ticipants should commit to discussing structural involved with as needed. Just like Patel (2012), power dynamics and sharing lived experiences I, too, believe that the interfaith movement in as members of their sociocultural religious higher education has the ability to shape the group, rather than using the dialogue to debate future of interfaith relations in this country. spiritual, theological, or philosophical matters. Beyond current models, however, we need a Fourth, facilitators, coordinators, and anyone nationwide paradigm shift that places our great- else in charge of guiding an interfaith program est attention on the least recognized and under- should be critically self-aware of their own re- stood religious groups. An interfaith movement ligious identity (and their associated privilege/ with a critical social justice approach quite pos- oppression); this includes being familiar with sibly may turn the tide of interfaith relations the ways power imbalances between religious away from violence and intolerance, toward ac- groups manifest both interpersonally and in so- ceptance and harmony. ciety at large. Lastly, participant demographics in interfaith initiatives should reflect diversity This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. References across multiple (although not necessarily all) This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. non-Christian and non-Abrahamic religions, Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hack- where no one participant is left to represent their man, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (2000). religious group alone. Readings for diversity and social justice: An an- This last recommendation is certainly the thology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, hetero- most difficult to follow. Given the sheer number sexism, ableism, and classism. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. of distinct religious traditions that exist (in the Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, R., Hack- world, in the United States, and on most college man, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (2010). campuses), it would be impossible to have ev- Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). ery one of them represented at any given event. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. Additionally, because facilitating meaningful Adams, M., & Joshi, K. Y. (2010). Religious oppres- 16 EDWARDS

sion. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Cas- international implications of Christian privilege. taneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Multicultural Education, 11, 55–57. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social Clark, C., Brimhall-Vargas, M., Schlosser, L., & justice (2nd ed., pp. 227–234). Abingdon, United Alimo, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher Kingdom: Routledge. education: It’s not just “secret Santa” in Decem- Astin, A. W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a ber: Addressing educational and workplace cli- central place in liberal education. Liberal Educa- mate issues linked to Christian privilege. Multicul- tion, 90, 34–41. tural Education, 10, 52–57. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. A., & Lindholm, J. A. (2011). Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. Assessing students’ spiritual and religious quali- (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writ- ties. Journal of College Student Development, 52, ings that formed the movement. New York, NY: 39–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0009 New Press. Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the Dessel, A. B., Masse, J., & Walker, L. (2013). Inter- promotion of “secular” and not-so “secular” main- group dialogue pedagogy: Teaching about inter- line Christianity in public schooling and in the sectional and under examined privilege in hetero- larger society. Equity & Excellence in Education, sexual, Christian, and Jewish identities. In K. A. 39, 195–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665 Case (Ed.), Deconstructing privilege: Teaching 680600788024 and learning as allies in the classroom. New York, Blumenfeld, W. J., & Jaekel, K. (2012). Exploring NY: Routledge Press. levels of Christian privilege among preservice teach- Durkheim, É. (1995). The elementary forms of the ers. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 128–144. http://dx religious life (K. Fields, Trans.). New York, NY: .doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01740.x Free Press. (Original work published 1912) Blumenfeld, W. J., Joshi, K. Y., & Fairchild, E. E. Edwards, S. (2016). Critical conversations about re- (2008). Investigating Christian privilege and reli- ligion: Promises and pitfalls of a social justice gious oppression in the United States. Rotterdam, approach to interfaith dialogue. Charlotte, NC: the Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Information Age Publishing. Brimhall-Vargas, M. (2011). Seeking personal mean- Eliade, M. (1959). The sacred and the profane: The ing in new places: The lived experience of reli- nature of religion (W. R. Trask, Trans.). Orlando, gious conversion (Unpublished doctoral disserta- FL: Harcourt, Inc. (Original work published 1957) tion). University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Eliade, M. (1969). The quest: History and meaning in Bryant, A. N. (2006). Exploring religious pluralism religion. London, United Kingdom: University of in higher education: Non-majority religious per- spectives among entering first-year college stu- Chicago Press. dents. Religious Education, 33, 1–25. Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup rela- Bryant, A. N., & Astin, H. A. (2008). The correlates tions in higher education: A critical examination of of spiritual struggle during the college years. The the influence of educational interventions on racial Journal of Higher Education, 79, 1–27. http://dx bias. Review of Educational Research, 74, 473– .doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2008.0000 524. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307 Bryant Rockenbach, A. N., & Mayhew, M. J. (2014). 4004473 The campus spiritual climate: Predictors of satis- Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of faction among students with diverse worldviews. human development and the quest for meaning. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 41– New York, NY: Harper & Row. 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0002 Fowler, J. W. (2004). Faith development at 30: Nam- Caldera, A. G. (2015). How Rachel Dolezal forced us ing the challenges of faith in a new millennium. to examine who gets to be Black. ProudFlesh: Religious Education, 99, 405–421. http://dx.doi New Afrikan Journal of Culture Politics & Con- .org/10.1080/00344080490513036 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. sciousness, 11. Retrieved from http://www. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notafricaknowledgeproject.org/index.php/proudflesh/ to be disseminated broadly. York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published article/view/2165 1968) Case, K. A. (2013). Deconstructing privilege: Teach- Gallagher, E. V. (2009). Teaching for religious liter- ing and learning as allies in the classroom. New acy. Teaching Theology and Religion, 12, 208– York, NY: Routledge. 221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2009 Chickering, A. W., Dalton, J. C., & Stamm Auer- .00523.x bach, L. (2006). Encouraging authenticity and Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and spirituality in higher education. San Francisco, resistance in the new sociology of education: A CA: Jossey-Bass. critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53, Clark, C., & Brimhall-Vargas, M. (2003). Diversity 257–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.53.3 initiatives in higher education: Secular aspects and .a67x4u33g7682734 CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE INTERFAITH MOVEMENT 17

Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: ter, 13, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2012- A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercul- 1824 tural Education, 19, 515–525. http://dx.doi.org/10 Lipsky, S. (1977). Internalized racism. Black Re- .1080/14675980802568319 emergence, 2, 5–10. Halsall, A., & Roebben, B. (2006). Intercultural and Marshall, K. (2010). Education for all: Where does interfaith dialogue through education. Religious religion come in? Comparative Education, 46, Education, 101, 443–452. http://dx.doi.org/10 273–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068 .1080/00344080600948571 .2010.503739 Harro, B. (2010). The cycle of socialization. In M. Marx, K. (1964). The Communist manifesto. New Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W. York, NY: Monthly Review Press. (Original work Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Read- published 1848) ings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. Maxwell, K. E., Nagda, B. R. A., & Thompson, 45–51). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. M. C. (Eds.). (2011). Facilitating intergroup dia- Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. logues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. (Orig- Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. inal work published 1807) McCarty, R. (2009). Facilitating dialogue on religion Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr. , and sexuality using a descriptive approach. New McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., Directions for Student Services, 2009, 39–46. & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing reli- http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.306 gion and spirituality: Points of commonality, McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male priv- points of departure. Journal for the Theory of ilege: A personal account of coming to see corre- Social Behavior, 30, 51–77. spondences through work in women’s studies. hooks, B. (2010). Feminism: A movement to end Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Re- sexist oppression. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, search on Women. R. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re- justice (2nd ed., pp. 337–339). Abingdon, United visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gen- Kingdom: Routledge. der in clinical practice (pp. 147–152). New York, Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory: Selected es- NY: Guilford Press. says. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. McLaren, P. (1998). Revolutionary pedagogy in Ingram, T. N. (2007). Faith in the academy: Devel- post-revolutionary times: Rethinking the political oping religious diversity in a Jedeo-Christian dom- Educational The- inant culture. In O. G. Brown, K. G. Hinton, & economy of critical education. M. F. Howard-Hamilton (Eds.), Unleashing sup- ory, 48, 431–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j pressed voices on college campuses: Diversity is- .1741-5446.1998.00431.x sues in higher education (pp. 219–226). New Nash, R. J. (2001). Religious pluralism in the acad- York, NY: Peter Lang. emy: Opening the dialogue. New York, NY: P. Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC). (2013). What is inter- Lang. faith literacy? [Podcast]. Common Knowledge: A Nash, R. J., & Scott, L. (2009). Spirituality, religious Podcast About Interfaith Literacy. Retrieved from pluralism, and higher education leadership devel- http://www.ifyc.org/podcast opment. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Rethinking leadership Interfaith Youth Core [IFYC]. (n.d.). Library of re- in a complex, multicultural, and global environ- sources. Retrieved from https://www.ifyc.org/ ment: New concepts and models for higher educa- resources-listing?field_categoryϭ447 tion (pp. 131–150). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Kazanjian, V., & Laurence, P. (2007). The journey Nelson, J. E. (2010). Deconstructing academic writ- toward multi-faith community on campus: The re- ing: Continuing a conversation on Christian priv- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ligious and spiritual life program at Wellesley Col- ilege. Multicultural Education, 17, 38–43. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notlege. to be disseminated broadly. Journal of College and Character, 9, 1–12. North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1123 the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in Kimmel, M. S., & Ferber, A. L. (2010). Privilege: A education. Review of Educational Research, 76, reader (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 507–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654 Kung, H. (1987). Christianity and the world reli- 3076004507 gions: Paths of dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, Panikkar, R. (1999). The intrareligious dialogue and Buddhism. London, United Kingdom: Fount (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Paulist Press. Paperbacks. Patel, E. (2012). Is your campus diverse? It’s a ques- Larson, M. H., & Shady, S. L. (2012). Confronting tion of faith. The Chronicle of Higher Education. the complexities of Christian privilege through in- Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/ terfaith dialogue. Journal of College and Charac- Is-Your-Campus-Diverse-Its-a/134448/ 18 EDWARDS

Patel, E., & Brodeur, P. (Eds.). (2006). Building the Spirituality in Higher Education. (n.d.). A national interfaith youth movement: Beyond dialogue to study of college students’ search for meaning and action. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub- purpose. Retrieved from http://spirituality.ucla.edu/ lishers. Stewart, D., & Lozano, A. (2009). Difficult dialogues Pew Research Center. (2013, December). Celebrat- at the intersections of race, culture, and religion. ing Christmas and the holidays, then and now. New Directions for Student Services, 2009, 23–31. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.304 12/18/celebrating-christmas-and-the-holidays- Takim, L. (2004). From conversion to conversation: then-and-now/#religious-observance-of-christmas Interfaith dialogue in post 9–11 America. The Prothero, S. R. (2007). Religious literacy: What every Muslim World, 94, 343–355. http://dx.doi.org/10 American needs to know—And doesn’t. New York, .1111/j.1478-1913.2004.00058.x NY: Harper One. Tatum, B. D. (2010). The complexity of identity: Radomski, C. H. (2010). Youth exchange and peace- “Who am I?”. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. building post 9/11: Experiences of Muslim high Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. school exchange students (Unpublished doctoral Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social dissertation). University of Maryland, College justice (2nd ed., pp. 5–8). Abingdon, United King- Park, MD. dom: Routledge. Rasmussen, D. M. (1996). Handbook of critical the- The White House, Office of Faith-Based and Neigh- ory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publish- borhood Partnerships. (n.d.). The President’s inter- ers. faith and community service campus challenge: Ray, S. A. (2010). Interfaith dialogue & higher edu- cation. Liberal Education, 96, 38–45. Advancing interfaith cooperation and community Rodriguez, J., Rodriguez-Scheel, A. C., Lindsey, S., service in higher education. Retrieved from http:// & Kirkland, A. (2011). Facilitator training in di- www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp/ verse, progressive residential communities. In interfaithservice K. E. Maxwell, B. R. A. Nagda, M. C. Thompson, Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher & P. Gurin (Eds.), Facilitating intergroup dia- education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer- logues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change sity Press. (pp. 55–70). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Tisdell, E. J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and cul- Roozen, D. A., & Hadsell, H. (2009). Changing the ture in adult and higher education. San Francisco, way seminaries teach: Pedagogies for interfaith CA: Jossey-Bass. dialogue. Hartford, CT: Hartford Seminary. Todd, J. (2010). Confessions of a Christian suprem- Sacks, K. B. (2010). How Jews became White. In acist. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Help- M. S. Kimmel & A. L. Ferber (Eds.), Privilege: A ing, 16, 140–146. reader (2nd ed., pp. 118–152). Boulder, CO: Watt, S. K., Fairchild, E. E., & Goodman, K. M. Westview Press. (2009). Editor’s notes. New Directions for Student Schlosser, L. Z. (2003). Christian privilege: Breaking Services, 2009, 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss a sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural Counsel- .301 ing and Development, 31, 44–51. http://dx.doi.org/ Wimberley, J. (2003). Education for intercultural and 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00530.x interfaith dialogue: A new initiative by the Council Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding Christian privilege: of Europe. Prospects UNESCO, 33, 199–209. Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality. About http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023646930724 Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experi- Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. R. A., Chesler, M., & Cytron- ence, 12, 10–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/abc.206 Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher Small, J. L. (2009). Faith dialogues foster identity education: Meaningful learning about social jus- development. About Campus: Enriching the Stu- tice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32, 1–128. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dent Learning Experience, 13, 12–18. http://dx.doi Zúñiga, X., & Sevig, T. D. (1997). Bridging the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not.org/10.1002/abc.272 to be disseminated broadly. “us/them” divide through intergroup dialogue and Small, J. L. (2011). Understanding college students’ peer leadership. Diversity Factor, 5, 22–28. spiritual identities: Different faiths, varied world- views. New York, NY: Hampton Press. Smith, W. C. (1991). The meaning and end of reli- Received February 17, 2016 gion (reprint ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Revision received September 5, 2016 Press. (Original work published 1962) Accepted October 31, 2016 Ⅲ