This collection of chapters argues that interreligious/interfaith studies is an emerging but legitimate field of study, branching out from religious studies and reflecting upon interfaith activism. Links are made to the tradition of world religions courses in religious studies and their inherent goal of religious literacy for students. These courses are criticized for their essentialist views of religion, their representation of a limited number of worldviews, their ties to Orientalist or colonial histories (as well as to White Christian privilege), and their lack of affective learning outcomes. In this manner, world religions curricula are found to be relatively ineffective at imparting genuine religious literacy to students. On the other hand, interreligious/interfaith courses or programs are portrayed as more adaptive to the true diversity of religious and secular worldviews as well as more effective at achieving religious literacy through affective learning outcomes. Through pedagogical methods such as case studies and religious site visits, students are challenged to grow in compassion and empathy for “religious others” as well as in appreciation for the difficulties in interreligious understanding and engagement.
The ties to interfaith activism are clarified particularly in the coauthored chapter “Toward an Interreligious City” by Heather Miller Rubens, Homayra Zaid, and Benjamin E. Sax. The authors explain the connection of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racial segregation in Baltimore to the need of “building interreligious learning communities” at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies (210–13). These interreligious learning communities are created in response to religious and societal tensions to delve deeper into differences and difficult histories but are also imagined as helping social justice work through an awareness and sensitivity to these differences and divisions (214–15).
As might be expected with an emerging field, there is a rather explicit tone of self-justification in this collection. It proposes to incorporate similar courses or programs to more universities in the United States and explains how an education in this field can play itself out in the job market (cf. Mark E. Hanshaw with Usra Ghazi, 196–208) and civic engagement. One of the more interesting tensions in the process of self-justification is the relationship of interreligious/interfaith studies to individual religious traditions with antisecular ways of thinking. On the one hand, in her chapter “(Inter)Religious Studies: Marking a Home in the Secular Academy,” Kate McCarthy argues for the continued secular stance of interreligious studies as it branches out from religious studies. She applies this stance in various ways, including aiming in the opening lectures of her courses to create “lists of learning objectives that assiduously avoid promises of personal meaning-making” (15). Students are rather encouraged to develop skills in order to become responsible participants in democratic societies. In Marion H. Larson's and Sara L. H. Shady's “The Possibility of Solidarity: Evangelicals and the Field of Interfaith Studies,” on the other hand, the authors disagree with McCarthy and argue rather that “interfaith studies should challenge the dominance of secularism in the academy” (156). The authors note that “spiritual rebirth” and “truth claims” are inherent to Evangelical identity, explaining that these factors often place Evangelicals at odds with the interfaith community (150–53). With the conflicting perspectives among McCarthy and Larson and Shady, a tension appears in interfaith studies between legitimating itself to the secular academy and positively engaging diverse religious traditions. As the field continues to advance, this will be an important issue for it to continue to address.
