Speech of Nicholas Baines, Bishop of Croydon

The role of religious leaders in international security
Twenty years ago many in Europe were promising the end of religion. The Enlightenment project had worked its magic and all superstitious nonsense would naturally be forgotten as scientific rationalism took over the world. Such prophets of religious doom are now both confused and a little crossed.

Rather than die out, religion has become recognized as one of the most important factors in human society and as a resurgent factor in the international conflict. Unfortunately, there are many, especially in the media, who are ready simplistically to allot to any conflict a religious tag, regardless of whether such a connection is valid or not. The point is simply that the world has changed and with it has also the role and nature of religious identity and culture.

Before addressing the role of the religious leader in matters of the international security, it is essential to ask what is the role of the religious leader per se. This can be understood at the local level as well as at the international level.

The role and responsibilities of a religious leader

A religious leader is called primarily to lead his community in such a way as to teach the "faith", to give coherence to the place of that community of faith in the world, and to interpret that faith to the world beyond its own community.

This lays what can sometimes seem like competing responsibilities on the shoulders of the leader; for example, when members of that community seek to use its religious identity in a way that is deemed by the leader to contradict its teachings - such as when people encourage violence by a community whose authoritative scriptures deny any sanction for violence.

The difficulty for the leader is that he will be more aware of the bigger, wider world than many in his community and will further be aware of the complexities involved in making decisions about how to live in that world. This will sometimes make him (in the eyes of his own people) seem to be "selling out" to other faiths or communities. Equally, in speaking a language that is comprehensible to his own community, he might be appear to be saying something different and less comprehensible to those outside. This means that the religious leader has to be intelligent, worldly-wise, politically astute and able to hear and speak other "languages". He must be strong enough to withstand the impatience of his own people and the incomprehension or frustration of those with whom he seeks to dialogue.

Of course, this is further complicated by the fact that different religious groupings organize and operate in radically different ways, thus making the role of the leader dependent on the particular policy of his own community. Put simply, this means that in the UK an Imam is not the same as an Anglican vicar and does not play the same role in his community. Understanding the different politics and ways of organizing is crucial to creating effective relationships based on honest and clear communication. It is simply not possible to compare an Archbishop with a Chief Rabbi or a Mufti with a Metropolitan.

One of the most important roles to be played by any religious leader, therefore, is to avoid oversimplification in relation to those of other faiths and to educate his own people in better understanding the complexities of inter-religious difference. The temptation and tendency of much interfaith dialogue is trying to pretend that all religions are basically the same, but with a different color or clothing. This is simply wrong, stupid and unhelpful. Recognizing difference is vital to creating the space for effective communication and honest relationship. The leader bears the heavy responsibility to teach and lead his own people in ways that recognize the "other", even if they might need to disagree profoundly with the belief or conviction of the "other".

International security

This brings us onto another difficult question: what is "security" and how do we measure it? Another way to put this question is to ask: what if it makes people, races, nations feel secure? Now, it is clear that these questions could be answered in many different ways; but the following might give us a start:

- People need to feel safe from harm and that they have a future free from threat.

- People need to feel able to "tell the truth" and express themselves freely.

- People need to be free from fear.

- People need to know that justice will be administered impartially for the common good and in order that human beings and the world in which they live might flourish.

If politicians are those whose use of power is to organize society in such a way as to secure the common good for all their people, then religious leaders are responsible for interpreting that vision to the people they lead. The vocation of the religious leader must surely be to interpret the world to the community and the community's faith/worldview to the world. This means that the religious leader plays a pivotal role in mediating between peoples, languages and passions.

However, security cannot be guaranteed for a particular people without reference to the security of other people. Indeed, the Muslim, Jewish and Christian scriptures make this abundantly clear: the people of God cannot live in isolation from the needs of neighbors for security and freedom from fear. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Abram is called to be a blessing to the whole world. The prophets call the nation back to a God whose nature is to show mercy in justice and to care for the interests (material and spiritual) of the neighbors. As the prophet Micah puts it: "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God."

In other words, the only way I can speak of the security of one people is to look first to ensure the security of my neighbor. I realize that this sounds perverse; but it is true: security comes not from protecting one's own rights against the interests of the neighbor, but from looking to the interests of my neighbor (or enemy), seeing the world through their eyes, and ensuring their security.

Now, this sounds ridiculous at first hearing. But, although it is difficult and problematic, it is not ridiculous. It does affirm that one of the roles of the religious leader in the international security is to be counter-cultural and help one's own community to see and understand what the world looks like through the eyes of the neighbor or enemy. Clearly, this puts the leader in a dangerous and difficult position vis-a-­vis his own community and lays him open to charges of betrayal or softness. That, I am afraid, is part of the cost of being a leader in a complex world. And religious leaders, who are content to join the inter-faith circus, mouthing platitudes about "respect" and "tolerance" around the table while encouraging isolation, defense of rights and selfish security at home, must realize that this is not a game.

It is vital that religious leaders come together, speak together, listen carefully to each other, and build relationships of mutual understanding and respect with each other. But it must not stop there. Once in a relationship with leaders of other religious traditions, it is imperative that honest and open conversation leads to action and making of a difference. The challenge to the religious leader is to have the courage to stay with the conversation when the honesty is painful to bear and when the easy option would be to walk away. The promise is only that being a religious leader in such a context will be lonely, painful and personally costly. But it is also true that greatness in a leader is seen when the leader is big enough to stand in the middle, between people of two different worlds, and hold the two together ... while being pulled apart by exercising itself.

If I am right to suggest that international security depends on mutual security, then we have a massive imaginative task before us. We, as religious leaders, have to teach, persuade and cajole our people into lifting their eyes beyond their immediate interests and to looking to the interests of the other. This means not leaving politics to the politicians -especially where the politicians see the world through a particular lens, and especially when that lens filter religious worldviews, commitments and ways of living into privatized ghettoes of "mere opinion". Politicians need to learn to have the courage to look to the interests and security of the other in seeking to create the conditions for mutual security -and, I suggest, religious leaders play a vital role in keeping this vision before the eyes of the power-brokers and mediating this vision to the people he leads.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I wish to return to the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, reflected in both the Koran and the Christian Bible. The warnings of the prophets are easily misunderstood and heard only in those ways that give sanction to our own narrow convictions. But they cry out in times of institutionalized injustice and state unequivocally that God cannot be taken for granted, that God's mercy is not only for those within "our" community, that God win not stand by a people whose songs recognize the character of God but whose actions and priorities deny that same character. And within this ambit lies the treatment by those who think of themselves as "God's people' of the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized and the oppressed - of whatever race or nation.

Religious leaders, therefore, must have the courage to stand in the breach between their own communities of faith and those of other creeds or languages. They must represent the uncomfortable conscience that pricks the politicians in their exercise of power. They must seek to be honest and consistent in their speech and action, educating, negotiating and modeling alternative ways of seeing, thinking and living.

Christians call this "repentance" and recognize that I have no right to demand repentance of others if I am not a repentant person myself. The religious leader will have to learn other "languages", adhere to both principle and pragmatism together in humility, and exercise leadership with courage, humility and a willingness to take responsibility to stay in the conversation when others have left in despair or pain.

This alternative vision of leadership is not simply a fantasy. For Christians such as me, this reflects the very character of God himself -self-giving, open to whatever the world can throw at him, vulnerable to the violence of the world, but breaking the cycle of violence and hatred by refusing to throw it back. I commend this embodiment of God's power to all of us - of all faith commitments and worldviews -as we continue to seek ways of growing together in order to make a radical difference to the lives of people in our suffering world.

Thank you.