A WORLD BODY FOR THE WORLD RELIGIONS ?
A Historical
Perspective by Rev. Marcus Braybrooke
'There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world; and that is an idea whose time has come' (1). The idea of a United Religions Organization or a World Council of Religions is not new. It may be sensible to look back and see why previous initiatives have failed to realize the hopes of those who had this dream so that, God willing, we may be more successful at this moment of both crisis and opportunity.
The World Congress of Faiths
The hope for a new world order is a recurrent theme in the wartime writings of Sir Francis Younghusband who founded the World Congress of Faiths. A religious basis, he insisted, was essential for the new world order. In one of his chairman's letters, he referred to the efforts of Rudolf Otto, best known for his book The Idea of the Holy, to create an Inter-Religious League as a parallel to the League of Nations. In a subsequent letter, he referred to a book by Professor Norman Bentwich, called The Religious Foundation of Internationalism in which Bentwich expounded in detail the idea of a League of Religions. At a subsequent meeting, Bentwich said the idea had a long history. Leibnitz had propounded it and so had Rousseau. Then, quite independently, on April 4th 1943, Dr George Bell, the Bishop of Chichester. spoke in the House of Lords of 'the acceptance of an absolute law with a common ethos to be secured in the dealings of nations with each other' and 'of an association between the International Authority and representatives of the living religions of the world;. The Bishop was subsequently invited to submit his proposal to the Executive of WCF. In a letter dated April 17th 1943, recognizing that the League of Nations lacked a supporting religious body, he wrote 'my idea was whether there could be some group officially recognized of representatives of all religions'. The WCF Executive asked Dr Bell to set up a private committee to examine the proposal in detail and to report back. The Committee included, Lord Perth, late Secretary General of the League of Nations, Lord Samuel, Sir S. Runganadhan, Indian High Commissioner, Baron Palmstierna and M .Mo'een Al-Arab, Secretary of the Royal Egyptian Embassy in London. After several meetings it was unanimously agreed to ask WCF to circulate the Three-Faith Declaration on World Peace. The American Three Faith Declaration had been issued in October 1943 over some 140 signatures of authoritative leaders of the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish communities.
The Declaration proclaimed:
1. That the moral law must govern the world order.
2. That the rights of the individual must be assured.
3. That the rights of the oppressed, weak or coloured (sic)
peoples, must be protected.
4. That the rights of minorities must be secured.
5. That international institutions to maintain peace with justice
must be organised.
6. That international economic co-operation must be developed.
7. That a just social order within each state must be achieved.
In Britain, the statement gained the support of
the Council of Christians and Jews. The Bishop of Chichester's
committee invited WCF to make the Declaration and Statement known
to religious leaders of the world and to enlist their support.
This was done through embassies, legations and rectors of foreign
churches in London. By mid 1946, one thousand and fifty copies
had been despatched. Several copies sent to European countries
were returned by the censor. WCF kept Dr Lois Finkelstein of the
Jewish Theological Seminary of the USA, who was one of the
original signatories, informed of the response. Pamphlet 27 of
1946, shows an interesting range of supporters, including the
Sheikh of the Mosque at Mecca, as well as Muslim leaders from
Iraq and Syria. The Dewan of Travancore affirmed his sympathy as
did the Raja of Aundh. The Sadharan Brahmo Samaj published the
document in full in its newsletter. The Archbishop of Sweden,
after consultation with the Swedish Ecumenic Committee, expressed
his whole-hearted agreement. There was little backing for the
initiative from most Christian leaders. The Communist block
prevented the United Nations from any public endorsement of
religious principles. A reception was arranged for members of UN
delegations during the first meeting of the Assembly in London in
1946 to tell them about the Declaration, but only a few people
turned up. WCF had done all it could, but religious leaders
failed to build on this initiative.
In 1953, there is a report in the WCF archives of a meeting of a
member of WCF, Heather McConnell, with Mr R. C.. Roper, Executive
Vice-President of the World Parliament of Religions. This had
been founded in February 1952, at the Presbyterian Labour Temple,
New York. The aim was to establish a permanent World
Parliament of Religions to work with a permanent United
Nations to stop war and the causes of war and to extend the more
abundant life among all peoples on earth. A leaflet describes the
distinguishing features of the organization:
1. This is a movement of individuals ... of individuals...
2. This movement for peace through cooperation of governments and
religions is unique in all history. Governments, acting alone,
cannot stop war and the causes of war. Religious, divided and
competing, cannot stop war or the causes of war. But -
governments, acting together, through the United Nations and
religions, acting together, through a permanent World Parliament,
both cooperation, can stop war and the causes of war.
3. This movement seeks to affiliate the moral and spiritual
forces of the religions of the world, upon the basis of their
common unities . . . ' There are a few subsequent references in
the WCF archives to this organization and rather more to the
World Alliance of Religions, but neither initiative seems to have
had a lasting impact (2).
The Temple of Understanding
The Temple of Understanding in its first years held a number of Spiritual Summit Conferences to parallel the Summit Conferences of world leaders. At the second such meeting, in Geneva in 1970, on the theme 'Practical Measures for World Peace', it was agreed to establish a 'Continuing Conference on World Religions', 'to promote understanding and enduring appreciation of the different faiths, and to bring to bear all the resources at out disposal toward the solution of human problems, both personal and social'. Nothing came of this resolution, although the Temple of Understanding, through a variety of activities and the many contacts of its energetic International Director, Father Luis Dolan, has continued itself to bring religious influence to bear upon the work of the United Nations (3). In 1995, the Temple of Understanding, with a Council of Religious and Interfaith Organizations, took the initiative in arranging services in New York to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations.
The World Conference on Religion and Peace
It is interesting in this context to recall the original vision of the World Conference on Religion and Peace. Dr Homer Jack quotes the dreams of several of the founders. For example, Shri R R Diwaker said, 'What seems necessary today is ...concentrated effort for peace by a kind of united religious organization of the whole world'. Dr Jack, with characteristic honesty, then analyzed reasons why WCRP has failed to live up to the initial high vision. 'The vision of the founders of WCRP was not modest' he concludes, 'for they hoped to engage all world religions everywhere in peacemaking and peacekeeping activities...The first two decades has lowered the expectations... despite a few successes, WCRP remains a modest organization'. He suggests several reasons why WCRP may not have lived up to its founders' vision. "First was the "representativity" of board members of WCRP and especially some of its influential chapters When WCRP was established, its leaders acted as individuals and not as official representatives of their religious organizations. They were more free to act on controversial war/peace situations. Today there is more talk in WCRP of representativity - even though this has not shown itself in financial statements of the organizations. Yet even discussion of representativity seems to weaken the courage which is needed for the organization to take risks. A second brake on WCRP activity may be the fact that the present leaders have little detailed knowledge of the history of the organization... A third factor ... perhaps is a change in priorities. Ironically the adoption of a holistic definition of peace may have diluted the organization's focus and urgency. Peace is not just the absence of war; it is fulfilled only when its many causes are eradicated - from poverty to discrimination. And yet if WCRP devotes itself to each of these "root causes", its holistic nature makes it diffuse. Attention to everything from apartheid to Zionism can result in WCRP losing sight sometimes of its "war against war" and the necessity to oppose war from every angle. A fourth and final deterrent to prophecy may be the very professionalism all organizations seek for sheer efficiency... Among the other dangers for the future of WCRP are that it might emphasize religion to the exclusion of peace and that it might emphasize study rather than action" (4).
A World Council of Faiths
In each decade of the UN, a similar suggestion for a world religious body has emerged. In 1986, a meeting of representatives of international interfaith organizations -was held at Ammerdown, near Bath. There was a call for the establishment of a 'World Council of Faiths'. The plan was to bring together the main international interfaith organizations, identified as the International Association for Religious Freedom, the World Congress of Faiths, the Temple of Understanding and the World Conference of Religions for Peace, into one world body - rather in the way that forty years before the World Council of Churches was formed by the merging of Faith and Order, Life and Work and the International Missionary Council. It was recognized that the organizations had different emphases and that these were complementary. Their offices were located in different parts of the world, so a world structure might be established. The creation of a united organization would avoid competitive requests for funding, it would reduce the many demands on religious leaders to attend international conferences. One world body would make it easier for other international organizations to consult the religious world and also make it easier for members of one religion to consult members of others and to engage in joint work. Despite some discussion following the first Ammerdown conference there was little enthusiasm for the suggestion. The idea of a World Council of Faiths re-emerged in the early nineties. The Won Buddhists and then Dr John Taylor, formerly Secretary General of WCRP, made suggestions, which were taken up by Sir Sigmund Sternberg, Chair of the International Council of Christians and Jews, in an address at the Chicago Parliament of the World's Religions in 1993. Similar suggestions were made in several places during the 1993 Year of Inter-religious Understanding and Co-operation.
Since 1993
Since the l993 Chicago Parliament several
initiatives have been taken. In Chicago, The Council for a
Parliament of the World's Religions has been established. Besides
work in the metropolitan area of Chicago, the Council has an
international program, with Dr Jim Kenney as the Director. The
Council plans to hold periodic 'Parliaments of Religion' in
different parts of the world. (A similar suggestions was made in
1893). It is hoped that the first such Parliament will be held in
South Africa in 1999. An Assembly of Religious and Spiritual
Leaders will be convened in 1997. The Council for a Parliament of
the World's Religions also continues to promote the Declaration
Toward a Global Ethic, which was issued at the 1993
Parliament.
In 1995, the Peace Council held its first meeting at Windsor
Castle, near London. Dr Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, who was Executive
Director of the Chicago Parliament, took the initiative and is
the Peace Council' s first Director. At the heart of the Peace
Council is a simple idea: a forum where about 25 religious and
spiritual individuals who are internationally known and respected
and who want to work together to overcome centuries of
misunderstanding, division and violence meet and agree to support
each other's work for peace. Initially, in response to a call
from Maha Ghosananda, the Council is supporting calls for a ban
on land mines. The next meeting of the Council, at the invitation
of Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia, will be in Mexico in November 1996.
Recently, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of United
Nations' Charter in San Francisco has occasioned the proposal
from Bishop Swing for a United Religions Organization. The
intention is to provide the world's religions with a permanent
gathering place where, through daily prayer, dialogue and action,
they may use their spiritual and moral resources for the good of
all life on this earth. Other initiatives, such as Interfaith
International could be mentioned as well as those, such as the
Alliance of Religions for Conservation, which focus on a
particular issue could be mentioned. Other existing bodies, such
as WCRP, which held its Sixth Assembly in Italy in 1994, the
World, the World Fellowship of Inter-Religious Councils, which is
planning an international conference in India in August of this
year and the International Association for Religious Freedom,
which will hold its 29th Congress in Korea, also this August.
What hope of success?
Is a new initiative, such as the United Religions
Organization, needed and likely to be successful. I am
sympathetic to the ideal, but I cannot avoid asking why previous
attempts have been unsuccessful. Maybe we can avoid the mistakes
of our predecessors, maybe this is the 'window of opportunity'.
There are several reasons to think this is an opportune moment:
1. The dangers of religious extremism are now seen as an
important item on the political agenda - it is not just a concern
for religious professionals.
2. The collapse of communism has made the UN open to religious
influence in an unprecedented way. Many people working in UN
agencies now recognize that there is a spiritual and moral
dimension to the great problems facing our world.
3. The interfaith movement has a new outward-looking concern. The
l993 Chicago Parliament was shaped to address the critical issues
of our day. Much earlier interfaith work had to be directed at
removing ignorance and prejudice and at encouraging religions to
rethink their attitude to each other.
4. A growing number of religious leaders recognize the importance
of inter-religious understanding and cooperation, as well as the
dangers of religious extremism and hostility.
I am not clear whether we need a new organization, whether we should seek to develop an existing organization, most obviously WCRP, or find a means for all engaged in interfaith work to, on occasion, be able to speak together. The difficulty of a new organization is to see how it will make the break-through that other bodies have failed to achieve. It would need the initiative and energy of the leaders of several religions - not just their names on the notepaper. It would need, to my mind, also the active backing and involvement of political and economic leaders. It could not just be a 'religious' body. The problem of building on an existing organization is that it requires of that organization great flexibility and a willingness to treat others as equal partners. The difficulty of a co-operative structure of interfaith organizations is whether it can have the authority to make an impact. The International Interfaith Centre can become a useful place of information about interfaith work, but it has no mandate to speak for the interfaith movement. In Britain, the relief agencies do come together as a 'Disaster Committee' to present a joint appeal to the public when there is a disaster. Different organizations can work together for particular purposes, as some did to promote Sarva Dharma Sammelana. The experience of preparing for that conference in Bangalore suggested that there are many approaches to interfaith work. Organizations have their own particular emphasis. They may also have their own constituencies. I doubt whether those who take initiatives want to be subject to someone else's control. Often the founding figure of a group is a charismatic leader who inspires a number of followers. There are I think several concerns that plans for a United Religions Organization needs to address.
Concerns to address
Such an organization may be bureaucratic and seem too 'Western'. It should certainly be multi-centred, that is to say with major offices in each of the continents, so that control did not appear to rest with the West. There are also fears that some people might try to manipulate such a council for political purposes. There remains too the suspicion in some quarters that a World Council of Faiths might become an attempt to create one world religion. There are serious questions about who would constitute the leadership of a World Council of Faiths.
I was sent once a small 'dictionary' of religious
leaders. In the introduction, it was said that no one who
qualified would have thought of himself or herself as a religious
leader. Humility should be the quality of a truly religious
person. In some religions there are clearly designated leaders -
the most obvious example being the Pope and Cardinals of the
Roman Catholic Church. Other religions, especially Hinduism, are
not structured in this way. Is religious leadership determined by
the office held or the spiritual authority of a person? -
sometimes the two coincide. In planning any major interfaith
conference, the question of whom to invite is a major concern.
Usually it is clear that participants speak for themselves, but
will what they say be recognized and owned by other members of
their faith community? I cannot think of any religion that one
would describe as a ' united religion' . Indeed, what communities
do you recognize as religious? This was a problem at the Chicago
Parliament, where the presence of some new religious movements
caused the Orthodox Churches to leave the Parliament. There are
splinter groups which the main religious community refuse to
recognize. For example, Muslims do not accept the claims of
members of the Ahmadiyya movement to be Muslims. These are only
some of the complexities. Yet if the voice of the religions is to
be heard the need for an effective mechanism remains. There are
those who picture quite a small body of spiritual leaders who
would be listened to because of their personal authority and the
wisdom of what they say. Others look for a big representative
body which would have authority because it spoke for a large
number of religious people. Some bodies, which I prefer to call
multifaith rather than interfaith organizations, focus on a
particular issue, such as the environment or the victims of
torture. At times, there is the suspicion that religions are
being enlisted to serve a predetermined cause. Yet Homer Jack's
cautionary note that a holistic body may become diffuse needs to
be remembered. The variety of initiatives now being proposed is
evidence of the growing awareness of the need for religious
people together to contribute to efforts to meet the great crises
facing the world. Many at the United Nations now recognize that
issues such as population-control, the environment and world
poverty have a spiritual and moral dimension. They require a
wider consciousness and determination if they are to be tackled.
Their solution may involve important changes in life style.
Religious leaders may not be able to propose detailed solutions
but they can help create an international conscience that demands
effective political action.
This leads to my final consideration: How effective are religions in promoting peace and justice? It has been a persistent hope in the interfaith movement that people of faith should be able to act for reconciliation in situations of conflict. This has in fact proved very difficult. Those engaged in hostilities are reluctant to listen to outside voices. Sometimes religious difference is one of the causes of conflict and those involved will expect their co-religionists to identify with them. This is why an interfaith appeal from outside or a visiting interfaith delegation may be helpful. In some situations, religious people of different traditions may already be working for reconciliation, but be rejected by others in their own community. In such cases the main service those outside can offer may be to assure those who work for reconciliation that they are not forgotten. People of faith can help to shape public opinion and so to influence political decisions. Politicians are reluctant to admit their debt to others, but sufficient public demand will result in action. This has been seen in increased overt concern by governments on environmental issues, although there is a suspicion that sometimes the purpose of international conferences seems to be how to evade action and, on returning home, how to avoid acting on resolutions that have been passed. This is why sustained pressure from the religious communities is required and why there needs to be an effective instrument for this. There is a danger that religions will be used by politicians for their purposes rather than that they will influence politicians. Religious influence is often weakened by religious disagreement. There is a need for people of different faiths to meet together and to discuss in detail the complex moral and ethical issues that face our world with those with expertise in the particular concerns. It is easier to agree on the need to end poverty than on the methods of birth control that may be necessary to achieve this. If people of faith are to speak together on vital issues, then there has to be more on-going and detailed work. There has to be an understanding of the religious, philosophical, historical and cultural backgrounds which shape the approaches of different faith communities as well as adequate expertise on the issue discussed.
It is said of the United Religions Organization that 'the prime purpose for uniting the world's religions into a global organization is to eliminate violence in the name of religion, race or ethnicity'. An organization that makes this its primary task will have plenty of work to do. I hope any new organization will have a distinct focus, whilst recognizing that its long term objectives will only be achieved if it works closely with many other related bodies. Until religions clearly renounce violence, their creative contribution to building a new world order will be ignored. To many people today, religion is a threat rather than a promise and the public perception of religion as a cause of division and hostility is a disincentive to faith. If a United Religions Organization can purge the religions of what distorts and corrupts their witness, it can unblock the channels through which the healing wisdom of the great spiritual traditions will flow into our world.
Marcus Braybrooke, 20.3.1996
1. From an anonymous author in Nation, 15.4.1943, but a similar idea was voiced by Victor Hugo in Histoire d'un Crime, written 1851-2, but not published until 1877, part 5, section 10.
2. A fuller account and references are to be found in my forthcoming A Wider Vision: A History of the World Congress of Faiths, Oneworld Publications l996.
3. See my Pilgrimage of Hope, SCM Press 1992, especially Part VII.
4. Homer A Jack, WCRP: A History , 1993, pp. 396-403.
A paper submitted to the International Interfaith Centre
Conference at Oxford in April l996.
International Interfaith Centre
Send E-mail to :
iic@interfaith-center.org
United Religions Initiative
Send E-mail to: office@uri.org
Last updated on 31 December 2000