This paper argues for a revised account of religious literacy, highlighting its implications for teaching in the public school system. I begin by examining prominent accounts of religious literacy—namely, the knowledge-based, analytic-based, and skills-based—revealing their limitations. In response, I propose an alternative: an attentiveness-based approach to religious literacy. I argue that this approach more effectively addresses the challenges of pluralism faced by 21st century societies. The specific challenges discussed include exclusivist groups and conversion, multiple religious belonging, and the underlying motivation. I argue these challenges can be addressed through an attentiveness-based approach to religious literacy.
Religious literacy framed as mere tolerance is inadequate for achieving the kind of pluralism we aim for in the 21st century. Similarly, focusing solely on understanding is also insufficient. Tolerance falls short because it does not require active engagement that crosses a religious boundary. Likewise, understanding alone is not enough, as one could gain knowledge of another's religion and misuse it to harm or undermine them. The pluralism we need today demands productive engagement in times of conflict or uncomfortable spaces. Ultimately, we need to move beyond the notion that we have succeeded simply because different religious groups have engaged in peaceful dialogue, collaborated on a social issue, or interacted without causing offense to one another. Producing tangible resolutions to our present-day conflicts requires something more demanding than previous accounts of religious literacy advocated for.
I propose the following revised account: Religious literacy is an attentiveness to one’s religion and others’ religion that enables conversations and practical interactions that cross religious boundaries. This attentiveness is characterized by (a) hermeneutical understanding both of oneself and others, (b) respect for the integrity of both parties and (c) an ongoing process of overcoming misunderstanding.
This account can be outlined as follows:
Religious literacy can be understood as a form of attentiveness akin to fluency in learning a foreign language. Like foreign language fluency (see Marcus 2018), it demands ongoing effort, practice, and engagement with those proficient in the subject. Having fluency in a foreign language also involves understanding your native language to draw meaningful connections (e.g., cognate words). Fluency is gradual and requires sustained attentiveness, yet some aspects may always remain challenging or inaccessible, as is common in navigating a second language as a non-native speaker. Religious literacy, like fluency, requires sustained effort, an understanding of one's own religion (or analogous non-religious commitments), and a thoughtful engagement with other religions.
Engagement that crosses “religious boundaries” specifies that the interactions religious literacy enhances cannot be just any interactions between people whose religions happen to differ; they must be interactions in which some religious difference is foregrounded as relevant to the interaction, so that the difference constitutes a boundary that the parties consciously cross.
a:
This account emphasizes hermeneutical understanding, which is the ability to interpret and respond to religious content in the form of words and actions. This requires knowledge of specific facts and general theories of religion only secondarily, for the role they have in interpretation. This account reflects the complexities of many 21st century individuals who identify with a religion but lack the depth of knowledge about its historical and doctrinal aspects that a scholar of religion would typically expect its adherents to possess.
b:
The requirement of respect for integrity specifies that the interactions enabled by religious literacy must not elide differences, or require either party to modify or mask essential aspects of their religious identity. Interreligious engagement often emphasizes similarities while downplaying differences between religions. While recognizing the value of such efforts, my approach to religious literacy encourages embracing and understanding these differences, as they are often the root of conflicts. Respecting both one’s own religion and that of others requires a willingness to confront and feel unsettled by differences. This process brings moral commitments—both ours and theirs—to the surface, where they may conflict and create discomfort. Such an approach demands openness, self-reflection, and self-critique.
c:
The requirement of a process of overcoming misunderstanding specifies that although a snapshot of a person’s understanding at any given moment may constitute a degree of religious literacy (even if it is not highly developed), in order for it to count as religious literacy it must be in the process of evolving, coming into closer contact with the reality of the other person through ongoing interaction. I state the requirement negatively as “overcoming misunderstanding,” rather than positively as “coming to understand,” because I hypothesize that it is easier to identify when one is misunderstanding someone than to be sure that one is understanding them accurately. Listening is an act of charity, a powerful form of reciprocity, of hospitality, and when we do listen, the parties consciously cross a religious boundary.
My account of religious literacy is hermeneutical. Our understanding of who we are is shaped by self-serving categories, which need to be critically examined in order for us to understand how they were constructed. Engaging with others broadens our perspective and acts as a mirror, helping us reflect on ourselves, including our inherent biases and limitations. This self-reflection focuses on the concepts we use to divide the world and shape our identities. Interreligious engagement brings these self-constructions to light by exposing us to the often radically different ways others construct their own identities. My hermeneutical account of religious literacy has a moral dimension. Suppressing one’s moral commitments for the sake of interreligious engagement ought to be avoided. Respecting the integrity of differences requires drawing out these moral commitments and bringing them to the surface and engaging with them directly. This is the kind of engagement that has the potential to enable a pattern of interaction that crosses religious boundaries that overall is increasingly peaceful, productive, characterized by engagement, and respectful of difference and the integrity of each party. This process is highly demanding and requires more than just religious literacy— I believe that it is enabled by other essential virtues, particularly intellectual humility and courage.
This paper argues for a revised account of religious literacy and reveals its implications for teaching in the public school system. I begin by exploring religious pluralism to show that 21st century students are learning in a diverse, multi-religious society. I highlight religion's role in conflicts to stress the need for cross-cultural literacy. Section 2 defines the term ‘covenantal pluralism’. Section 3 reviews previous approaches to religious literacy, focusing on the knowledge-based approach, the analytic-based approach, and the skills-based approach. In Section 4, I highlight the shortcomings of these accounts and in Section 5, I offer a revised approach to religious literacy. Specifically, I argue for an attentiveness-based approach to religious literacy. Ultimately, I argue that combining my revised account of religious literacy with key virtues can enable covenantal pluralism. Achieving this, however, requires rethinking how we cultivate religious literacy in students.