You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Interfaith dialogue faces a transformed landscape in the twenty-first century. The forces reshaping the world — globalisation and mass migration, digital technology, ecological crisis, and the unexpected persistence of both religion and secularism — are remaking the conditions under which people of different faiths meet. This lesson examines the prospects for dialogue in a plural world: the encounter intensified by globalisation; the twin threats of fundamentalism (the hardening of religious boundaries) and relativism (the dissolving of all conviction); the role of religion in conflict and in peace-building; the shared ethical challenges, above all climate change, that may give dialogue new urgency; and the "post-secular" condition in which religious and secular voices must learn to speak together. The governing question is whether dialogue can flourish in such conditions, or whether the same forces that throw the faiths together also drive them apart.
Key term: Globalisation — the increasing interconnection of the world through trade, travel, migration and communications. For religion it means that traditions once separated by geography now meet constantly — in cities, online and in the news — making interfaith encounter unavoidable, for good and ill.
For most of history, the great religions were separated by distance: a European might live and die without ever meeting a Hindu or a Buddhist. Globalisation has abolished that separation. Through migration, the world's faiths now live in the same cities — London, with virtually every major religion represented and hundreds of languages spoken, is among the most religiously diverse places on earth. Through travel and trade, encounter is constant. Through digital communication, a believer can read another tradition's scriptures, watch its worship and argue with its adherents from a phone. This unprecedented proximity is the master fact shaping the future of dialogue — and it is genuinely double-edged.
On one hand, proximity creates both the opportunity and the necessity for dialogue. People of different faiths are now neighbours, colleagues and classmates; encounter is no longer an academic or diplomatic exercise but a daily reality, and institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons, workplaces) have had to develop practical frameworks for coexistence — prayer rooms, adapted dress codes, religious literacy training. The children and grandchildren of migrants often carry hyphenated identities (British and Muslim, French and Buddhist) and become natural border-crossers, fluent in more than one religious world.
On the other hand, the same proximity generates friction. Competition for resources, cultural misunderstanding, anxieties about integration and identity, and the rise of populist nationalism and Islamophobia mean that interfaith encounter happens amid real social and political tension, not in an idealistic bubble. Globalisation does not automatically produce harmony; it produces contact, and contact can breed either understanding or resentment. Which it breeds depends in large part on whether the work of dialogue is done. This is why the sociologist of religion Peter Berger spoke of modern believers facing a "heretical imperative" (from the Greek hairesis, "choice"): in a plural world the believer is constantly confronted by live alternatives and can no longer hold faith as an unquestioned inheritance but must, in some sense, choose it — a condition that can deepen faith or destabilise it.
Globalised migration also reopens a question many Western societies thought settled: the place of religion in public life. Western secularism has generally assumed that faith is a private matter, to be kept out of politics and the shared civic space. But many migrant communities do not share this assumption; for them religion is irreducibly public, communal and political, woven into family law, dress, diet and the rhythm of the week. The result is recurring friction — over religious symbols in schools, over the accommodation of religious practice at work, over the role of faith communities in education and welfare — and these flashpoints are now permanent features of plural societies rather than passing controversies. For the future of dialogue this matters because interfaith engagement is increasingly also a negotiation about how a religiously plural society should be ordered: not merely "what do we believe about God?" but "how shall we, who believe such different things, live together in one polity?" That second question draws dialogue out of the seminar and into the heart of contemporary political life.
The future of dialogue is squeezed between two opposite dangers, and a strong answer will see them as a pair. Both are, in their different ways, reactions to the pluralism globalisation creates.
Fundamentalism — the term originates from a series of American Protestant pamphlets, The Fundamentals (1910–1915), but is now applied across religions — names a militant reaffirmation of religious boundaries in the face of modernity and pluralism. Fundamentalisms typically insist on the inerrancy of a sacred text, draw sharp lines between the saved and the lost, and resist accommodation with secular society or other faiths. The scholarly Fundamentalism Project led by Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby in the 1990s stressed that fundamentalism is not mere old-fashioned conservatism but a distinctively modern phenomenon — a reactive movement that "fights back" against the perceived threat of secular and pluralist modernity, often using modern means (media, technology, political organisation) to do so. For interfaith dialogue, fundamentalism is a profound obstacle: it treats the very openness dialogue requires as a betrayal, and at its extreme it shades into the religious justification of violence. The hardening of boundaries is, paradoxically, often strongest precisely where globalisation has made the faiths most aware of one another.
The opposite threat is relativism — the view that no religion (or moral position) is truer than any other, that all are equally valid or equally arbitrary "perspectives." Where fundamentalism is the danger of too much conviction, relativism is the danger of too little. Pope Benedict XVI famously warned, just before his election, of a "dictatorship of relativism" that "recognises nothing as definitive." Relativism threatens dialogue in a subtler way than fundamentalism: not by refusing to participate, but by hollowing out the participants. If nothing any tradition says is really true, then dialogue has nothing at stake — it becomes a polite comparison of preferences, and the believer's deepest convictions are quietly redefined as mere private taste. Many religious thinkers argue that relativism is in fact corrosive of genuine dialogue, because real dialogue presupposes that the participants take their own and each other's truth-claims seriously.
Key term: Relativism — the position that truth (or moral or religious truth) is not absolute but relative to a culture, tradition or individual, so that no view can be more correct than another. It is often confused with pluralism (which holds there is one ultimate reality differently apprehended); a careful answer keeps the two apart.
The most thoughtful voices argue that the future of dialogue lies on a narrow path between these two: a stance that holds firm religious conviction (against relativism) together with genuine openness and humility toward the other (against fundamentalism). This is precisely the posture that postliberal and particularist theologians, and practices such as Scriptural Reasoning, try to cultivate — deep rootedness in one's own tradition combined with real hospitality to the stranger. Whether such a stance is psychologically and theologically stable, or whether it inevitably collapses toward one pole or the other, is one of the central evaluative questions about the future of interfaith engagement.
Any honest account of the future must reckon with religion's role in conflict, because the case against interfaith optimism is often that religion is a cause of war. The "new atheist" writers (Dawkins, Hitchens) argue that the exclusive truth-claims of the faiths are inherently divisive, and that a world without religion would be more peaceful. There is no denying that religion is repeatedly implicated in violence — communal riots, sectarian war, terrorism in God's name.
But the picture is more complex, and two corrections matter. First, the scholar R. Scott Appleby, in The Ambivalence of the Sacred (2000), argues that religion is precisely ambivalent: the same depth of commitment that can fuel fanaticism can also empower extraordinary peace-making. Religious actors have been central to reconciliation — the lay Catholic Community of Sant'Egidio mediated the 1992 accord ending Mozambique's civil war; faith leaders shaped South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process under Archbishop Tutu; interfaith coalitions routinely defuse local tension. Second, the "myth of religious violence" debate (William Cavanaugh) questions whether "religious" violence can be cleanly separated from political, economic and ethnic causes at all, or whether labelling violence "religious" is itself an ideological move. The upshot for the future of dialogue is that its task is not to weaken religious conviction — which can be a force for peace as well as for war — but to channel deep faith away from contempt for the other. This is why governments and NGOs increasingly value interfaith dialogue as conflict prevention: a network of trust built before a crisis is a resource when one comes.
If theological agreement remains elusive, the most promising ground for the future may be ethical collaboration — the religions working together on shared global problems while bracketing (for the purpose) their doctrinal differences. This is the dialogue of action projected onto a planetary scale.
Climate change is arguably the defining challenge of the century, and it has become a powerful spur to interfaith cooperation, partly because most traditions carry resources for valuing the natural world.
| Tradition | Resource for ecological responsibility |
|---|---|
| Christianity | Stewardship — humanity entrusted to "till and keep" the earth (Genesis 2:15) |
| Islam | Khalifah — the human being as trustee or vicegerent of God's creation |
| Judaism | Bal tashchit — the prohibition on needless destruction (rooted in Deuteronomy 20:19) |
| Hinduism | The sacredness of nature; rivers, mountains and life as charged with the divine |
| Buddhism | Interdependence (pratityasamutpada) — all beings deeply interconnected |
Religious leaders have spoken with increasing force: Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si' (2015), addressed to "every person living on this planet," became a landmark text reaching well beyond Catholicism; the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change (2015) called for an end to fossil-fuel dependence; bodies such as Interfaith Power and Light mobilise multi-faith environmental action. The case for climate as the future's great unifier is reinforced by the rise of eco-theology across the traditions — a sustained re-reading of their own sources to recover and foreground the value of creation, often prompted precisely by the encounter with other faiths and with the crisis itself. Christian stewardship, Islamic khalifah, Jewish bal tashchit and the dharmic sense of an interconnected, sacred cosmos are being drawn on with new seriousness, and the cross-fertilisation between them is itself a form of interfaith enrichment.
Climate change therefore illustrates both the promise and the limit of ethics-led dialogue: the promise is that an urgent, concrete, shared threat can unite traditions that will never agree about God, and can even drive each to a deeper recovery of its own resources; the limit is that even here the religions differ on why nature matters (a creation entrusted by a personal God, versus a sacred cosmos, versus a web of impersonal interdependence), and a sceptic may ask whether a coalition that papers over those differences carries real theological weight or merely borrows the language of a secular environmentalism. The most defensible view is that shared action and doctrinal difference here coexist: the religions can march together on climate without thereby agreeing about ultimate reality, and that is a real, if partial, success.
| Challenge | Interfaith response |
|---|---|
| Poverty and inequality | Shared commitments to justice and compassion; jointly run food banks, shelters, development work |
| Human rights | Cooperation on religious freedom, refugees, opposition to trafficking and torture |
| Peace and reconciliation | Faith-based mediation (Sant'Egidio) and post-conflict reconciliation |
| Public health | Multi-faith contributions to campaigns, including the COVID-19 response |
A useful secular framework that has drawn the faiths together is the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, adopted 2015) — seventeen targets on poverty, hunger, education, climate and inequality. Because these goals are shared by people of all faiths and none, they offer common ground for practical collaboration that transcends theological difference, and many faith-based organisations now frame their development and justice work in their terms. The SDGs illustrate the general logic of ethics-led dialogue: a shared, concrete, urgent agenda can mobilise the religions together far more readily than any attempt at doctrinal agreement. The standing question — pressed by critics of "lowest common denominator" dialogue — is whether such collaboration around a secular agenda draws on the religions' deepest resources or merely borrows their manpower and moral language for goals defined elsewhere.
A further force shaping the future is the collapse of the confident secularisation thesis — the once-standard prediction that religion would inevitably wither as societies modernised. Religion has not withered; across most of the world it is vigorous, and even in secular Western Europe it remains a significant social force while new spiritualities proliferate.
The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) — himself a self-described "methodological atheist," which makes his testimony all the more striking — has given this situation its most influential name. He speaks of a post-secular society: one that has passed through secularisation yet recognises that religion persists and continues to make legitimate contributions to public life. In such a society religion is neither dominant (as in a theocracy) nor banished to the purely private (as strict secularism demanded), but is one voice among many in the public square. That a leading heir of the secular Enlightenment should call for taking religion seriously again is itself a measure of how far the confident secularisation thesis has unravelled.
Key term: Post-secular society — Habermas's term for a society that has been through secularisation but acknowledges that religion endures and plays a legitimate role in public life, so that religious and secular outlooks must engage in mutual learning rather than the one expecting the other to disappear.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.