A Practical Theology of Religious Difference: the lived experience of Anglican Christians in a religiously plural UK context

Abstract

This project constructs a practical theology of religious difference from qualitative research into the everyday lived experience of Anglican Christians in one of the UK’s most religiously plural contexts in Leicester. All too often, and not only in Christian circles, ‘religious diversity is imagined as a problem, even when there is ample evidence of successes – of people working out difference on the ground, in everyday life’ (Beaman, 2017, 3). This project seeks to attend to precisely that negotiation of religious difference in everyday life. The theology of religions discourse, and in particular the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist typology, has dominated Christian approaches to religious difference for several decades. It has been robustly critiqued by feminists and postcolonial thinkers for its oversimplification, its treatment of religions as monolithic entities and its lack of attention to hybridity. While alternatives have been suggested, few foreground the practices and everyday lived experience of those living in a religiously plural context other than anecdotally. I used semi-structured interviews with seventeen participants from two of Leicester’s Church of England congregations to generate narratives and reflections concerning their everyday encounters with those of other faiths. Through close reading and coding of the data, I then drew out the practical wisdom of those living with religious difference, bringing it into conversation with existing literature on interfaith engagement, in particular from a feminist and postcolonial perspective. From this process emerge insights on intersectional and intrareligious difference, the polarization of difference and sameness with their outworking in attitudes to conflict and pluralism, and finally the possibility of living with contradiction and mystery, and the role of epistemic humility. These insights, rooted in lived experience, make a valuable, and previously undervalued, contribution to both the theology of religions debate as well as challenging the wider church’s practice in its handling of religious difference today.