Rabbi Leonard Sharzer, MD will continue to coordinate LFI programming in bioethics, with the new title of associate director for bioethics.

“I am pleased to return to the directorship of LFI,” says Dr. Visotzky. “I look forward to implementing Chancellor Arnold Eisen’s vision of Jewish learning that is intimately connected to the world. I hope to emphasize the original vision of LFI to apply the wisdom of America’s religious communities and traditions to matters that affect us here and abroad.”

The Appleman Professor of Midrash and Interreligious Studies at JTS, Dr. Visotzky joined the faculty immediately following his ordination into the rabbinate in 1977. He also served as associate and acting dean of The Graduate School of JTS, and as the founding rabbi of JTS’s egalitarian worship service in the Women’s League Seminary Synagogue.

Dr. Visotzky was a visiting faculty member at, among other institutions, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Oxford University, and Union and Princeton theological seminaries. In addition, he served as the Master Visiting Professor of Jewish Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

Dr. Visotzky consulted with Bill Moyers and was a featured participant in the ten-hour PBS television series, Genesis: A Living Conversation, which premiered in 1996. He has authored nine books and written more than 100 articles and reviews. His work continues to be published in America, Europe, and Israel.

Dr. Visotzky serves on the boards of Fordham Law School’s Stein Center for Law and Ethics and the Journal of  Inter-Religious Dialogue and on J-Street’s National Advisory Council. He is a member of the New Israel Fund Rabbinic Council’s steering committee and the American Jewish World Service Education Committee and Rabbinic Council, and sits on the advisory board of Auburn Seminary’s Center for Multifaith Education.

Internationally, Dr. Visotzky is engaged in Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue in capitals such as Washington DC, Warsaw, Rome, Cairo, Doha (where he was in the first group of Jews invited by Qatar’s emir), and Madrid (where he was in the first group of Jews invited by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia).

Since 1938, the Louis Finkelstein Institute of JTS has maintained an innovative interfaith and intergroup relations program that emphasizes conversation among diverse communities. The institute’s ability to unite voices from different academic, social, and religious communities has resulted in singular conferences and interfaith cooperation and brought the relevance of Judaism and other religions to prominence on a myriad of issues.

As noted on the Immanent Frame, "Sociologists (of religion and otherwise) reflect on, debate, and critique the state of affairs in the contemporary sociological study of religion in a forum prompted by David Smilde and Matthew May’s SSRC working paper." Their working paper reflects broad changes and developments within the field of sociology of religion, based on both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of articles published in its leading journals.We recommend that you read it here.

Photo by Katya Dreyer-Oren

How should future religious leaders be trained so that they can at once be rooted in their traditions and equipped to work with people of others? This question has been asked with increased urgency, as American theological seminaries have tried to adapt to what has become the most religiously diverse country in history. Answers have proven somewhat elusive.

This week, from April 14 – 16, a group of remarkable visionaries and emerging inter-religious leaders convened at Andover Newton Theological School and Hebrew College to discuss potential answers during the pioneering CIRCLE National Conference 2010. Participants included Brad Hirshfield, co-Founder of CLAL: The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Ingrid Mattson, Director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary and Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America, and Stephen Graham, Director of Faculty Development and Initiatives in Theological Education at the Association of Theological Schools.

It seemed fitting to hold the conference jointly at two of the few seminaries to cohabitate the same campus and maintain a close administrative and curricular relationship. Students at Hebrew College and Andover Newton can cross-register for courses, while several classes are team-taught by professors from both institutions. The campus also houses the Center for Interreligious and Communal Leadership Education (CIRCLE), whose “mission is to nurture a new generation of moral and spiritual leaders equipped for service in a religiously diverse world” through a fellowship program, leadership training, and inter-campus initiatives and programs. Its administrators, Dr. Jennifer Peace and Rabbi Or Rose, saw the conference as a natural extension of their work.

What became clear during the conference were areas that seminary education often fell short. Many schools offered only minimal courses on other religions and few made such courses a degree requirement. Fewer still provided inter-religious experiential learning opportunities to their students and faculty.

Yet there was also a sense of opportunity and momentum, not only to redesign seminary curricula but pioneer a new theology, capable of recognizing a place – and a positive one at that – for other religions within a nuanced and affirming vision of one’s own. Scholarship, inter-religious education, experiential learning, and dialogue could redefine seminary life. Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University, reflected on this trend with optimism, noting, “We always needed dialogue as a species, but now we are aware of it. These are times like no other in human history.”

Also apparent during the conference was the extent to which several key funders had fostered inter-religious studies and action, and particularly seminary life. The Henry Luce Foundation came up repeatedly in discussions as an organization that had underwritten crucial inter-religious efforts around the country and beyond. (It also sponsored the conference itself.) Its Program Director for Theology, Lynn Szwaja, was also credited with helping inter-religious relations grow from a nascent to a robust field through thoughtful allocations and the mentorship of grantees.

To many, the conference was among the most fulfilling of their careers. “It feels like the start of something big,” remarked Janet Penn, Executive Director of Interfaith Action. A number of participants spoke of the possibility for follow-up conferences and meetings. But still more spoke of the significant transformations that had already taken place at the conference itself. Paul Knitter, Paul Tillich Professor of Theology at Union Theological Seminary, who was honored during the event along with Rabbi Irving Greenberg and Professor Diana Eck, cited his mentor Raimon Panikkar: “To answer the question 'who am I,' I have to ask the question 'who are you.'" While both could take a lifetime to answer, the conference helped reframe the search.

Joshua Stanton is co-Editor of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and a Rabbinical Student at Hebrew Union College.

interView with Rev. Paul Raushenbush

Response by Anna DeWeese

Listening to Paul Raushenbush, it was very encouraging to hear him speak on ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ as two distinct, yet related, ideas. Often these words are used interchangeably, as if to believe in something is to have faith in that thing. But these words are much more complex than the above statement assumes, and each word has different meanings to different people.

This is why I have studied and continue to engage in interfaith work. I have struggled with the questions of ‘what do I believe’ and ‘do I want or need to have faith’, and have learned to embrace these questions in a way that opened me up – opened me up to my self and my tradition of Christianity, and to others and their traditions. These questions have opened me up to concepts and ideologies I would never have considered worth my while, but have come to enrich my life in fascinating ways. It is through these questions that I will continue to grow and learn, so that every encounter I have with another person helps us discover more deeply what our faiths and our beliefs mean.

Response By Freeman Trebilcock

When Rev. Paul Raushenbush asks us to think about how we find interfaith inspiration within our various traditions he is emphasising personal inquiry, getting us to look to the core of our own personal experience as people of faith living in a diverse world. As he says, this is the first and most important step towards developing a deeper understanding of where we stand and how we might contribute to the broader dialogue between faiths.

The point that Rev. Raushenbush makes that "we don't want all-liberals talking to all-liberals" is a good one.  This is because those people who may not normally be drawn to engage others from a different faith may in fact be the ones with the most to gain from it.  Also in terms of normalising interfaith engagement to become something more than a peripheral curiosty we cannot go on simply preaching to the converted.  I'm often asked why I do interfaith work, usually in a way that implies that this is a strange thing indeed. Why on earth would people from such different places, with such different ways of looking at the world even bother with one another? One goal world would certainly be to change the common sentiment, to prove that there is nothing strange about collaborating with people who share similar values –  values such as service, compassion and respect – and enacting these values co-operatively.

In response to Rev. Raushenbush first question I'd say that my own religious tradition explicitly calls for interfaith engagement. Within the Buddhist tradition there are teachings that liken the diverse spiritual traditions to a range of medicines that can be prescribed to a person afflicted by disease.  Different medicines are needed for different people.  It seems to me that we are fortunate to live in a world today where the spiritual medicine-cabinet is brimming full. Viewing this great diversity as an asset makes much more sense than searching for contradictions. And by coming together with others to collectively put into practice our various prescriptions of faith, we are all the more effective in healing ourselves and this world we share.

Response By Liane Carlson

Rev. Raushenbush begins by asking why the bloggers have become invested in inter-religious dialogue, and ends by urging all people, regardless of affiliation, to “learn their traditions,” in order to have a firm place from which to argue.  Rather than answer with an anecdote or quotation, I want to question the assumptions structuring his request.  Such a question privileges the text and the personal experience as granting a particular authority or right to speak.  That this dual emphasis on text and interiority are paradigmatically Protestant Christian preoccupations goes without saying.  That it also assumes something like a common set of experiences which might unite us – exposure to relatives, friends of different faiths, belief in the heterogeneity of the canon – seems equally obvious.

But is this really the best place to start thinking about inter-religious dialogue, or is it, instead, symptomatic of the assumptions that make dialogue so necessary and so difficult?  In responding by turning inward, both textually and personally, are we attempting to found dialogue on fundamentally incommensurable, unsharable, radically private experiences?  So, rather than beginning with confession, might it not be better to start by turning outward, to a common world with common problems?

Response By Leigh Rogers

Rev. Raushenbush clearly explained why inter-religious work is important to him: he was raised in a Christian tradition that held these values, and he was shaped by experiences in an interfaith family. These two elements, tradition and experience, gave him a sense of why it is so important to get “explicit” about why inter-religious work matters: if we don’t know where we stand, as he puts it to his students, where will our voices be around the circle?

Being around the circle and including all voices is what makes inter-religious dialogue so important. Raushenbush said he wanted “as wide a spectrum of talking to one another as possible,” because its purpose is a shared dialogue answering two questions: What do I believe, and what does my neighbor believe?

I like that he said it doesn’t matter what level of orthodoxy your tradition is, or whether you’re conservative or liberal. For me, it reaffirmed my fears of being perceived as too “wishy-washy” as a spiritually promiscuous person from an agnostic household. I may still be figuring my spirituality out, but I can still know my values.

What matters is that you have something to say, and you’re willing to listen and learn about what the person next to you is saying. We have to understand our own values and our neighbor’s. Not only did Jesus teach the parable of the Good Samaritan as a Jew; he taught it from the perspective of the Samaritan.

This is the religious literacy that Raushenbush refers to, where the purpose is to “[be equipped] with language and knowledge of other religious traditions- to be respectful and aware of others’ beliefs but also our own beliefs.”

Finally, to answer Raushenbush’s question, I do interfaith work because I need to learn from others to really know where I stand. As an aspiring theologian, I have to be literate of others’ religious values, listen and reflect, then balance it with my own.

Response By Anthony Paz

The Catholic Christian tradition does not, as part of its everyday operation, promote interfaith understanding as central to its message. It seems that few religious traditions do. For Catholics, thinking about other religions has never happened except because of experience.  Today's Catholic, especially in America, is constantly confronted with other worldviews.  Raushenbush asks, “why are you doing this?” My answer: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of the New World, the Troubles in Ireland. My tradition has, almost in secret, grown more interested in tolerating and understanding other faiths. I had to seek the 20^th Century pronouncements that quietly declare that non-Christians can, in fact, make it to heaven. So, while the tradition has a varied and mostly disturbing history of Raushenbush's “this,” I would not have known about it if not for my own experience of September 11, 2001, which triggered a desire to understand other religious and to be understood by them. Raushenbush hits on one of the great truths of religious belief, one that is central to our dialogue: the difference between tradition and experience. I may identify with a 12^th Century Catholic, but my experience creates an individual with a strikingly different set of values and beliefs. It is essential to understand individuals as representing only some of their tradition, since it is all filtered through experience.

interView with Rabbi Dr. Burton Visotzky

Response By Hafsa Kanjwal

An important point that Rabbi Visotzky raises is the role that religious leaders and activists involved in international interreligious dialogue often end up playing in second tier diplomacy. For me, the use of inter-religious understanding to promote certain political or policy agendas can be and has been fraught with complications. Especially given the global context surrounding the politics of Islam, Muslims have been unable to truly engage the deeper issues in interreligious dialogue without a strong eye towards improving Islam’s image. In addition, significant programming led by governments or foundations relating to Muslims in inter-religious dialogue takes on a counter-terrorism narrative.

I agree with Rabbi Visotzky that it is important to begin locally. In response to Rabbi Visotzky's question on what we are seeking to accomplish when we do inter-religious dialogue, I believe that a priority must be to build relationships that promote the common good, rather than serve narrow political or policy interests. While the translation of dialogue to diplomacy or policy is sometimes inevitable, it must be met with a critical analysis on the part of those who seek to promote mutual understanding and cooperation.

Response by Jennifer Bailey

Last Sunday, sitting on the back pew of the large Southern church that I frequent, the last thing I expected to hear from the pulpit was sermon on racial reconciliation. Call me cynical, but in my 22 years on this Earth, 21.5 have been spent in segregated worship services in which a person of a different race entering a sanctuary is viewed with fierce suspicion at worst and uneasy curiosity at best. To have a white pastor addressing issues of institutional racism to a mixed race audience in the South was truly mind blowing, but perhaps not as revolutionary as the unintended subtext of religious pluralism I heard throughout message. “Diversity,” he said, “Is not just window dressing or politically correct speech, or a contrived atmosphere to look good. It is the fruit of the root of a people that are reconciled”.

In 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, the Apostle Paul writes about the importance of humans reconciling themselves first to God and then to one another through Christ. Yet if we broaden this concept to be inclusive of those outside the Christian tradition, we hit the very essence of what we accomplish when we engage in inter-religious dialogue—the reconciliation of human beings to human beings in the face of division caused by religious intolerance and persecution. True reconciliation is a long and challenging process that requires us to move beyond the “kumbaya” of most interfaith dialogue to a frame work of justice and action. It recognizes historical injustice and institutional discrimination while holding stakeholders accountable to do the same in their faith communities. It also requires that we sacrifice the comfort we experience in our insular religious congregations in the hope of acquiring a new type of knowledge in which participants “unlearn” negative stereotypes while opening themselves to building relationships with those previously deemed “the other”. This is the promise of inter-religious dialogue: that we would come to know one another as we seek to more fully understand the deities we serve.

Response By Andrew Rosenthal

In order to enter into inter-religious dialogue we must first enter the story of the other, both the other faith and the individual believer. Just as midrash opens up Torah not so much by deconstructing its philosophical underpinning but by allowing us to enter into the narrative, working with Raymond Brown (himself an academic and Roman Catholic Priest), Rabbi Visotzky took the risk of entering into the experience of the other not only on an academic level but on a personal level. The word midrash derives from the Hebrew darash—"to inquire" or "to seek." Inter-religious dialogue is about inquiring, seeking to find a deeper meaning of the difference between religions and uncovering a deeper level of conversation. Toward the end of the interview the Rabbi brings us back to his original question, “what is it that we accomplish with inter-religious dialogue?” The answer is “action on behalf of the other.” The Rabbi says, “don’t just talk to one another do something, and work shoulder to shoulder.” This is our bottom line, this is why inter-religious work matters. We begin with the text, the reality of our diverse world, we relate it to it through entering the experience of the other and in the end we work together to bring about change for all peoples of all religions.

Response by Stephanie Lin

As a newcomer-slash-outsider to this realm of so-called “koombaiya” (it was interesting that Rabbi Visotzky did not seek to move away from this connotation), viewing this clip made me feel even more so. I cannot say what “it” is that participants of inter-religious dialogue seek when they come together – can there really exist a united vision or goal? If so it must be painfully vague. People hold the hope that more communication and openness among followers of different religions must lead to a better world – a hope that we can create a sort of antidote to the reality that many earthly horrors are related to religious conflict caused by lack of dialogue and willful intolerance. If it is indeed so that there is no lack of interfaith communication and goodwill going around, is there a way to measure its effects and benefits? Will increased inter-religious tolerance and understanding solve the world’s problems? Has it? I wonder if those long active in the sphere of inter-religious dialogue ever get the sense that perhaps we are being fooled into thinking that religious ideology – not greed, not power struggles, not flawed systems – is the stubborn root of most bloody conflicts around the globe.

Response by C. Nikole Saulsberry

I am thrilled Rabbi Visotzky addressed the “kumbaya” assumption that engulfs inter-religious dialogue, and eloquently refuted said notions. Rabbi Visotzky’s question is one that every religious pluralist must answer for their unique mission. For me, as one trying to breech the topic of inter-religious dialogue in an informal setting, the answer is three-fold. First, each individual engaging in inter-religious dialogue gains an incomparable, genuine and intimate knowledge of one of the most integral aspects of another’s humanity. This knowledge then begets a deeper and unprecedented admiration and respect for religion and its diversity. It is the respect gained from the knowledge received in dialogue that then allows you to accomplish anything.

The last part sounds like the fluff of “kumbaya,” but it has substance and weight. Inter-religious dialogue can be about similarities and making peace, but it can also be, and is often times more engaging when it is, about tough questions and understanding. I do not proclaim inter-religious dialogue to be the be-all that ends-all religious issues. Though it can and does play a significant part, the effects can span the spectrum of productive and harmful.

A Special Fourth Issue of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue™

Guest Edited by Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace

Religion is often thought of as a cause of conflict. Zealous practitioners of one tradition fight the zealous practitioners of another in the name of God – in defiance of the emphasis each theological system places on peace. In its fourth issue, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue™ seeks to examine where and why religious conflicts take place – and how conflicts carried out in the name of religion can be mitigated or transformed.

Guest Editor Dr. William F. Vendley serves as Secretary General of Religions for Peace, overseeing the International Secretariat in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Dr. Vendley has served as a professor and Dean of the Roman Catholic Major Seminary in Long Island, New York. He has been awarded numerous prizes for religion and human rights, and serves on the boards of a number of organizations. He holds a doctorate in systematic theology from Fordham University and a master’s degree in religious studies from the Maryknoll School of Theology.

Submission Guidelines

All submissions must be the original, previously unpublished work of the author(s). Authors are also advised to read about the Journal and the previous issue prior to submitting an article. Submissions should be approximately 3,500 words, including references and a 100-word abstract. They should adhere to the Fifteenth Edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, with in-text citations. Co-authored articles are welcomed and encouraged. Articles may be submitted online at the bottom of this page or via e-mail to submissions@irdialogue.org.

Deadlines

The deadline for submissions for the fourth issue of the Journal is January 30, 2010. Articles submitted after this date will not be considered for publication in the fourth issue. You will hear back about the status of your submission by February 28, 2010.

Peer-Review Process

After an initial vetting process by the editorial board, each submission will undergo a rigorous peer-review by members of the Board of Scholars and Practitioners. If accepted for publication, the Journal's staff may edit the submission for mechanics and adherence to writing standards.

Articles for "InterViews"

If you would like to submit a brief (700 to 1,200 word) article on faith and politics, inter-religious work on the college campus, science and religion, a recently published book, or innovative non-profit work related to dialogue, please submit your article below and write in the message box that your article is for "interViews." This non peer-reviewed column appeals to a wide audience of religious scholars, practitioners, and non-profit leaders.

In an old office building on a nondescript street corner in London, there is a room filled with young people.  It is a rainy day in early August, and they are gathered together to talk about their lives.  These people would describe themselves as Muslims, Jews, Evangelical Christians, Sikhs, Humanists, and Buddhists. They are men, women, leaders, activists, gay people, straight people, supporters of Palestine, supporters of Israel. The list could go on and on, because their differences are deep-seated and significant.

When many people imagine this room, they would only see conflict and think of impossibility. We, however, were in that room, and we are part of a program that decided to look at the situation differently.

This year we are part of the Faiths Act Fellowship, a joint project of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and Interfaith Youth Core. This fellowship is the first of its kind and brings together religiously diverse young people to help create a new approach to interfaith work.  It does not focus solely on engaging people in interfaith dialogue or gathering people to participate in one-time service projects.  Rather, we are creating a global grassroots interfaith movement focused on taking action against pressing poverty issues.

We have been selected as two of 30 fellows from across the U.S., UK, and Canada to serve as inter-religious ambassadors for the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are a set of eight time-bound targets established to meet the needs of the world's poorest.  In the year 2000, they were created and agreed upon by all the major world leaders and supported by all the major development institutions. In the course of our fellowship year, we are raising awareness and mobilizing people to achieve the MDGs and, more specifically, to eradicate deaths from malaria (which is part of MDG 6). As young people, we are involved in interfaith work because, in both of our lives, religion has served as a catalyst for action.  It is the shared values of compassion and service that compel us to work together to fight injustice.

During training this summer, we had the opportunity to travel to Tanzania with seven other Fellows. We spent three weeks there at the world renowned Tanzanian Training Centre for International Health (TTCIH). Seven hours south of Dar es Salaam, itself surrounded in every direction by two hours of nearly impassable dirt roads, lies the rural town of Ifakara, where TTCIH is located. During our stay there, we studied under some of the leading doctors and researchers at the Ifakara Health Institute, and saw how malaria affects communities and individuals on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa – where 90% of the one million deaths a year from malaria occur. Ifakara literally means the “place where you go to die” in Swahili, and that is still the harsh reality for many of the locals. For example, while doing rounds with the doctors at the hospital, we met a ten month old boy named Godlisten. He was sick with malaria for the third time in his young life, and his mother was tired and out of money and options. It's stories like Godlisten and his mother's that motivates us and the people we met in Tanzania to continue in the fight against malaria. It's not about nameless faces or scary statistics. It's about global community, and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live a life not limited by this treatable and preventable disease. Researchers at TTCIH understand this, and are working around the clock to find solutions.  Because of their efforts, malaria in Ifakara is more under control now than it has ever been before.

While we were in Ifakara, we had the opportunity to meet local faith leaders that are active in addressing the needs of their community.  After attending Catholic services at the local church one Sunday, we met Father Mpinge, the priest of the congregation. Over dinner, he told us about his hopes for the community, and he explained the interfaith efforts that are already occurring there.  He casually mentioned to us that the Sheikh of the local mosque was his best friend, and he said they were currently talking about how they could work together.  We noticed this often when we spoke to people in Tanzania - that interfaith work was happening naturally. Neighbor to neighbor, friend to friend. It wasn't a program or a twelve-step process; people saw needs in their community and joined together to work on them.  Just as they can learn from us about being more intentional in their interfaith interactions, we can also learn from them about how to look out for our fellow community members regardless of religious differences.

The final few days of our trip in Africa were spent on the island of Zanzibar, off the coast of Tanzania. We met with the director of their Malaria Control Program, and he told us how, in 2003, the positivity rate for malaria there was 41%. In 2008, that number was down to .3%. Through an incredible collaborative effort involving everyone from religious leaders to teenagers to politicians to young mothers, they have essentially eradicated malaria on Zanzibar. By establishing village-level community health committees, they have forged successful links between local communities and health facilities. Importantly, they have recognized that including community religious leaders is an integral part of maintaining these links.  There is still work to be done there, but it is a poignant testament to what can be done, and how quickly change can happen.

By working across faith lines to address global social justice issues, we are simultaneously acting to change the perception of the role of religion in the world.  Four billion people say that faith is a part of their identity.  If this global community can see past their differences and serve together, we believe there's no problem too difficult to solve.  Often times, religious action is associated with violent extremism or stagnant conversations unattached to real outcomes. We are part of a generation of articulate, intelligent, passionate young people, who are turning this conversation in a different direction.  It is a direction towards understanding and meaningful connections and a direction towards common action driven by shared values. We hope this change will ultimately save millions of people from the scourge of malaria.

Rebecca Oyen and Amy McNair are Faiths Act Fellows. Rebecca grew up in Orlando, FL, and has spent the last four years in Amherst, MA. She recently graduated Summa Cum Laude from Amherst College with a joint degree in Anthropology and Women’s and Gender Studies. Rebecca also loves music and sang in an a cappella group at Amherst. Amy graduated last June from Seattle Pacific University with a degree in Public Policy and Law and hopes to attend law school in the near future. An avid traveler, Amy has been to Africa three times doing various development and healthcare work. A random fact about Amy is that she went sky diving to make sure she was not afraid of heights. She highly recommends it.

This article was subsequently republished on the Tikkun Daily Blog.

co-Editor Josh Stanton receives Bridge-Builders Leadership Award

In addition, Journal co-Edtior Joshua Stanton was honored with the Bridge-Builders Leadership Award at the 6th Conference on Interfaith Youth Work at Northwestern University. This honor is to be shared by the entire Journal community as a sign that its efforts are significantly furthering the inter-religious movement both within the United States and around the world.

Religious life staffs at colleges and universities struggle with how best to address religious plurality on campus. How can we serve a multifaith community in a way that is respectful and meaningful to the various faith adherents? A key question often missing in this discussion is what religiously involved students think about coming together with people of other faiths? This is the research question of a study I recently published as a book, Religious Pluralism: What Do College Students Think?: A Study at Amherst College.

Surveys were sent to 701 Amherst College students. Two hundred and nineteen of these were returned. From that group, 91 students participated in two-hour focus group interviews. The groups were homogeneous by faith tradition. Sample size was large enough to subdivide the Jewish, Protestant, and Roman Catholic groups into high, moderate, and low involvement groups. All four class years were represented. Transcripts were analyzed with a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program (NVivo).

One of the surprises for me was that the most dominant way to view a multifaith service was as a cultural event and not as worship. This has led me to avoid the use of the term "worship" and, where possible, even "service" because of common associations of these words. Being clear about the purpose of the gathering seems to ease people's concerns. A strong sentiment was that multifaith services be for a clear and specific purpose.

Examples of this were a memorial service, such as after September 11, 2001, when the entire college community needed to come together to mourn. Another example was for a college-wide celebration, such as the baccalaureate celebration at commencement.

I believe that we can best meet the religious needs of students primarily through faith-specific gatherings while encouraging cross-religious interactions in a variety of settings. Informally they may happen quite often. When they are formal multifaith interactions, the more interactive they are, in general, the better.

Multifaith services do, however, maintain a legitimate role in campus life. This is more than simply nostalgia or tradition. The academy can be a very secular place. It is important to have times when there is a public affirmation of a belief in God or gods that is so widely held in society and by members of our campus community. These sorts of gatherings (e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration, a memorial service, baccalaureate, Thanksgiving) may most properly be multifaith so that the minority religions have a voice and representation. I offer the guidelines below as a summary of my current practice in planning multifaith gatherings or services.

Planning a Multifaith Service

The process should include representatives from each of the faith traditions participating in the gathering. Trust is important when it comes to the vulnerability of expressing our faith publicly. The more developed the relationships between participants, the greater the trust level will be and the more enriching the event. The planning phase is when important decisions need to be made about what specific activities are appropriate and acceptable to all participants and faiths represented. For instance, should a Christian pray "in Jesus' name"? Is it acceptable to Jewish participants if a candle is lit at a service occurring on the Sabbath? Can people take pictures during the service? Can music be played immediately before or after a Muslim member's part of the service or during the service at all?

No single person should dominate the planning. Ideally, a multifaith team would co-lead the planning. Pragmatically, it is usually helpful if there is a rough plan that is presented so that people can respond to it. Each tradition's representatives should choose what they would like to do for their section, centered on a mutually agreed upon theme (e.g. gratitude or service). The planning member for each faith tradition should report to his or her constituency regularly, but especially if a controversial issue arises.

Expectations

Members of the planning team and participants should understand that their own religious tradition will be respected and that this is not an attempt to replace their own worship. Rather, the gathering is for a specific, identified purpose (e.g. community crisis or celebration; an effort to educate people about differing religious perspectives; an attempt to include all members of the community and to affirm the various religious traditions).

No one should be put in the awkward position of feeling pressured to compromise his or her own beliefs or values. This should not be a time for evangelism. That would be insensitive to people who come with an entirely different set of expectation. The audience should be invited to participate only to the extent that they are comfortable. For many this will be viewed as a cultural event rather than a religious service. Others will see the gathering as a religious seriatim where they feel comfortable participating in one or more sections of the service, while they retain a respectful, observing presence for the rest. A third group will filter whatever is said to align with their own faith tradition. For only a smaller number, the entire event will be experienced as a worship service.

The Reverend Dr. Paul Sorrentino has served as the Director of Religious Life at Amherst College and advisor to the Amherst Christian Fellowship and Amherst College Multifaith Council. He is ordained with the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference and works for Amherst College and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the National Association of College and University Chaplains. Paul is a member of the the Journal's Board of Scholars and Practitioners.

Conferences

Interfaith Youth Core's 6th Conference on Interfaith Youth Work, October 2009

Parliament of the World's Religions, December 2009

Since 1993, a Parliament of the World’s Religions has convened every five years in a major international city (Chicago 1993, Cape Town 1999, Barcelona 2004). Sponsored by the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions, the 2009 Parliament will take place in Melbourne, Australia. A multi-religious, multi-lingual, and multicultural city, Melbourne offers an ideal location for the 2009 Parliament. Culturally vibrant and global in vision, Melbourne and Victoria are home to indigenous and Aboriginal spiritualities as well as the major world religions – Baha’i, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism among others. Over 10,000 participants will come to Melbourne for the Parliament. The 2009 Parliament will turn worldwide attention to Melbourne as a destination city with international appeal. The Parliament will run for seven days with approximately 450 events including keynote addresses, seminars, conferences, debates, performances, concerts and exhibitions.

Parliament participants will work with others and within their own traditions to craft faithful responses to:

In today’s world, understanding between people of different traditions is not optional. It is essential. The 2009 Parliament will give people of faith, spirit and goodwill new reason to say that peace is still possible.

Job Opportunity

U.S. in the World and the The New America Foundation

U.S. in the World and the New America Foundation are looking for a graduate student (or 3, one in each faith) in religion or a writer of religious history who would be able to help research and write a paper on how the sacred texts and traditions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam help people cope with fear.  We are concerned that too often personal and national decisions are driven by fear.  Yet, there are resources of our faith that can help people and policymakers handle the fear they face.  This project will connect the researcher/writer with many authorities in the field and the paper will be distributed widely.  It will be presented by the author at a significant interfaith conference in Washington in the first quarter of 2010.  Remuneration will be determined by experience.  For more information contact The Rev. David Gray, gray@newamerica.net.


Calls for Submission

Practical Matters, September 15, 2009

The online academic journal Practical Matters is now accepting submissions for its third issue, Ethnography and Theology. Published by the Emory University Graduate Division of Religion with support from the Initiative in Religious Practices and Practical Theology (a project of Lilly Endowment Inc.), Practical Matters asks and provokes questions about the study of religious practices and the field of practical theology in a variety of religious traditions and from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and methodological approaches.

What can anthropologists, scholars of religious studies, and theologians say to one another about the doing and creating of ethnography?  A growing scholarly movement seeks to combine ethnographic inquiry with the study of religion and the construction of theology.  This movement has profound implications for the fields of anthropology, religious studies, and theology.  It also impacts the interpretation of  religious traditions in settings where the study of theology and theological discourse is explicit, as well as those in which such constructive work is more implicit.

We are looking for submissions in three categories:1.  Scholarly work on the theme of Ethnography and Theology for peer review;2.  Featured content on Ethnography and Theology such as practitioner reflections, essays, pedagogical reflections, or field notes concerning religious practices, rituals, or other issues of concern for anthropologists, religious studies scholars, theologians, teachers, and practitioners; and3. Reviews of recent books, films, conferences, and other work on broader topics in the fields of religious studies, ethnography, and anthropology.  Journal staff assign reviewers specific works;unsolicited reviews are not accepted. However, we welcome suggestions of works to be reviewed as well as contact by individuals interested in reviewing work for the journal.

Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, October 1, 2009

The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue is a peer-reviewed publication dedicated to innovative research and study of the interactions that take place within and between religious communities. Published online, it is designed to increase both the quality and frequency of interchanges between religious groups and their leaders and scholars. By fostering communication and study, the Journal hopes to contribute to a more tolerant, pluralistic society.

Rather than shying away from discourse on problematic exchanges that take place between religious groups, the Journal seeks articles that approach these "trouble spots" from an informed, academic perspective in order to provide new insight into how difficulties may be overcome, or at least better understood.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of inter-religious studies, we invite articles from a wide array of content areas and fields of study. Examples of possible topics include:

• The role of religion (positive or negative) within a region prone to conflict
• New research within a particular religious tradition that may have applications in other traditions
• Techniques for inter-religious dialogue or programs designed to bring together multiple religious groups
• Ways in which technology is impacting religious practice or religion is impacting technology
• Demographic, sociological, psychological, or anthropological research about the function of religion in society
• Emerging religious traditions
• Comparative liturgical studies
• A particular philosophy of religion, as it can be applied to a new situation

All submissions must be the original, previously unpublished work of the author(s). Authors are also advised to read about the Journal and the previous issue prior to submitting an article. Submissions should be around 3,500 words, including references and a 100-word abstract. They should adhere to the Fifteenth Edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, with in-text citations. Co-authored articles are welcomed and encouraged. Articles may be submitted online at www.irdialogue.org/submissions or via e-mail to submissions@irdialogue.org.

The International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, Ongoing

The International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published that will be monthly by Academic Journals. IJSA is dedicated to increasing the depth of the subject across disciplines with the ultimate aim of expanding knowledge of the subject.

IJSA will cover all areas of the subject. The journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence, and will publish:

• Original articles in basic and applied research
• Case studies
• Critical reviews, surveys, opinions, commentaries and essays

We invite you to submit your manuscript(s) to IJSA@acadjourn.org for publication. Our objective is to inform authors of the decision on their manuscript(s) within four weeks of submission. Following acceptance, a paper will normally be published in the next issue. Instruction for authors and other details are available on our website, http://www.academicjournals.org/IJSA/Instruction.htm.