It is my distinct honor to introduce to the reader Continued Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: The G20 Interfaith Forum During Unsettled Times (2018–2023). This is an historical sociological overview of the next phase of the G20 Interfaith Forum (IF20) from Buenos Aires, Argentina through Pune, India. It follows on from the seminal work of Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene that was published in 2018.1
As the originator of the IF20 concept and co-founder of the movement, what would I want the reader to know about this book and the context in which it developed? First and foremost, I would want the reader to recognize Sherrie M. Steiner’s foresight to begin documenting this process. She saw before any others, including me, the potential for the IF20 to inform and influence global discourse and shape trends in globalization. In fact, much of the preliminary work was conducted at her own expense, without much support from her departmental colleagues and even in the face of opposition from some of the senior leaders of the IF20.
As a result, her work has been groundbreaking and remains the best scholarly, detailed example to date of connecting interfaith work to broader global trends. Steiner’s scholarly contributions will be foundational references for understanding multifaith contributions to decision making in decades to come.2
The idea that became the IF20 initially began to take shape in a café next to the synagogue in downtown Brisbane. It then grew to become a significant example of a larger international movement of faith-based voices actively engaging with national and transnational institutions, sometimes as partners, and sometimes as “loyal opposition.”4 Steiner’s aforementioned book, Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene, remains the premier articulation of this movement and how the IF20 fits within it.5 In that book, Steiner writes that the IF20 is part of a sweeping movement of “religious (re)assertion in the ‘public sphere’ [that] reflects coterminous and changing relations among systems as new connections are being formed between religious and political networks under conditions of globalization.”6
Taking a back-to-the-future moment, it is worth recalling that beginning with the Lambeth Interfaith Summit in 2005, and continuing to the IF20 Fora of 2019 in Tokyo and Kyoto, there have ever been three foci for the gatherings. First, achieving a new dialogue with political leadership and civil society, employing first the MDG s and subsequently the SDG s as Rosetta Stones for a common aspirational language for global religious and political leadership. Second, to foster interfaith dialogue at a global level for the sake of “mending the world.” Third, to nurture intrafaith dialogue within global religious and faith traditions in order that global faith traditions might deepen understanding within traditions of the vocation to talk with and engage with other faith traditions.7
Without disagreeing, I would argue that the first two of these are explicit objectives of the IF20,8 while the third has produced some enduring fortunate outcomes at national and regional levels. The very process of hosting such large interfaith gatherings impacts domestic interfaith relations in ways that may be intended or unintended, such as when 47 various faith groups came together to organize an IF8 Forum in 2010, and one thing led to another, leaving behind a national interfaith organization that has continued to contribute to Canadian policymaking for fourteen years.9 Some of those ongoing contributions are documented in this current volume.
The third point I would want the reader to know is that from these foundational roots, the IF20 has continued to grow and evolve in the face of a number of challenges. Some of these challenges are inherent in mirroring the G20 organizational process. Most notably is that each year, the host transfers to a new country that initiates a new agenda. This means, in essence, that every annual forum becomes a new project: a new political and religious environment must be navigated; new, influential partnerships must be developed; new donor relationships must be cultivated; new participants that are savvy in the local context and/or specialized in the issues of that year’s agenda must be identified and incorporated into the program.
I cannot overemphasize how consequential this challenge is. Impactful interfaith dialogue is a long-term process that is dependent upon trust that is built among participants, and necessarily energized by achievements, small and large, along the way. The regularly changing landscape inhibits continuity
Yet, in the face of these challenges, the IF20 has consistently and persistently convened high-quality interfaith events without interruption since its inception that involve significant leadership representation from multiple sectors from around the world and produce relevant policy recommendations.10 Much of this success is directly attributable to the dogged tenacity of the IF20 leadership.
Other challenges are rooted in the structure of the Forum, most notably the continued tension between international and local interests. This issue will be explored at- length by several contributors in this volume, so I will just touch upon it here. Given that the IF20 has not yet been officially recognized as an engagement group within the G20 panoply, there is not the annual government support that is available to other formally recognized engagement groups. The informal status of the IF20 necessitates an ongoing, international coordinating structure to keep the movement progressing and developing from year-to-year. In all fairness, it is nearly impossible for a small group of IF20 leaders to have deep, intimate connections and understanding of the local political and interfaith issues, relationships and funding sources in twenty countries across the globe. Yet, this dynamic contributes to development of a focus on international objectives over the interests and participation of local groups and initiatives.
Which brings us to the fourth and final point I think the reader may want to know: how I see the movement today in light of where I had hoped this whole adventure would take us back in 2014. In simple terms, the IF20 has grown in directions unimagined. In many ways, the IF20, has done better and grown bigger than I initially envisioned, given the challenges we faced to get it off the ground. We were so intensely focused on addressing monumental issues, such as obtaining consistent funding, starting a new initiative, embracing a wide-range of views and beliefs, grasping the scope of international work, and working within, what in some contexts, were very daunting cultural, political, and religious environments, that we had little time to articulate a vision of its future. The fact that it became something unforeseen is not surprising, for I fully accepted and even expected at its inception that the IF20 would evolve over time. Such is the nature of explicitly collaborative, purposefully plural initiatives. But this does not mean that it is completely where I think it should be, nor where I had hoped it would go.
A second observation is that the question of what the IF20 wants to be has yet to be settled. Is it going to be an official engagement group or is the identity to remain a separate body? This tension has always existed, but the fact that it has not been resolved is detrimental to the movement. There are arguments to be made for both positions. Maintaining independence would allow the IF20 to avoid local cooption of the process and would permit a measure of flexibility and inclusion of greater religious diversity. But, as pointed out earlier, this also means the IF20 would not have as direct of connections to the G20 process and would not have access to state funding each year. Official engagement status might also make the initiative less attractive to certain participants and donors. My view has long been that remaining an articulate but separate body would be most beneficial in the long term. Whatever path is chosen, it is past time to take it.
A third observation is more of a worry than a critical point. There have arisen some very serious external challenges to the legitimacy and continuation of the IF20 project. Rival initiatives, such as the R20 in Indonesia, have demonstrated that a lack of interest in engaging with the IF20 exists in certain, powerful G20 countries. In some countries, such as India, there is a growing politicization of religion. There is also donor fatigue. None of these trends were apparent in 2014, but the risks associated with the politicization of religion and donor fatigue have to be faced.
My final but most important critical observation is that the IF20 is not living up to its potential on two levels: it is inadequately building an interfaith infrastructure at the global level, and it could be doing more to coalesce an interfaith infrastructure within the host country year-to-year. Yes, some relationships have been made, but the level at which the meetings generally take place, and the tight control of each event by the central leadership, means that strengthening interfaith infrastructures are more of an afterthought than a consciously sought outcome.
I will share two examples of what I mean by this missed opportunity. First, built into the first Australian 2014 Forum was a local interfaith committee
I hope you find value in the chapters to follow. I am immensely grateful for the contribution each has made to the growth and strength of the IF20. It has been a distinct honor to work alongside, and learn from, such insightful and consecrated leadership. Thus, I can personally attest to their deep experience, and to the positive impact each makes to strengthen interfaith understanding around the world.
References
Adams, Brian. “Religious Engagement with the G20.” In Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations, edited by Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie, 201–12. New York, New York: Lexington, 2021.
IF20. “Our Mission.” n.d., https://www.g20interfaith.org/our-mission/.
Steiner, Sherrie. “Is Religious Soft Power of Consequence in the World Today?”. In Religious Diversity Today, 1–34. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2016.
Steiner, Sherrie. Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene. International Studies in Religion and Society. Edited by Lori G. Beaman and Peter Beyer. Vol. 30, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2018.
Steiner, Sherrie. “Loyal Opposition Beyond Westminster.” In Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations, edited by Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie, 85–94. New York, New York: Lexington Books, 2021.
Steiner, Sherrie. “Transnational Interfaith Diplomacy: The Interfaith G8/G20 Shadow Summits.” In The Interfaith Movement: Mobilising Religious Diversity in the 21st Century, edited by John Fahy and Jan-Jonathan Bock, 198–218. London, England: Routledge, 2019.
Steiner, Sherrie M., and James T. Christie. Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations. Edited by Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie. New York, New York: Lexington Books, 2021.
Steiner-Aeschliman, Sherrie, ed. The Religious Construction of Intimacy for Emotional Renewal: The Parallel Protestant Ethic Vol. 9, Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion. Stamford, CN: JAI Press, 1998.
Steiner-Aeschliman, Sherrie, ed. “Transitional Adaptation: A Neoweberian Theory of Ecologically-Based Social Change.” 157–213: JAP Press, 1999.
Sherrie Steiner, Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene, ed. Lori G. Beaman and Peter Beyer, vol. 30, International Studies in Religion and Society, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2018).
For examples of other contributions, see Sherrie Steiner, “Is Religious Soft Power of Consequence in the World Today?,” in Religious Diversity Today (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2016); Sherrie Steiner-Aeschliman, ed., The Religious Construction of Intimacy for Emotional Renewal: The Parallel Protestant Ethic, vol. 9, Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Stamford, CN: JAI Press, 1998); Sherrie Steiner-Aeschliman, “Transitional Adaptation: A Neoweberian Theory of Ecologically-Based Social Change,” (JAP Press, 1999); Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie, Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations, ed. Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie (New York, New York: Lexington Books, 2021); Sherrie M. Steiner, “Transnational Interfaith Diplomacy: The Interfaith G8/G20 Shadow Summits,” in The Interfaith Movement: Mobilising Religious Diversity in the 21st Century, ed. John Fahy and Jan-Jonathan Bock (London, England: Routledge, 2019).
Brian Adams, “Religious Engagement with the G20,” in Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations, ed. Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie (New York, New York: Lexington, 2021), 201–02.
Sherrie M. Steiner, “Loyal Opposition beyond Westminster,” in Religious Soft Diplomacy and the United Nations, ed. Sherrie M. Steiner and James T. Christie (New York, New York: Lexington Books, 2021).
Steiner, Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene.
Steiner, Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene, 4.
James Taylor Christie, 2019.
“Our Mission,” n.d., https://www.g20interfaith.org/our-mission/.
Steiner, Moral Pressure for Responsible Globalization: Religious Diplomacy in the Age of the Anthropocene, 243–46.
Adams, “Religious Engagement with the G20,” 209.