Introduction

Although the interfaith movement in the United States has long recognized the need to educate young people, the attacks of September 11 have underscored the need for interreligious youth education. In the months following 9/11, an entire generation of American young people (and the general public) were exposed to hundreds of messages about Muslims and Islam, many of which were simplistic, contradictory and/or false. Given the dramatic nature of 9/11, the conclusions that youth have drawn about “the other” are not to be underestimated.

While interfaith education should reach all young people, in this paper I focus on the responsibility of the church (i.e. the Protestant church in the U.S.) to educate its youth. I show that despite the clear need, both the church and the interfaith movement are failing to provide effective, far-reaching youth programs that promote interreligious understanding. In contrast, I discuss America’s schools, which have made surprising progress in promoting tolerance and respect among students. I argue that through Christian education, the church must play a role in preparing young people to live in a multireligious society.

The Need for Interfaith Education Post 9/11

For American youth to respect people of other faiths is critical because they are growing up in the most religiously diverse nation in the world, according to Harvard professor Diana Eck. Fourteen million American young people or 20% of the Millenial Generation (born after 1985) are children of the immigration boom that began in the 1960s,1 and they bring with them many languages, cultures and religions.

Although young people in the U.S. are coming of age in a multireligious society, their parents and grandparents are likely to be less familiar with diverse religious traditions. For example, among those under age 30, 56% can identify Allah correctly, compared with 35% of those who are 65 and older.2 The fact that so many adults are ignorant of other religions does not bode well for teaching young people interreligious understanding. According to a 2002 Pew study, roughly 2/3 of Americans say they know little or nothing about Islam and its practices.3 Furthermore, few people know a Muslim (28%), a Hindu (17%), or a Buddhist (17%), nor are there many who are familiar with the teachings of these religions.4 Given these levels of ignorance, the backlash against Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11 is not surprising.

Ugly as it sounds, young people participated in the backlash against Muslim and Arab Americans. Incidents of verbal and physical assault against Muslim and Arab American students were reported at George Washington University, University of Michigan, Arizona State University, Santa Barbara City College, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and New Mexico State University. Hundreds of Middle Eastern students decided to return home in the weeks following the attacks because of growing hostility toward Muslims and Arabs.5 In response to such abuse, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige wrote a letter on September 19, 2001, urging the leaders of the nation’s schools, colleges and universities to protect Muslim and Arab students from harassment and violence.6

While some might argue that those who participated in the backlash were not representative of young people in general, their participation suggests that at work were larger forces that influence all youth. Even before 9/11, young people had seen hundreds of negative images about Arabs and Muslims in the movies. Because teenagers purchase 4 out of every 10 movie tickets, film is perhaps the most powerful teacher of the young. American filmmakers have perpetuated false stereotypes of Arabs since 1896, but stereotypical portrayals of Arabs have increased in number and violence over the last three decades.7 According to Jack Shaheen, stereotypes of Arabs exist in more than 900 features, including blockbusters like Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), The Mummy (1999), and even animated films such as Disney’s Alladin (1992). In the wake of September 11, networks reran movies like The Siege (1998), in which Arab immigrants lay waste to Manhattan, blowing up the city’s FBI building, killing scores of government agents, and detonating a bomb in a crowded bus. Such messages are not lost on young people.

Influenced by movies, American young people may have been vulnerable to the theatrical nature of the September 11th attacks. According to Gabriel Weimann, terrorist attacks like 9/11 are theatrical events designed to capture media attention and involve a worldwide audience in an intense struggle of good against evil.8 Identifying with the cast of characters, audiences curse the terrorists, empathize with victims and their families, and cheer the heroic counterterrorist squads (or firefighters in the case of 9/11). Swept up in the drama, young people soon identified Osama bin Laden as the personification of evil (“Osama yo’ mama” became the ultimate youth insult.). His name and image became associated perhaps indelibly with Islam in the minds of young people and other Americans.

The Response of the Church and Interfaith Movement

Is the church up to the task of interfaith education? In the weeks that followed September 11, churches all over the United States participated in interreligious prayer services and vigils, showed their solidarity with the Muslim community, and participated in interreligious dialogue like never before. Books on interfaith relations and dialogue flew off the shelves of the National Council of Churches Interfaith Office. But despite a flurry of promising signs, the fact remains that churches are failing to provide significant, ongoing youth education that promotes respect and understanding among religions.

The church suffers from deep ambivalence about multireligious work. While there is lip service about the importance of interreligious work especially post-9/11, member churches of the National Council of Churches (NCC) have failed to support fully the interfaith work of the council. In 1995, the NCC had two interfaith staff but now there’s only one, a position that has been solely funded by the Presbyterian Church USA, which will not continue after next year.9 A second sign of marginalization is the co-optation of interfaith staff by other departments.10 With limited program money of its own, the NCC’s Interfaith Commission is forced to adopt the agenda of the wider council, which can delay or prevent important multireligious work.11 In the face of such marginalization, staff time and resources rarely go toward promoting youth education.

Young people are also underserved by the interfaith movement. For example, in the U.S. and at the international level, the interfaith movement does not cater to younger children (under 18), missing a critical window of education. In addition, there are limited opportunities for young people to participate in interreligious relations and dialogue. A recent survey conducted by the North American Interfaith Network (NAIN) showed a significant lack of youth programming and young people serving as staff in member interfaith councils.12 At the international level, young people’s participation is restricted to the number of youth an organization can afford to sponsor, and the process of choosing which youth participate isn’t always equitable or representative.13 Unfortunately, no formal avenues exist to feed young people into the interfaith movement. And when youth gather for a one-time event, an organization will often have neither funds nor staff to nurture and sustain a youth network. In the U.S., the interfaith movement is liquid and nebulous, which makes attracting and networking youth even more difficult.14

The small number of young people that become involved in the governing structures of multifaith organizations often experience a sense of isolation and frustration. Youth can feel frustrated when organizations get bogged down in intellectualism,15 when traditional ways of engaging in interfaith seem passé, and when issues being addressed seem like non-issues for the Millennial Generation.16 Furthermore, young people often get turned off when they are expected to play an adult’s game, despite the best of adult intentions. Consider the perspective of Robert Traer, former General Secretary of the International Association of Religious Freedom, who sees youth as equal but not special participants:

As a general proposition, youth should not expect to be simply given access to what they don’t have because they haven’t had time to develop their careers or in a sense pay their way. Youth have to realize that they pass through youth…Youth are being invited to share their perspectives and to learn and to some extent to be given a sphere of responsibility in which they make their own decisions. I think that should happen. But that sphere of responsibility generally is not a matter of turning over the organization or of constituting--because youth are 50% of the population--50% of the board members on an organization, where none of the youth are able to continue in the way that others can because they pass through youth and become the others.

Traer is a strong supporter of youth participation but on his terms as an adult, much like a young apprentice is guided by a master craftsman. While this is a valid form of mentorship, young people often feel constricted—that their gifts are not being fully honored and utilized. Young people sometimes feel entitled to greater representation and resources because they have no other way to get experience, which is the major currency recognized by organizations.17

Some of the most promising educational opportunities for youth combine youth leadership, interreligious encounter and action. According to Eboo Patel, Coordinator of the Interfaith Youth Corps, “As more and more young people become involved in interfaith, it is increasingly apparent that our contribution will be in the realm of direct action” (as cited in Beversluis, 2002).18 In the Interfaith Youth Corps, young people of diverse faiths work together on a joint service project, sharing and exploring their respective faith traditions as inspiration for action. Similarly, the E Pluribus Unum Conference gathers Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish students for interreligious dialogue and service learning.19 Finally, there is the Certificate in Interreligious Relations (CIR) program, which will be an intensive, two-year program that will equip young organizers, leaders, and activists to use the skills of interreligious dialogue and cooperation in their local contexts.20

Religious Pluralism and America’s K-12 Schools

Where churches and the interfaith movement are failing, schools both public and private are, especially after 9/11, addressing growing religious pluralism among America’s student population.

Many public K-12 schools were caught unprepared by the terrorist attacks, though some were not according to Charles C. Haynes. For example, confusion reigned at one California high school, where teachers and administrators weren’t able to answer questions about Islam and effectively help students deal with the tragic events. Their curriculum rarely mentions religion, and there are few opportunities for students to discuss such issues. In contrast, in Modesto, California, many students and teachers already knew about Islam because a course in world religions is a requirement for graduation. This public school had been regularly engaging in discussions of First Amendment issues, including how to address religious differences in the community. 21

The Modesto case suggests that teaching about religion can effectively promote religious liberty and tolerance, a view shared by many in the international community. In November 2001, the United Nations convened over 600 governmental, non-governmental, and religious representatives in Madrid to explore how education about religion or belief could contribute to building global tolerance.22 In the opening ceremony, Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, aptly stated “Intolerance is a learned behavior and can therefore be unlearned.”23

Warren Nord’s approach illustrates how teaching about religion might share the goals of interfaith education. For example, an established guideline of interreligious dialogue is to allow participants to speak for themselves and to encourage others to listen without judgment. Similarly, Nord suggests that teachers must encourage students to gain an “inside” understanding of religion. As Nord explains,

To understand people, we must hear what they say and see what they do in the context of their beliefs about the world, their philosophical assumptions, their reasoning, their motives. To understand a religion is to be able to look out on the world and on human experience and see and feel it from the viewpoint of categories of that religion.24

According to Nord, taking seriously other people, including their religious beliefs, is a moral task. In addition, he argues that understanding religion intellectually is not enough. He suggests how to bring students to observe a religious service, preparing them in much the same way that interfaith educators do. 25 For the public school context, Nord adds, only sufficiently mature students should participate and there should be an excusal policy for students whose religious convictions prohibit this kind of education.

The possibility of teaching about religion in American public schools may be closer to reality than people think. In 2000 the U.S. Department of Education sent to every public school principal guidelines that explain why teaching about religion is not only constitutional but an important part of good education. The guidelines give school administrators, for the first time in history, legal protection to address such issues as student expression of religion and the teaching of religion. Though schools have been slow in implementing the guidelines, those that have used them are finding common ground on perennial conflicts over religion in schools.26 A place for teaching religion has already been made in curriculum, though coverage of the subject could be improved. According to a 2000 study by the Council on Islamic Education and the First Amendment Center, teaching about religion has been included to some degree in every major national and state standards documents in social studies as well as many language arts and arts standards.27

Many issues need to be resolved. For example, scholars such as Charles Haynes, Os Guiness, and others envision public schools as a “civic public square,” where teaching about religion is neutral and all religions are welcome to the discussion.28 However, those in the interfaith movement would warn that neutrality cannot be assumed, since those who convene bring with them certain assumptions and practices, usually of the dominant group (often Christian). In addition, advocates for teaching about religion in public schools should glean lessons from the British experience and other international models.

Interfaith Learning on Campus

Like their K-12 counterparts, institutions of higher learning have also faced growing student diversity, but they have made more progress in turning religious pluralism into learning opportunities. First, a growing number of colleges and universities are building one-stop religious centers where all faiths can worship under one roof.29 For example, MIT recently built a multifaith center because it became clear after the Iran/Iraq conflict that the community knew little about Muslims, that growing religious diversity required accommodation, and that it would help the university stay competitive.30 Other schools such as University of Southern California have undertaken similar efforts.31 Shared multifaith spaces encourage students of diverse religious beliefs to interact and learn from each other on a daily basis. They have the opportunity to engage in what Diana Eck calls “the dialogue of life,” the search for good relationships in ordinary life.32

A growing number of colleges and universities are making a second investment—providing staff and programs that support a multifaith approach to student religious life. Instead of leaving religious groups to organize themselves and pay for their activities as in the past, Wellesley College has a Dean of Religious Life, who does not represent a single tradition but who coordinates a multireligious team of advisors who see to the spiritual needs of all students. Mount Holyoke’s student religious life program is most similar to that of Wellesley, while Connecticut College, which has a new Associate Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life, is also moving toward a multifaith chaplaincy model.33

The case of Connecticut College illustrates how the college’s groundwork in interfaith issues paid off on September 11. Immediately following 9/11, the college convened a panel that included local Muslim clerics. Not only did many students attend, large numbers of the wider community came, forcing organizers to quickly find a larger venue. Patrice Brodeur, a key organizer of the event and the Associate Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life, attributes the success of the event to previous relationships, which were established with local Muslim leaders through student research on Islam in the community.34 Although the terrorist attacks created a crisis, trust and lines of communication were already in place enabling the college and Muslim leaders to come together and respond constructively.

Without a doubt the colleges and universities that had space, staff, and programs to address issues of religious diversity were better able to respond to 9/11 than those who had not, just as some K-12 schools were more prepared than others. The schools’ experience suggests that they must be recognized as an important partner in interfaith education.

Christian Education in the Context of Interfaith Education

Churches and other religious communities help young people become rooted in their own tradition, which is vital preparation for interfaith encounters. As Robert Traer puts it, in the world of young people, [p]roliferation of religious options is enormous and it’s all on sale…[O]ur responsibility as older people is to try to provide opportunities for younger people to experience their own tradition in sufficient depth and seriousness that they can be open to experiments and exploring as they have to, to find their own way.35

In a sense, the church’s task is to give young people a firm place to stand on while they experience a religiously plural world.

In an attempt to ground young people in the Christian tradition, some might be tempted to simply turn up the volume of an exclusivist Christian message: Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation to the exclusion of all others. However, what exclusivists fail to realize is that their message may attract some young people, but it may drive countless others away. A study of four institutions of higher learning cites the case of student Kevin Solomon as typical. He moved from heavy involvement in the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because “they wanted [him] to stay in one place spiritually,” to an appreciation of religious diversity through the study of Asian religions, and finally to a deeper, more critical appropriation of his own Lutheran heritage.36 Since religious pluralism shapes a young adult’s everyday world, any educational approach constructed with them in mind must address this reality. According to Sharon Parks, only if the church can demonstrate a “robust capacity to ‘make sense’ in the reality of lived experience will a young adult world recognize the church as a context for the composing of a faith to live by.”37

Ready or not, the church will be challenged by a younger generation of leaders shaped by religious pluralism, says Peggy Thomas, who has served as the Coordinator for Interfaith Relations for the Presbyterian Church USA for over twelve years. Thomas says that young people are asking theological questions that have not been adequately answered in the context of religious pluralism:

That’s going to affect core theology. I don’t think you can ask theological questions in one area and not have it affect the basic way you look at all theological questions…I really wonder what will happen when we get core leadership in the church from the younger generation that has been involved [in interfaith encounters]—whether through school, college, life experience and maybe even seminary…[They] are going to come with a different understanding of ministry. That’s going to be really, really tough for the establishment. And I just think we’re not ready.38

Perhaps the church’s coming to terms with this reality can be made easier if the church taught a spirituality of dialogue, which roots young people more deeply in the faith of Jesus Christ but encourages faith development through encounters with people of other faiths.

A spirituality of dialogue would help young people understand the context of exclusive claims about Jesus. While many American seminarians learn to examine exclusive passages about Jesus in their historical and cultural context and to appreciate their confessional language, such exegetical tools are not often taught to younger and lay people. Perhaps they should be. In addition, young people should learn that exclusivist theology itself has a history, with deep roots in the period of missionary expansion around the turn of the nineteenth century. As Kenneth Cracknell shows, Christian thinkers not only justified their exclusive claims with the bible but with the new rationalism of their time.39

A spirituality of dialogue would teach young people to be witnesses without claiming Christianity’s superiority over others. The new 2002 World Council of Churches Ecumenical Considerations for Dialogue and Relations with People of Other Religions,40 warns:

We know how easily we misconstrue God’s revelation in Christ, betraying it in our actions and posturing as owners of God’s truth rather than as undeserving recipients of grace. The spirituality, dedication, compassion and wisdom we see in others leave little room for claiming moral superiority.41

In the spirit of dialogue, young people would learn that witnessing simply means, as Niebur puts it, confessing what we have experienced God to have done for us and in the world in Jesus, and we leave the rest to God. 42

Interreligious encounter should be a faithful practice of Christianity. Diana Eck argues that if we like the World Council of Churches acknowledge both the seeking and finding of God by people of other faiths, then interreligious encounters are opportunities to deepen our understanding of God.43 According to Eck, the encounter with the Hindu or Muslim is “an occasion for truth-seeking dialogue—to offer our testimony, to hear the testimony of others in their own terms, to wrestle with the meaning of one other’s terms, and to risk mutual transformation.”44 Young people might be excited to know that Christians need partners in dialogue because divine reality is only knowable to the extent of our limited human capacities. Once we acknowledge that, says British theologian John Hick, we realize that the plurality and variety of human experiences of God provide a wider basis for theology than the experience of one religious tradition taken alone.45

A spirituality of dialogue would allow the church to accompany young people beyond the institutional confines of what it has traditionally considered normative faith, into where young people are—where faith is deepened and challenged by the encounter of faiths. For many young people, this meaning-making will take place in public settings—at interfaith gatherings, at school, or in college. According to Ronald Cram, the more that religious educators can take their cues from the multicultural, public manifestations of transcendence, the more effective their efforts will be.46

Implications for the Future

What we know is this—the need for interfaith youth education is not likely to diminish but rather become more critical. All census and immigration data indicate that this and the next generation of youth will come of age in a multireligious America that is becoming more diverse. And as long as young people (and adults) remain ignorant about their neighbors’ faith and stereotypes like those of Muslims and Arabs abound in the media, the possibility of a backlash remains. However, we have learned that interfaith education pays off, as it did for many schools, colleges, and universities on 9/11.

While America’s schools may be on the front lines, the church must do its part to prepare young people for life in a multireligious society. We must teach young people how to share with humility what they believe God has done for them and for the world in Christ, while being open to the possibility of transformation through encounter with the other. By teaching a spirituality of dialogue, the church would meet young people where they are, accompany them as they navigate a world of religious pluralism, and prepare them for interfaith encounters and learning.

The church must do more to support those who facilitate interfaith encounters and learning for young people. Churches could provide important community fora to increase awareness about teaching about religions to promote religious liberty and tolerance. In the area of higher education, the church must train a new generation of chaplains and campus ministers who can mentor youth in developing a spirituality of dialogue. Finally, the church must provide more financial support for youth initiatives in the interfaith movement, providing greater opportunities for youth leadership, learning, and action.

In order to make progress on any of the above, the church must address the marginalization of interreligious work. The church’s ambivalence about the necessity of such work reflects the historic tension between people in mission and those who do interfaith work. However, I hope the events of September 11, the surge of interest in interreligious responses, and the new WCC ecumenical considerations will inspire the church to engage in new discussions about the role of interreligious work in the Christian life. Greater understanding might lead to increased financial support for interfaith work, which would allow staff to follow an agenda set by interfaith concerns and to avoid being co-opted by other initiatives.

The future of interreligious youth education will depend on many institutions. The church and other religious communities, the interfaith movement, and the educational system each have a responsibility to do its part to prepare young people for life in a multireligious America. But the key to more effective interfaith education will depend on the willingness of these institutions to work together, which will require some brave but creative new partnerships.

Courtney Goto is a United Methodist lay person serving on the WCC Reference Group for Interreligious Relations and Dialogue. She is a doctoral candidate in Christian Education at Emory University, Atlanta.

Notes