At nineteen years old, one of us was serving a mission in Guatemala, navigating questions about faith, culture, and what it meant to share belief across lines of language and history, as the only blonde girl in Doc Martens and a nametag in sight.
The other was called an imperialist crusader for a white Jesus in inner-city Black America. As I tried to wrap my head around what that meant, a man stood in my face close enough I could smell his lunch, between the showers of his yelling slobber hitting my face. In his mind, my faith and I were a threat to his culture, the nature of God, and his way of life.
Pondering these experiences, the quiet skepticism of one place and the open hostility of another, we began to learn a shared secret about peacemaking: we had both reasoned at times that our church and faith were truer than any other, leaving little room to recognize truth elsewhere.
Conflict is a choice. Peace is a better one. Interreligious dialogue and the true teachings of different faiths invite diverse societies and foreign powers to choose the latter every time. The choice of peace is enabled by the preventative security of religious pluralism.
The security of proactive peacemaking is not limited to Christians turning the other cheek, Muslims spreading the greeting of salam, or Jews actively pursuing shalom in their communities. Many more faith traditions teach doctrines of peacemaking and bridge-building; the barrier to peace lies in the failure to seek understanding.
Consider the systematic persecution and violence against Yazidis in Iraq, whose communities have been viewed and feared as devil worshippers. When given the chance to explain their faith in their own words, they found meaningful healing as “government and other faith leaders accept[ed] them into the community” [1]. Interfaith coalitions hold the key to pluralistic understanding, opening the door to peaceful coexistence.
Pluralistic understanding does not solely take place on a national stage, but it can set a precedent for critical work. At Brigham Young University, we are part of a student body that is 99% Latter-day Saint [2]. Because of this, it is not uncommon for individuals to question why interfaith work is necessary in a homogeneous community.
I—the blonde former missionary in Guatemala—distinctly remember advertising an interfaith event on social media, only to have a friend from back home respond, “What’s the diversity? Y’all got some Catholics?” While we do, in fact, have some Catholics, we also have a number of other faiths and spiritual journeys represented. And it is just as important that the 1% feel they belong as it is for the 99%, because national peace begins with local belonging and interfaith coalitions.
Within the global order, social hostilities and restrictions on religious freedom arise when governments and their people choose the ease of anger over the labor of understanding [3]. Social hostility toward religion is most prevalent in states with national religions that are intolerant of interfaith engagement and in authoritarian regimes [4]. Securing a more peaceful and stable global community begins with the work of interfaith coalitions that view interfaith engagement as a policy of peacemaking.
International interfaith coalitions like Religions for Peace challenge realist international relations theory, which assumes that might makes right, by reimagining power. “Consider the impact if we had all religious leaders together, echoing and speaking together. Can you imagine that power? … What the world needs right now is cooperation and inclusivity among all religious leaders and voices to help our world” [5]. Interfaith coalitions believe in the power of cooperative peace through religious solidarity.
International NGOs like the G20 Interfaith Forum seek to institutionalize the power of peace by uniting religious voices through interfaith dialogue and presenting faith-informed policy on issues of intrastate and international violence, as well as humanitarian efforts [6]. Interfaith institutions prevent violence by proactively pursuing peace and international security, fostering interreligious solidarity and understanding rather than mobilizing religious communities against one another.
The better choice of peace is an interfaith choice, a choice that must first take root in the hearts of religious individuals, then be secured in the policies of communities, nations, and the global order. Mitigating conflict in pursuit of peace and security through interreligious understanding begins with the choices of individuals.
Reflecting on those naive missionaries determined to share their faith, a valuable lesson emerged. As I turned my cheek to avoid offense, I began to hear the sincere concern and devotion of a son of God. His words were not barbs of hate or contempt; rather, they expressed a misunderstood fear of missionary work. He worried about the eternal welfare of the souls of his brothers and sisters in his community and was unafraid of conflict in their defense.
We parted ways with a handshake of peace and a prayer at his request, following our face-to-face conflict after I helped him understand my religious motivations for proselytizing. Our interreligious dialogue of peace began with my acknowledgment of him as a child of God, followed by my explanation that, as missionaries, we serve God’s children and seek to help them find answers to the questions of the soul, but never impose values or violate the right of agency.
That man walked away confident in the eternal security of his community, with a greater understanding of the work of Latter-day Saint missionaries, and, most importantly, without violence. Peace is achieved through the collective choice of understanding over the ease of violence. Interfaith perspectives offer compelling narratives for peace and model dialogue for constructive conflict resolution amid differences.
Security policies and peace rarely begin in conference halls, debate floors, or international forums. More often, they begin with ordinary, cross-cutting interactions that lead to understanding, reminding us that peace is unlikely without belief, and nearly impossible when believers think arguing louder somehow makes them holier.