Finding Theological Support for Religious
Diversity
By Anantanand Rambachan, professor and chair
of religion, St. Olaf College
 |
 |
|
Anantanand Rambachan |
I came to St. Olaf College in 1985 amidst debate and
controversy. A few members of the wider community had
great difficulty understanding why a church-affiliated
college would appoint a Hindu to teach, of all places,
in the religion department. One irate minister complained,
“It seems that we are now giving a platform to
the very people we would like to enlighten.” Another
minister described my hiring as supporting what he termed
“the heresy of universalism,” while a third
suggested I might safely teach philosophy, but not religion.
A similar conflict erupted when I was appointed chair
of our religion department early this year. But despite
the controversy, my colleagues recognized the value
in religious diversity, and my appointment stood.
I see this conflict as significant not because of its
effect on my career, but because it challenges all of
us to think about what it means to be a religiously
diverse college community. When encountering criticisms
such as these, based as they are in personal theology,
how do we educators argue for the value of religious
diversity? It is easy to speak generally of the value
of multiculturalism in creating a more equitable world.
It is also easy to articulate a political argument for
teaching and learning about different religions. After
all, human lives are deeply interdependent, and we can
properly address the major political conflicts of our
times—in India, Iraq, or Illinois—only through
cooperative efforts across religious boundaries.
In the face of theological critique, however, these
political arguments are inadequate. People of faith
often see themselves as self-sufficient entities, dependent
on their religious beliefs alone for guidance and sustenance.
They may see people of other religions as entirely wrong
or only partially correct. Such theological arguments
do not provide space for mutually enriching relationships
with others. By devaluing the beliefs of others, they
often lead to mere “tolerance” of neighbors
of other faiths. These theological arguments require
responses that are likewise based in theology.
Theological arguments for contact with the religious
“other” can be difficult to identify. Yet
at their core, many religious traditions call their
followers to value those who are unlike them, including
those of different religions. As a Hindu, for example,
I am deeply cognizant of the limits of human understanding
and language in relation to the divine, which transcends
all efforts at description and definition. As one Hindu
sacred text puts it, the divine is “that from
which all words, along with the mind, turn back.”
I must be receptive to the possibility of meaningful
insights from others that may open my mind and heart
to the inexhaustible nature of the divine. Thus the
Hindu tradition requires me to enter into relationships
of humility and reverence with people of other faiths.
As our students examine their own beliefs, we educators
must encourage them to pursue their theological need
for religious diversity as they prepare themselves for
engagement in religiously diverse communities.
Those who opposed my role as a teacher in the religion
department at St. Olaf College and my appointment as
chair were unable to appreciate theological arguments
for religious diversity. They were unable also to see
the value in the study of religions other than their
own, and they distrusted religious teaching by scholar-practitioners,
who seek not to proselytize, but to expose students
to diverse worldviews and ways of being. As my experience
illustrates, theological interpretations of religious
diversity determine what qualifies as acceptable teaching
and learning practices. Thus institutions of higher
education, particularly those with religious affiliations,
must use theological arguments in addition to political
arguments as they embrace diversity. Like our lives
in this interdependent world, the theological and the
political are ultimately inseparable and must be made
mutually enriching.
