It comes as no surprise that my view of religious diversity is inevitably impacted by my appreciation for this positive disruption. In a global society where individual and geographical boundaries are permeable, where local systems that were once isolated are now interconnected and interdependent, we are given an opportunity to engage with new people and experiences that can challenge our perspective on a daily basis. The value of these interactions is determined by our approach to the differences that we will certainly discover, and to the contradictions that will appear seemingly impossible to reconcile. Within this setting, the presence of religious diversity, and more specifically the full engagement of religious diversity, can bring us to a deeper level of disruption. Every religious tradition reflects and ultimately engages culturally relevant systems of oppression and division. As elements of these traditions and cultures come into contact with one another, they create new systems, new reflections, and new responses. What we are then left with is a range of exclusivist claims and pluralistic explanations, which all attempt to rationalize contradictions so that we remain affirmed in our own perspectives amidst others’ certainty. Thus, many of our efforts to understand religious diversity in the past have actually been framed by an underlying desire to validate ourselves in the presence of an “other.” Unfortunately, such an approach has limited the potential of religious diversity. Our self-focused attitudes have kept us from engaging in interreligious encounters that could offer new depth to our efforts to disrupt institutionalized oppression and division with forms of healing and unity. Thus, if we are to fully embrace the disruptive power of religion, we must develop a new understanding of our perceived encounters with religious diversity. We must shift away from a self-focused approach that views contradiction as a threat needing explanation, and move toward a selfless approach that validates contradiction, and embraces it as a unifying prerequisite for peace.
Unitarian Universalism, Religious Diversity, and Contradictions
As a Unitarian Universalist with a Muslim upbringing, or as a friend of mine so aptly puts it, a “UUslim,” religious diversity is an essential part of my faith experience. Having been raised in one tradition that is a “minority religion” in my current cultural context, and then later identifying with another minority religious movement while simultaneously engaging my faith of origin, my approach to religion has always engaged issues of diversity. Focusing on my more recent experience, as a non-doctrinal tradition, Unitarian Universalism has a strong basis in religious pluralism, which enables it to find wisdom within a variety of belief systems. Diversity is a reality that Unitarian Universalism not only strives to embrace, but also celebrate, and religious diversity is no exception. Even a brief review of the six sources of the tradition currently espoused by the association illustrate how Unitarian Universalism seeks to engage religious diversity, by acknowledging the wisdom in a variety of religious teachings beyond its own. We draw not only from the tradition’s Judeo-Christian roots, but also find wisdom in the “worlds’ religions” to enhance our “ethical and spiritual” learning, and seek teachings from “earth-centered traditions” to help us honor the larger web of life. As a faith tradition that embraces the constant search for truth and meaning, Unitarian Universalism views religious diversity as a resource to help us enrich our experience and enhance our understanding of the world. Thus, our starting point as a tradition is not necessarily one of self-validation, but rather of intellectual and spiritual curiosity, which enables us to value other traditions teachings, and even doctrines, without feeling the need to dismiss these traditions as a whole if there are certain elements with which we disagree.
However, in my opinion, this seeker-style approach has a significant shortcoming – it largely ignores the necessary importance of theological contradictions. By placing more emphasis on the similarities or “applicable” wisdom in different traditions, Unitarian Universalism fails to explore the many interconnected social, political, economic, and cultural causes and effects of religious difference. Because of its sanitizing efforts that draw primarily upon non-exclusivist religious teachings, Unitarian Universalism, as is currently practiced, plays it safe, and lives in a theological vacuum that denies the real effect and value of religious contradictions. Yet, as a tradition that embraces the fluidity of faith and has its roots in a doctrine of universal salvation, it actually has the largely untapped ability to lead in an affirmation of theological contradictions and the diverse teachings out of which they arise. Although its historical basis in dissent and emphasis on the use of reason may serve as an obstacle to affirming the validity of inter-religiously based contradictory teachings, its roots in social justice can pave the way for such a shift. By encouraging followers to view the challenging and incongruent elements of different traditions as being equally valid expressions of the need for systemic change, Unitarian Universalism’s emphasis on social justice can serve as the foundation for our affirmation of religious contradictions. With a strong educational focus that encourages holistic religious literacy, Unitarian Universalism has the potential to lead in the generation of disruptive dialogue and action, by compelling believers and nonbelievers of various traditions to explore and consider the practical implications of affirming contradictions.
Based on this understanding, the value of religious diversity for Unitarian Universalism does not come from its encouraging the selective appreciation of piecemeal wisdom from other traditions that suit our needs. Rather, Unitarian Universalism best engages religious diversity when it also seeks to affirm elements that are in contradiction, even those which are violent or dehumanizing, because it compels us to examine the context out of which they arose. To limit religious appreciation to the teachings that are congruent to our Unitarian Universalist principles is to practice a form of pluralism that remains in a “self-focused” paradigm of religious diversity. Thus, if Unitarian Universalists are to disrupt the divisive and oppressive systems that religion has historically sought to address, we must consider adopting a perspective that understands the role of such contradictions as bringing to light the presence of these systems, as they exist both within and beyond various religious doctrines. We must embrace our roots in social justice and social action, by validating those religious doctrines that appear to challenge one another and our own principles, and then determining how such an affirmation illustrates the pervasive presence of those oppressive and divisive systems that we are called to address.
Islam, Religious Diversity, and Contradictions
My appreciation for the role of contradiction in religious diversity is likely influenced by my recent exploration of religious diversity from the Islamic perspective. Although I was raised to view the Abrahamic traditions, and in particular Islam, as having a heavy exclusivist bent, my concern regarding the cyclically divisive nature of western liberation theologies has caused me to consider whether their religious doctrines can actually include teachings that mandate the affirmation of the “other,” and in particular the “religious other.” As a result, this past spring I enrolled in a course entitled “Islam and Religious Diversity,” which helped reshape both my understanding of Islam, as well as my approach to the traditions that were the focus of the “Cities” coursework this semester. My examination of various scholarly approaches to the nature of both intra and interreligious diversity in Islam required an understanding of the role of identity threat/politics, historical context, and the many conceptualizations of justice, as we consistently uncovered contradictory teachings that left us with no single correct answer as to how to view the “other.” What I gained from that brief exploration was nothing short of a paradigm shift – religion, and in particular Islam, in its efforts to disrupt divisive and oppressive systems, does so through the elimination of the barriers that create the “other.” Its true purpose is not to create a new separate identity within an existing structural framework, but to do away with that framework entirely, so as to eliminate the systems that enable division-based hierarchies and oppression. Given the now intersecting cultural contexts out of which religion arises, this disruptively unifying purpose can only be uncovered when we affirm the contradictions that we encounter within and across religions. In doing so, we can begin to grasp the pervasive influence of these oppressive systems on religion, their creation of identity-based contradictions, and their impact on our encounters with diversity.
This understanding of religious diversity and the value of contradiction within the Islamic tradition is particularly challenging to embrace given the seemingly exclusivist claims found within the Qur’an and Sunna. The question that we are forced to ask is if a religion is intended to be a disruptively unifying force, how than can it include teachings that seem to create barriers between followers of different traditions? With verses of the Qur’an telling “believers” to go so far as to avoid contact with various groups, and hadiths that cite Prophet Muhammad as saying only certain actions will bring one into islam, how can we say that the Islamic tradition intends to dissolve barriers? How do we reconcile these exclusivist teachings with the Qur’anic verse that is cited ad nauseum in support of religious pluralism – we were created in diversity “so that [we] should get to know one another” (Sura 49:13)?
The answer to those questions is not a claim that any one of these teachings is more right than the others, but rather an equal validation of all of their messages, so that we are able to acknowledge the resulting contradictions and engage their implications. When we say that there is truth within each of these teachings as they contradict each other, not to mention the teachings within other traditions, we must then examine what makes it possible for all of them to exist. We are forced to examine the historical, political, social, economic, and cultural contexts out of which these teachings arose, and the ways in which they reflect or adopt elements of those systems. As such, we are also reminded to consider our own present-day contexts, and the way in which our view of religious teachings, both independent of and within their historical setting, is impacted by the systems to which we ourselves are subjected. We can use our affirmation of the contradictions to direct our attention to the divisive and oppressive structures that we then realize are not only a part of a cultural context, but have also been adopted by religious traditions in an effort to highlight their existence. Perhaps that is what is meant by the aforementioned Qur’anic verse. We are created in diversity so that when we come to know each other, we can experience the contradictions that draw our attention to the divisive and hierarchical systems which religion has adopted in an effort to disrupt their presence.
Speaking more concretely about the Islamic faith and the engagement of contradiction as it pertains to religious diversity, we may find additional answers in its historical development as a socio-economic force. Islamic liberation theologian Asghar Ali Engineer researched the story of Muhammad’s early prophet hood, and uses the mercantile socio-economic system of the time as the backdrop for his understanding of Islam. Under this framework, he presents the beginnings of the Islamic tradition as an economically-driven force that was intended to unite communities with shared social justice practices (ie – zakat). Moreover, Engineer’s perspective of the concept of tawhid (the oneness and uniqueness of God) has been shaped by this socio-economically driven attempt at achieving unity. He believes that the oneness of God is best reflected by the oneness of humankind, thus our societal practices should function to honor this oneness, by creating an equitable and universally accessible society. If we are to embrace this unifying socio-economic motivation, than the contradictions within Islam, as well as those between it and other faiths, can still be interpreted as a disruptive signal of the existence of divisive and oppressive social systems. The presence of competing exclusivist claims and apparent disapproval of the “other” are included in the tradition not as reflections of its underlying effort to encourage unity and peace. Rather, they are adoptions of existing cultural systems meant to indicate the ways in which humanity’s oneness has already been violated by the presence of unjust social structures. Thus, Islam encourages us to affirm the theological contradictions we encounter in our religiously diverse society, so that we may then understand how their presence across various traditions reflects a need for systemic social change.
Buddhism, Religious Diversity, and Contradictions
The teachings of Buddhist traditions also engage the theological contradictions that exist within themselves and across religions in a manner that does not seek to resolve such differences, but instead enables them to be perceived as indicators of something beyond their surface subject matter. Such an approach is a reflection of the diversity inherent to Buddhism, also expressed by its many “doctrinal” forms, as well as its adaptability to various cultural settings. Perhaps the element of Buddhism that best provides an avenue for engaging contradictions and validating conflicting truth claims is its concept of emptiness. By approaching religious doctrines as having no distinct “self” outside of their relationships with other doctrines, structures, or systems, Buddhism allows us to hold competing religious “truths” in place and ascribe to them equal value without needing to resolve their differences. Moreover, its understanding of the presence of these doctrines as resulting from their relationship to other features of existence opens the door to an exploration of the systemic issues that lie beneath these surface doctrinal teachings. By affirming the validity of contradicting doctrines with a Buddhist understanding of their nature, we are also affirming the relationships they have with the socio-economic, political, and cultural systems that lead to such contradictions. The effect of this affirmation is our understanding of the ways in which religions may adopt features of the divisive and oppressive structures they encounter, and then present them as their own teachings in an effort to increase our awareness of the presence of such systems. Thus, much like Unitarian Universalism has the potential to generate disruptive dialogue because of its social justice focus, Buddhism also has an ability to bring healing unity by emptying doctrines of their perceived independent meaning. Using this approach allows different religions to fulfill their disruptive potential by being seen not only as dependent on the various systems alongside which they exist, but also as reflective of their elements, so that their contradictory claims compel us to engage the potentially divisive or oppressive practices that they promote.
Buddhism’s strong emphasis on nonviolence is another principal theological element that encourages us to affirm contradictions between religious doctrines in our efforts to bring healing and unity through disruption. The importance of this central value for the disruption of systemic oppression and division lies in its broad conceptualization of the nature of “nonviolence,” which includes many forms beyond the physical. Using Buddhism’s non-dualistic approach, violence can be interpreted as encompassing ways of “being” that separate oneself from others. Violence is then exacerbated when that separation is used to create false value distinctions that enable differences in treatment, even abuse. This broad definition of violence was demonstrated in an interreligious context during this spring’s Buddhist-Christian conference, throughout which leaders from both faith traditions spoke of their efforts to end the sufferings of war, sexism, racism, and poverty. In the conversations around these different topics, there was an unspoken recognition of the otherizing division that is at the root of these sufferings. In particular, the discussion of these various “isms” illustrated how they were based in the violent division of one’s experience from another’s, and are then perpetuated by social, political, and economic systems that rely on the maintenance of these separations. How does this discussion of the breadth of violence relate to the affirmation of religious contradiction for the sake of creating peaceful unity? There are two ways in which to apply this teaching to religious contradiction, one of which is to use it to justify the validation of competing theological teachings, so that no one viewpoint is lifted above the other. By following the Buddhist practice of nonviolence, we do not devalue one religious understanding for the sake of another, and can begin to chip away at the separation such competition highlights. Thus, we use the contradictions to look beyond differences in religious teachings, and address the divisive systems that are actually behind the impetus to create theological hierarchies. This potential is related to the second way in which nonviolence and the affirmation of contradiction are related. Buddhism’s emphasis on nonviolence is an illustration of the true disruptive nature of religion. Rather than perpetuating violence borne out of division/oppressive systems, Buddhism interrupts it by teaching nonviolence based in interbeing and emptiness, which leads to universal affirmation through a disruption of the self, and thus a disruption of systems that prevent such affirmations.
As a Unitarian Universalist with a Muslim upbringing, or as a friend of mine so aptly puts it, a “UUslim,” religious diversity is an essential part of my faith experience. Having been raised in one tradition that is a “minority religion” in my current cultural context, and then later identifying with another minority religious movement while simultaneously engaging my faith of origin, my approach to religion has always engaged issues of diversity. Focusing on my more recent experience, as a non-doctrinal tradition, Unitarian Universalism has a strong basis in religious pluralism, which enables it to find wisdom within a variety of belief systems. Diversity is a reality that Unitarian Universalism not only strives to embrace, but also celebrate, and religious diversity is no exception. Even a brief review of the six sources of the tradition currently espoused by the association illustrate how Unitarian Universalism seeks to engage religious diversity, by acknowledging the wisdom in a variety of religious teachings beyond its own. We draw not only from the tradition’s Judeo-Christian roots, but also find wisdom in the “worlds’ religions” to enhance our “ethical and spiritual” learning, and seek teachings from “earth-centered traditions” to help us honor the larger web of life. As a faith tradition that embraces the constant search for truth and meaning, Unitarian Universalism views religious diversity as a resource to help us enrich our experience and enhance our understanding of the world. Thus, our starting point as a tradition is not necessarily one of self-validation, but rather of intellectual and spiritual curiosity, which enables us to value other traditions teachings, and even doctrines, without feeling the need to dismiss these traditions as a whole if there are certain elements with which we disagree.
However, in my opinion, this seeker-style approach has a significant shortcoming – it largely ignores the necessary importance of theological contradictions. By placing more emphasis on the similarities or “applicable” wisdom in different traditions, Unitarian Universalism fails to explore the many interconnected social, political, economic, and cultural causes and effects of religious difference. Because of its sanitizing efforts that draw primarily upon non-exclusivist religious teachings, Unitarian Universalism, as is currently practiced, plays it safe, and lives in a theological vacuum that denies the real effect and value of religious contradictions. Yet, as a tradition that embraces the fluidity of faith and has its roots in a doctrine of universal salvation, it actually has the largely untapped ability to lead in an affirmation of theological contradictions and the diverse teachings out of which they arise. Although its historical basis in dissent and emphasis on the use of reason may serve as an obstacle to affirming the validity of inter-religiously based contradictory teachings, its roots in social justice can pave the way for such a shift. By encouraging followers to view the challenging and incongruent elements of different traditions as being equally valid expressions of the need for systemic change, Unitarian Universalism’s emphasis on social justice can serve as the foundation for our affirmation of religious contradictions. With a strong educational focus that encourages holistic religious literacy, Unitarian Universalism has the potential to lead in the generation of disruptive dialogue and action, by compelling believers and nonbelievers of various traditions to explore and consider the practical implications of affirming contradictions.
Based on this understanding, the value of religious diversity for Unitarian Universalism does not come from its encouraging the selective appreciation of piecemeal wisdom from other traditions that suit our needs. Rather, Unitarian Universalism best engages religious diversity when it also seeks to affirm elements that are in contradiction, even those which are violent or dehumanizing, because it compels us to examine the context out of which they arose. To limit religious appreciation to the teachings that are congruent to our Unitarian Universalist principles is to practice a form of pluralism that remains in a “self-focused” paradigm of religious diversity. Thus, if Unitarian Universalists are to disrupt the divisive and oppressive systems that religion has historically sought to address, we must consider adopting a perspective that understands the role of such contradictions as bringing to light the presence of these systems, as they exist both within and beyond various religious doctrines. We must embrace our roots in social justice and social action, by validating those religious doctrines that appear to challenge one another and our own principles, and then determining how such an affirmation illustrates the pervasive presence of those oppressive and divisive systems that we are called to address.
Islam, Religious Diversity, and Contradictions
My appreciation for the role of contradiction in religious diversity is likely influenced by my recent exploration of religious diversity from the Islamic perspective. Although I was raised to view the Abrahamic traditions, and in particular Islam, as having a heavy exclusivist bent, my concern regarding the cyclically divisive nature of western liberation theologies has caused me to consider whether their religious doctrines can actually include teachings that mandate the affirmation of the “other,” and in particular the “religious other.” As a result, this past spring I enrolled in a course entitled “Islam and Religious Diversity,” which helped reshape both my understanding of Islam, as well as my approach to the traditions that were the focus of the “Cities” coursework this semester. My examination of various scholarly approaches to the nature of both intra and interreligious diversity in Islam required an understanding of the role of identity threat/politics, historical context, and the many conceptualizations of justice, as we consistently uncovered contradictory teachings that left us with no single correct answer as to how to view the “other.” What I gained from that brief exploration was nothing short of a paradigm shift – religion, and in particular Islam, in its efforts to disrupt divisive and oppressive systems, does so through the elimination of the barriers that create the “other.” Its true purpose is not to create a new separate identity within an existing structural framework, but to do away with that framework entirely, so as to eliminate the systems that enable division-based hierarchies and oppression. Given the now intersecting cultural contexts out of which religion arises, this disruptively unifying purpose can only be uncovered when we affirm the contradictions that we encounter within and across religions. In doing so, we can begin to grasp the pervasive influence of these oppressive systems on religion, their creation of identity-based contradictions, and their impact on our encounters with diversity.
This understanding of religious diversity and the value of contradiction within the Islamic tradition is particularly challenging to embrace given the seemingly exclusivist claims found within the Qur’an and Sunna. The question that we are forced to ask is if a religion is intended to be a disruptively unifying force, how than can it include teachings that seem to create barriers between followers of different traditions? With verses of the Qur’an telling “believers” to go so far as to avoid contact with various groups, and hadiths that cite Prophet Muhammad as saying only certain actions will bring one into islam, how can we say that the Islamic tradition intends to dissolve barriers? How do we reconcile these exclusivist teachings with the Qur’anic verse that is cited ad nauseum in support of religious pluralism – we were created in diversity “so that [we] should get to know one another” (Sura 49:13)?
The answer to those questions is not a claim that any one of these teachings is more right than the others, but rather an equal validation of all of their messages, so that we are able to acknowledge the resulting contradictions and engage their implications. When we say that there is truth within each of these teachings as they contradict each other, not to mention the teachings within other traditions, we must then examine what makes it possible for all of them to exist. We are forced to examine the historical, political, social, economic, and cultural contexts out of which these teachings arose, and the ways in which they reflect or adopt elements of those systems. As such, we are also reminded to consider our own present-day contexts, and the way in which our view of religious teachings, both independent of and within their historical setting, is impacted by the systems to which we ourselves are subjected. We can use our affirmation of the contradictions to direct our attention to the divisive and oppressive structures that we then realize are not only a part of a cultural context, but have also been adopted by religious traditions in an effort to highlight their existence. Perhaps that is what is meant by the aforementioned Qur’anic verse. We are created in diversity so that when we come to know each other, we can experience the contradictions that draw our attention to the divisive and hierarchical systems which religion has adopted in an effort to disrupt their presence.
Speaking more concretely about the Islamic faith and the engagement of contradiction as it pertains to religious diversity, we may find additional answers in its historical development as a socio-economic force. Islamic liberation theologian Asghar Ali Engineer researched the story of Muhammad’s early prophet hood, and uses the mercantile socio-economic system of the time as the backdrop for his understanding of Islam. Under this framework, he presents the beginnings of the Islamic tradition as an economically-driven force that was intended to unite communities with shared social justice practices (ie – zakat). Moreover, Engineer’s perspective of the concept of tawhid (the oneness and uniqueness of God) has been shaped by this socio-economically driven attempt at achieving unity. He believes that the oneness of God is best reflected by the oneness of humankind, thus our societal practices should function to honor this oneness, by creating an equitable and universally accessible society. If we are to embrace this unifying socio-economic motivation, than the contradictions within Islam, as well as those between it and other faiths, can still be interpreted as a disruptive signal of the existence of divisive and oppressive social systems. The presence of competing exclusivist claims and apparent disapproval of the “other” are included in the tradition not as reflections of its underlying effort to encourage unity and peace. Rather, they are adoptions of existing cultural systems meant to indicate the ways in which humanity’s oneness has already been violated by the presence of unjust social structures. Thus, Islam encourages us to affirm the theological contradictions we encounter in our religiously diverse society, so that we may then understand how their presence across various traditions reflects a need for systemic social change.
Buddhism, Religious Diversity, and Contradictions
The teachings of Buddhist traditions also engage the theological contradictions that exist within themselves and across religions in a manner that does not seek to resolve such differences, but instead enables them to be perceived as indicators of something beyond their surface subject matter. Such an approach is a reflection of the diversity inherent to Buddhism, also expressed by its many “doctrinal” forms, as well as its adaptability to various cultural settings. Perhaps the element of Buddhism that best provides an avenue for engaging contradictions and validating conflicting truth claims is its concept of emptiness. By approaching religious doctrines as having no distinct “self” outside of their relationships with other doctrines, structures, or systems, Buddhism allows us to hold competing religious “truths” in place and ascribe to them equal value without needing to resolve their differences. Moreover, its understanding of the presence of these doctrines as resulting from their relationship to other features of existence opens the door to an exploration of the systemic issues that lie beneath these surface doctrinal teachings. By affirming the validity of contradicting doctrines with a Buddhist understanding of their nature, we are also affirming the relationships they have with the socio-economic, political, and cultural systems that lead to such contradictions. The effect of this affirmation is our understanding of the ways in which religions may adopt features of the divisive and oppressive structures they encounter, and then present them as their own teachings in an effort to increase our awareness of the presence of such systems. Thus, much like Unitarian Universalism has the potential to generate disruptive dialogue because of its social justice focus, Buddhism also has an ability to bring healing unity by emptying doctrines of their perceived independent meaning. Using this approach allows different religions to fulfill their disruptive potential by being seen not only as dependent on the various systems alongside which they exist, but also as reflective of their elements, so that their contradictory claims compel us to engage the potentially divisive or oppressive practices that they promote.
Buddhism’s strong emphasis on nonviolence is another principal theological element that encourages us to affirm contradictions between religious doctrines in our efforts to bring healing and unity through disruption. The importance of this central value for the disruption of systemic oppression and division lies in its broad conceptualization of the nature of “nonviolence,” which includes many forms beyond the physical. Using Buddhism’s non-dualistic approach, violence can be interpreted as encompassing ways of “being” that separate oneself from others. Violence is then exacerbated when that separation is used to create false value distinctions that enable differences in treatment, even abuse. This broad definition of violence was demonstrated in an interreligious context during this spring’s Buddhist-Christian conference, throughout which leaders from both faith traditions spoke of their efforts to end the sufferings of war, sexism, racism, and poverty. In the conversations around these different topics, there was an unspoken recognition of the otherizing division that is at the root of these sufferings. In particular, the discussion of these various “isms” illustrated how they were based in the violent division of one’s experience from another’s, and are then perpetuated by social, political, and economic systems that rely on the maintenance of these separations. How does this discussion of the breadth of violence relate to the affirmation of religious contradiction for the sake of creating peaceful unity? There are two ways in which to apply this teaching to religious contradiction, one of which is to use it to justify the validation of competing theological teachings, so that no one viewpoint is lifted above the other. By following the Buddhist practice of nonviolence, we do not devalue one religious understanding for the sake of another, and can begin to chip away at the separation such competition highlights. Thus, we use the contradictions to look beyond differences in religious teachings, and address the divisive systems that are actually behind the impetus to create theological hierarchies. This potential is related to the second way in which nonviolence and the affirmation of contradiction are related. Buddhism’s emphasis on nonviolence is an illustration of the true disruptive nature of religion. Rather than perpetuating violence borne out of division/oppressive systems, Buddhism interrupts it by teaching nonviolence based in interbeing and emptiness, which leads to universal affirmation through a disruption of the self, and thus a disruption of systems that prevent such affirmations.
Contradictions and Gender Justice
These three beautifully different traditions, Buddhism, Islam, and Unitarian Universalism, each demonstrate how the act of affirming religious contradictions is not simply useful in fulfilling the disruptive nature of religion, but is actually necessary if we are to bring an end to divisive and oppressive systems. Of course, they are not the only traditions that offer similar support for the disruptive importance of the engagement of religious diversity. Christianity also includes potential teachings that necessitate the affirmation of the “other” if one is to serve the tradition’s aim at achieving unity through the disruption of divisive social practices. Modern day readings of Paul’s epistles in the New Testament, as presented this semester by Dr. Kahl, offer a new understanding the “Gospel,” which introduces anti-imperial messages of selflessness and universal affirmation. Other major traditions, such as Hinduism and Judaism, consist of teachings that present intra and interreligious contradictions, while also encouraging an affirmation of such contradictions in the interest of achieving unity through healing disruption.
When we commit to equally affirming the contradictory teachings within and between religious traditions, even those that present problematic depictions or assessments of the “other,” we commit to deepening our engagement and understanding of religious diversity. When we find ourselves sitting with seemingly theological contradictions, we are compelled to examine in what way competing teachings of exclusion and inclusion, acceptance and rejection, exclusivism and pluralism, etc. are all able to remain equally valid. The end result of affirming these opposing beliefs is the inevitable disruption of the systems that allow the most divisive and oppressive teachings to exist. When we are called to hold the religious content true, we must then look to find what systemic injustice can allow for the validation of harmful content, and use our true religious grounding to disrupt it. Only by engaging religious diversity will we be able to uncover these contradictory teachings, which exist to highlight the social, political, economical, and cultural systems that our religions have adopted; only then will we disrupt the divisive systems that our contradictory religious teachings have adopted so as to bring them to our attention.
The implications of this approach to religious diversity can be demonstrated by looking through the lens of achieving “gender justice.” The reality surrounding the idea of “gender” is that it is a complex social construct that seeks to impose a “man-woman” binary in an effort to perpetuate systems of division, control, and oppression. Moreover, though it is a social construct, gender is often compounded with biological expressions of sex, which has also been forced into a divisive binary of female or male. Regarding the nature of gender in religion, many traditions as followed today have adopted language, constructs, and divisive practices that have a basis in this binary social construction. Some of the content regarding concepts of “gender” in various traditions contradict other intra-religious teachings, as well as those from other traditions. Why do religions include such contradictory, divisive, limiting, and oppressive language or teachings? The answer is found by simply returning to the nature of true religion – to disrupt. Religions are structured to disrupt oppression and division, so that when they include such socially-constructed content, they inevitably, and I believe intentionally, develop contradictions in their teachings. As a result, when we engage in an attempt to affirm all religious teachings, we are forced to observe these contradictions and determine what systems enable them to exist. Thus, when we observe and affirm contradictions in religious content regarding “gender,” we are forced to examine what it is about “gender” as a system that enables such conflicting teachings to exist. Through that examination, aided by the anti-oppressive and unifying nature of truly disruptive religion, we can come to the determination that gender, as it is systemically practiced, is divisive, functions to oppress, and violates our oneness. The disruptive power of our religions highlight the dangerous nature of this socially-constructed gender system by presenting it in the contradictions that exist only when religious diversity is fully engaged.
Religious Diversity and the Creation of an Interfaith Social Movement
With the vast level of diversity that exists within and between religious traditions, and the equally varied ways in which diversity is experienced by individuals and communities, what are we to understand about the nature of the divine? If the level of intra and interreligious contradiction is any indication, than is clear that human beings are actually quite limited in our ability to truly know the divine. It is an exercise in humility to say that we cannot know everything there is to know about the divine, and in reality there are some who would adamantly suggest that their tradition says precisely the opposite. However, given the incredible level of religious diversity within our world, as well the demonstrated ways in which our religious traditions are influenced by the contexts out of which they arose, we must move away from attempting to reconcile what we observe as contradictions to fit what we “know,” and instead approach religious difference with an open mind regarding its designed purpose. To fully engage our religious selves, we must no longer seek only to affirm that which we are taught amidst others’ “competing” views, but rather seek to validate all experiences and teachings as expressions of a divine that we cannot fully comprehend. Such a task necessitates our working together to affirm each others’ traditions fully, so that when we face contradictions we seek not to resolve them, but rather to understand how they are simultaneously validated by divisive and oppressive systems. We must therefore work together, while holding onto our affirmed respective beliefs, to embark on an interfaith-driven social movement. We must come together to advocate for the systemic changes needed to addresses the divisive and oppressive structures that our disruptive religious traditions have called to our attention through adoption and contradiction.
When we commit to equally affirming the contradictory teachings within and between religious traditions, even those that present problematic depictions or assessments of the “other,” we commit to deepening our engagement and understanding of religious diversity. When we find ourselves sitting with seemingly theological contradictions, we are compelled to examine in what way competing teachings of exclusion and inclusion, acceptance and rejection, exclusivism and pluralism, etc. are all able to remain equally valid. The end result of affirming these opposing beliefs is the inevitable disruption of the systems that allow the most divisive and oppressive teachings to exist. When we are called to hold the religious content true, we must then look to find what systemic injustice can allow for the validation of harmful content, and use our true religious grounding to disrupt it. Only by engaging religious diversity will we be able to uncover these contradictory teachings, which exist to highlight the social, political, economical, and cultural systems that our religions have adopted; only then will we disrupt the divisive systems that our contradictory religious teachings have adopted so as to bring them to our attention.
The implications of this approach to religious diversity can be demonstrated by looking through the lens of achieving “gender justice.” The reality surrounding the idea of “gender” is that it is a complex social construct that seeks to impose a “man-woman” binary in an effort to perpetuate systems of division, control, and oppression. Moreover, though it is a social construct, gender is often compounded with biological expressions of sex, which has also been forced into a divisive binary of female or male. Regarding the nature of gender in religion, many traditions as followed today have adopted language, constructs, and divisive practices that have a basis in this binary social construction. Some of the content regarding concepts of “gender” in various traditions contradict other intra-religious teachings, as well as those from other traditions. Why do religions include such contradictory, divisive, limiting, and oppressive language or teachings? The answer is found by simply returning to the nature of true religion – to disrupt. Religions are structured to disrupt oppression and division, so that when they include such socially-constructed content, they inevitably, and I believe intentionally, develop contradictions in their teachings. As a result, when we engage in an attempt to affirm all religious teachings, we are forced to observe these contradictions and determine what systems enable them to exist. Thus, when we observe and affirm contradictions in religious content regarding “gender,” we are forced to examine what it is about “gender” as a system that enables such conflicting teachings to exist. Through that examination, aided by the anti-oppressive and unifying nature of truly disruptive religion, we can come to the determination that gender, as it is systemically practiced, is divisive, functions to oppress, and violates our oneness. The disruptive power of our religions highlight the dangerous nature of this socially-constructed gender system by presenting it in the contradictions that exist only when religious diversity is fully engaged.
Religious Diversity and the Creation of an Interfaith Social Movement
With the vast level of diversity that exists within and between religious traditions, and the equally varied ways in which diversity is experienced by individuals and communities, what are we to understand about the nature of the divine? If the level of intra and interreligious contradiction is any indication, than is clear that human beings are actually quite limited in our ability to truly know the divine. It is an exercise in humility to say that we cannot know everything there is to know about the divine, and in reality there are some who would adamantly suggest that their tradition says precisely the opposite. However, given the incredible level of religious diversity within our world, as well the demonstrated ways in which our religious traditions are influenced by the contexts out of which they arose, we must move away from attempting to reconcile what we observe as contradictions to fit what we “know,” and instead approach religious difference with an open mind regarding its designed purpose. To fully engage our religious selves, we must no longer seek only to affirm that which we are taught amidst others’ “competing” views, but rather seek to validate all experiences and teachings as expressions of a divine that we cannot fully comprehend. Such a task necessitates our working together to affirm each others’ traditions fully, so that when we face contradictions we seek not to resolve them, but rather to understand how they are simultaneously validated by divisive and oppressive systems. We must therefore work together, while holding onto our affirmed respective beliefs, to embark on an interfaith-driven social movement. We must come together to advocate for the systemic changes needed to addresses the divisive and oppressive structures that our disruptive religious traditions have called to our attention through adoption and contradiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment