Interfaith and Impartiality: Dialogue with Direction

Interfaith, Inclusiveness, and Impartiality – challenges for the bridge-builder

Phil Champain, Director of The Faith & Belief Forum

Introduction

The interfaith landscape in the UK has changed over the past few months. It is essential to remember the pain, grief and anger communities have and continue to experience.  Interfaith relations have been stretched. The space for dialogue is, arguably, shrinking. Reflecting on this situation, I find myself revisiting the idea of dialogue, and within this, the role of the bridge-builder and bridge-building organisations such as The Faith & Belief Forum. I am struck by the importance and difficulty they face in adopting impartiality and inclusiveness in their dialogue processes.

By interfaith dialogue I am referring to efforts by the Faith & Belief Forum (F&BF) and others in our domain to forge relationships across faith identities to leverage change on the issues that matter in our society. In doing so, and in the face of hardening polarisation, we at F&BF face a growing challenge in facilitating dialogue and holding onto a sense of our own impartiality.

I must emphasise here that my intention is to shine a light on the bridge-builder and bridge building organisations, how they approach dialogue and handle impartiality. I am not advocating for a wholesale buy-in to impartiality by different faith communities. That would be misplaced.

Moreover, by impartiality I do not imply neutrality. If you look up definitions of neutrality you are referred to statements such as ‘not entering into wars between parties’ and essentially ‘staying out of it’. But as bridge-builders we do not ‘stay out of it’. On the contrary, we engage. Often, as is the case now in early 2024, we need to navigate contexts in which ‘victim and perpetrator’, ‘justice and injustice’, ‘right and wrong’, are all contested ideas.

The quality and feel of the bridge-builder’s impartiality is something crafted within the dynamics of the changing contexts in which we work. But rather than be guided by stated principles, it may be more useful to ask some hard questions – to have these questions close to hand, and to ask them often. This puts emphasis on understanding impartiality as process rather than as output (see Francis Fukuyama’s essay ‘What is Governance’). I will elaborate.

A bridge-builder’s impartiality

We are not impartial when it comes to the ‘output’ we aspire to see. We need a vision. This represents our world view – what we work to. In the words of the philosopher and physicist David Bohm, we all need to be ‘certain enough about our world view to work to it.’ (Bohm and Krishnamurthi, The Ending of Time).  Without it we are aimless. Interestingly though, Bohm also says that we should not be ‘so certain (about our world view) [that] we think it’s the only answer.’ So even at the output level we need to be vigilant of dogmatism and remain open to other ideas and ways of looking at things. However, at the level of output – what we are trying to achieve – we are not impartial. Bridge-builders must accept that they have a vision and are working towards something.

To assess the impartiality of our approach then we need to focus on process rather than output. At the heart of process is the notion of inclusivity. Impartiality is, after all, about an even-handed approach. However, it is a particular type of inclusivity we need. Some frame inclusiveness in terms of good governance, or the need for transparency and accountability. Meanwhile, others employ ‘inclusive approaches’ to mean the representation of all citizens and groups.  I would suggest that, for the interfaith bridge-builder, inclusiveness means the inclusion of key actors in the context we are engaging with, rather than ‘all’. These will include both those with power and those without. The included and the excluded. The important point here is to engage with an understanding of the context and the key actors involved. This context may be local, regional, national, or international.

I recognise in the work of my staff team that many of them are currently shuttling between different actors and talking with them individually, in the first instance. Building these personal relationships with those who are suffering the effects of polarisation is where we engage. Human connection is the key. The context of these relationships is mainly local but does extend to the national level. Their team’s work is also not confined to dialogue between those of different faiths. There are also fault lines within faith traditions. The point here is the unilateral work and preparation with different actors prior to and between bringing them together.

This consultation process can help identify the needs and interests of different actors and establish an agenda for the dialogue that follows. The opportunity for dialogue is not necessarily a forgone conclusion though – even if up to now the process has been impartial. Indeed, an impartial process can sometimes block dialogue since it challenges actors to engage in ways they may not be comfortable with. There will likely be low levels of trust at the beginning. Therefore, working with different actors separately is often needed, particularly in the early stages.

It is also worth noting that the sensitive work of bridge builders necessarily includes drawing on culturally specific knowledge and identities when needing to build connection. At F&BF this is one of the strengths of our diverse team and a key ingredient of the inclusive processes we strive to create.

As the process unfolds, the balance of participants will inevitably change in some way. Yes, some may drop out since they do not feel able to engage with the agenda and other participants. And as some retreat, others may join. This will change the balance of the dialogue. But will it necessarily remain (sufficiently) inclusive (in the sense of the word described above)?

Here we need to be careful of being drawn towards the output rather than focussing on the process. We must trust the process. As bridge-builders we need to design processes that are inclusive and trust these processes once they are underway. We can influence them as they evolve, but this influence should be determined by the need for inclusivity rather than the need to keep the design as we imagined it to be. Those participating need to own the process, determine the agenda, and calibrate the level of participation.

As engagement evolves further, a group will form. Some will leave as others join. But if the process works the group will generate an identity. Its identity may be described as a mechanism, a platform. Whatever the identity, it will be something new, inclusive, and a consequence of the political space it is evolving within. Bridge builders applying impartiality to process play an important role in helping create such mechanisms.

At the heart of these mechanisms will be dialogue. An inclusive, even handed, and impartial approach to process is essential to establishing what Bohm regards as ‘the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning.’

Looking forward

At a time of increasing social polarisation and challenge to interfaith relations, it is important to hold onto the important role of the bridge-builder. However uncomfortable, practitioners of interfaith dialogue and the organisations they work for must maintain and indeed further develop their understanding of impartiality as applied to process.

The F&BF team are tested right now but are nevertheless striving hard to adopt impartial approaches to their interfaith practice. This will come increasingly to the fore as we embark on a new project that aims to bring restorative justice approaches together with interfaith dialogue to resolve faith-based community conflicts in England and Scotland.  

This initiative, delivered in partnership with Interfaith Glasgow and the restorative justice charity Why me?, will create new insights into how bridge-building organisations such as ours can offer effective dialogue opportunities at the community level. More than anything, this project is a manifestation of courageous interfaith. As such, the capacity to bring impartiality and inclusiveness to the dialogue process is key. Without such capacity, we will struggle to hold back the forces that divide us.