The results of the 2022 census in Scotland were published recently. What made the headlines in the media was the fact that for the first time 51% of respondents said they had "no religion," while 49% said they had a religion. This decline is not really a surprise, especially to the Christian community that has had to close churches and readjust to falling numbers over the years. The statistics pleased the secularist and humanist communities who called it a watershed moment. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of the Humanist Society Scotland is reported as saying “When the current census survey was sent round in 2022, we encouraged respondents to be honest about their beliefs if they were non-religious. These results bear out the fact that more people feel confident and open about expressing an atheist, secular or agnostic worldview than ever before.”
What does this mean? Is it necessarily true that to tick the box for no religion means a person is atheist or has only a secular or agnostic world view. The question on the census was what religion do you belong to? It didn’t ask what religion or world view you accept or live by. It is a recognised fact that there are some people who go to church but don’t necessarily believe the traditional expression of the creed and might even describe themselves as Christian atheists – belongers, not believers. And there are some people who believe, even if they do not express their beliefs in traditional language but do not wish to associate with a particular community because of their experience of the religious institution which does not always live up to the ideals that it preaches. These are believers but not belongers.
This can have implications for interreligious dialogue. I once took part in a dialogue about hospitality at which the Jewish participant declared that she was not religious but was observant in that she kept the rituals and practices associated with the Jewish way of life. This dialogue too is important because it’s important to know about the life of others but I would be inclined to put this into the category of interfaith relations which are important but have a focus more on living together than sharing one another’s faith.
Another phenomenon in religion which could have implications for dialogue is that of the dual belongers, those that find that one religion doesn’t satisfy them but know and love a second one and find that gives them a greater understanding of their own. I have known people to call themselves Sikh Christians or Hindu Christians because of their respect for and love of Sikhism and Hinduism. Paul Knitter a well-known Christian theologian of interfaith relations wrote a book five years ago called ‘Without Buddha I could not be a Christian’. Knitter found himself asking questions about what he was able to believe and admitted “I have to ask myself: when I peel off the literal layers, what is the inner or deeper meaning that I can affirm”. He admits that the “what” of his beliefs can become so slippery that he has to honestly ask whether he believes at all. In a sense this is the work of theology, trying to make sense of beliefs in the light of the knowledge and experience of the world it lives in. Dialogue with culture and prevailing philosophies has been at the heart of theology over the centuries and it is no wonder that in the multifaith and multicultural world of today this dialogue can extend to that of faiths other than our own. This is what Peter Phan would call being religious interreligiously. This is doing what some would say interreligious dialogue is all about – passing over into the world and faith of another to come back to one’s own with new understandings and perspectives. For Knitter this passing over was to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition which helped him clarify some of the basic doctrines of Christianity. I too have benefitted from this passing over and have been struck by how similar Buddhist approaches to reality are to the mystical tradition of Christianity. This has meant that interreligious dialogue has been for me a transforming adventure into faith.
But there is another kind of dual belonging – that of being both humanist and religious. All religions that I know have a concern for humanity and the common good. Religion at its best should make believers better human beings and it is better to give up one’s religion if it doesn’t help in that human journey. Better to give up one’s religion rather than one’s humanity. Humanist and religious believers have a lot in common and dialogue between them is possible if they are open to it, something which is a prerequisite of dialogue. It’s so easy to have prejudices one against the other or to focus on what separates us such as belief in a transcendent reality and yet we have a lot in common. Before the unfathomable mystery of that which we call God I could describe myself as agnostic. When it comes to desiring human flourishing I could describe myself as humanist and when it comes to living in secular world which gives freedom to all religious and philosophical beliefs I could call myself secular. What is needed for good dialogue is an open, not closed identity.
There is another dialogue that I have not experienced here in Scotland though I know of its existence in America. This dialogue is with those, particularly young people, who are disaffiliated from their religious community. One such dialogue set up by religious sisters, known as The Nones and the Nuns describes the project thus: “Nuns & Nones is an intergenerational, spiritual community dedicated to care, contemplation, and courageous action in service of life and liberation”. Many of my Christian friends decry the fact that their children and grandchildren are no longer religious and feel this as a sad loss. I am sure these nones have something significant to tell us about the Christian faith in contemporary society. We need to find a way to listen to them.
What does this mean? Is it necessarily true that to tick the box for no religion means a person is atheist or has only a secular or agnostic world view. The question on the census was what religion do you belong to? It didn’t ask what religion or world view you accept or live by. It is a recognised fact that there are some people who go to church but don’t necessarily believe the traditional expression of the creed and might even describe themselves as Christian atheists – belongers, not believers. And there are some people who believe, even if they do not express their beliefs in traditional language but do not wish to associate with a particular community because of their experience of the religious institution which does not always live up to the ideals that it preaches. These are believers but not belongers.
This can have implications for interreligious dialogue. I once took part in a dialogue about hospitality at which the Jewish participant declared that she was not religious but was observant in that she kept the rituals and practices associated with the Jewish way of life. This dialogue too is important because it’s important to know about the life of others but I would be inclined to put this into the category of interfaith relations which are important but have a focus more on living together than sharing one another’s faith.
Another phenomenon in religion which could have implications for dialogue is that of the dual belongers, those that find that one religion doesn’t satisfy them but know and love a second one and find that gives them a greater understanding of their own. I have known people to call themselves Sikh Christians or Hindu Christians because of their respect for and love of Sikhism and Hinduism. Paul Knitter a well-known Christian theologian of interfaith relations wrote a book five years ago called ‘Without Buddha I could not be a Christian’. Knitter found himself asking questions about what he was able to believe and admitted “I have to ask myself: when I peel off the literal layers, what is the inner or deeper meaning that I can affirm”. He admits that the “what” of his beliefs can become so slippery that he has to honestly ask whether he believes at all. In a sense this is the work of theology, trying to make sense of beliefs in the light of the knowledge and experience of the world it lives in. Dialogue with culture and prevailing philosophies has been at the heart of theology over the centuries and it is no wonder that in the multifaith and multicultural world of today this dialogue can extend to that of faiths other than our own. This is what Peter Phan would call being religious interreligiously. This is doing what some would say interreligious dialogue is all about – passing over into the world and faith of another to come back to one’s own with new understandings and perspectives. For Knitter this passing over was to the Tibetan Buddhist tradition which helped him clarify some of the basic doctrines of Christianity. I too have benefitted from this passing over and have been struck by how similar Buddhist approaches to reality are to the mystical tradition of Christianity. This has meant that interreligious dialogue has been for me a transforming adventure into faith.
But there is another kind of dual belonging – that of being both humanist and religious. All religions that I know have a concern for humanity and the common good. Religion at its best should make believers better human beings and it is better to give up one’s religion if it doesn’t help in that human journey. Better to give up one’s religion rather than one’s humanity. Humanist and religious believers have a lot in common and dialogue between them is possible if they are open to it, something which is a prerequisite of dialogue. It’s so easy to have prejudices one against the other or to focus on what separates us such as belief in a transcendent reality and yet we have a lot in common. Before the unfathomable mystery of that which we call God I could describe myself as agnostic. When it comes to desiring human flourishing I could describe myself as humanist and when it comes to living in secular world which gives freedom to all religious and philosophical beliefs I could call myself secular. What is needed for good dialogue is an open, not closed identity.
There is another dialogue that I have not experienced here in Scotland though I know of its existence in America. This dialogue is with those, particularly young people, who are disaffiliated from their religious community. One such dialogue set up by religious sisters, known as The Nones and the Nuns describes the project thus: “Nuns & Nones is an intergenerational, spiritual community dedicated to care, contemplation, and courageous action in service of life and liberation”. Many of my Christian friends decry the fact that their children and grandchildren are no longer religious and feel this as a sad loss. I am sure these nones have something significant to tell us about the Christian faith in contemporary society. We need to find a way to listen to them.
RSS Feed
