Reem, a first-year PhD student at the Faculty of Divinity, interviews Professor Chris Baker from Goldsmiths University of London, to discuss the role of faith in public life. Baker emphasizes the importance of “radical ontology,” alternative social visions, and “radical practice” as contributions of faith groups to policy-making. He highlights examples where faith communities have influenced urban sustainability and grassroots projects. The conversation also touches on the necessity of integrating faith perspectives into policy development and overcoming secular biases in policymaking. Baker advocates for greater interfaith collaboration and the inclusion of young faith leaders in climate change initiatives and public policy formation.

00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome

01:09 The Role of Faith in Public Life

03:54 Faith and Urban Sustainability

05:34 Co-Creation of Climate Policy

07:32 Engaging Faith Communities in Policy Making

10:20 Future of Interfaith Collaboration

12:46 Clarifying Misunderstandings about Faith Contributions

15:22 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Hi everyone, I'm Reem. I'm a first year PhD here at the Faculty of Divinity. My research interest lies in the intersection between spirituality and ecology. I'm really happy to introduce our guest for this session, Professor Chris Baker.

Chris leads the Faiths and Civil Society unit at Goldsmith University. His work focuses on the role of faith in public life, especially around issues like social justice, climate change, and community resilience. He also co founded the Faith & Belief Policy Collective, which aims to ensure that faith perspectives have a seat at policy tables.

In his latest work, Chris Baker is collaborating with climate scientist Dr. Chris Ives to explore how faith communities are contributing to urban sustainability. Professor Chris Baker, welcome to Interfaith Futures. If you could perhaps start by sharing your thoughts on the role of faith in public conversations today.

How do you think it contributes, especially in areas that are often more secular like politics or academia?

Thank you very much for your welcome. Nice to be with you. So generally, I think faith and belief bring three things to the public square, three things to the policy table. I like to call them the three radical elements.

So we start off with what I call a radical ontology, which is a deep vision of what it is to be human. Ontos is derived from the Greek word for being. Religions are often quite good at really identifying the deepest levels at which we are human, often in relation to some kind of notion of the divine or God, but obviously in relation to each other as well.

And I think that the big mistake of, the big error, if you like, of policy in the last 40 years, in the West anyway, is that we tend to forget the deepest ontology that we can bring to the table when we think about policies. A lot of policies, frankly, in my opinion, forget what it is to be human, to be truly human. And therefore we tend not to create very good policies.

So the first thing that faith brings to the table is a radical ontology. What it is to be, what it is to be human. And then out of that radical ontology at their best. Faith groups can bring alternative visions for the sort of society that we want to build.

One of my great heroes is an Anglican archbishop called Archbishop William Temple, who I think put that kind of idea beautifully into practice because he said for him, his radical ontology was if every person is made in the image of God, however we define that term. then we need to create a society that reflects that image.

And he was speaking out of the context of the end of the Second World War. He was thinking, how do we reconstruct Britain? And so he said out of that radical ontology, an alternative view for him was to create what he called the welfare state, which was a very broad policy framework that ensured human flourishing.

And as I said, at the best, we can bring alternative perspectives on the sort of society we want to build.

And then finally, I think we can often bring like radical practice to the table. Faith groups are very good at bringing others together. Creating what I like to call radical assemblages of solidarity that bring different actors across all parts of society to create responses to really deep seated issues in our society, like food poverty, racism, all sorts of other things, climate change.

We'll talk a bit about that later.

So I think those are three things that faith groups bring to the table, to the public square.

You said faith groups are often good at bringing people together. Could you also tell us more about the unique perspectives or values that faith communities bring to urban sustainability that may be complementary to the secular point of view?

I think that what faith groups bring in of urban sustainability is, a narrative around relationships what it is to live together as a community. But also I think increasingly important is an attachment to place. So I think fundamental to any vision for urban sustainability is helping to create people within people, a real deep bond and connection with the actual place in which they live.

So that they care for it. They care for the outcomes that directly affect it. I think that often, we feel overwhelmed. For example, the COP 29 things conference is starting as we're speaking. And I think often people just feel overwhelmed by the sheer complexity and totality of the issues of climate change.

But certainly where I live in North London, there are lots of what I call grassroots projects, often around using land that's around faith buildings to grow food to teach people about how food is grown, to create food out of those, to create hospitality. So often they create cafes out of which that food is produced and then shared.

So I think faith groups, again, going back to what I said in the first answer, really we, they're quite good at practicing and showing the importance of relationships. And attachment to place. And I think those two things really help create resilience at a local level to fight climate change.

And are we talking now about what you call the mutual co creation of urban climate policy with religious groups that you talk about in your book?

The co creation of climate policy, I think is it's about having a 360 degree view of what the problems are. So I think historically, and I think some of the IPCC reports, for example, are beginning to explore this, they're asking the question, why, when we know the knowledge, we can't have any more knowledge about how disastrous our present trajectories are in terms of fossil fuels and climate change, why are we not doing anything to stop it?

And it seems to me that some people are coming to the conclusion that, cognitive science, that cognitive appeals to our rationality and our knowledge in that sense don't really cut home to where it needs to.

So we need to have much more of a kind of holistic understanding of what, how we get out of the problems created by climate change, which are much more about motivation, tapping into people's motivation, tapping people into people's desire for change.

And I often talk about spiritual capital in this regard. So spiritual capital is how you kind of leverage your deeply held beliefs and values in order to make a change in the public sphere. And it seems to me that what's missing at the moment as part of a, I'm not saying it's going to be the solution, but what's currently missing from the policy framework is this understanding of spiritual capital and how it can, how it motivates both individuals, but also networks and institutions to really engage, with what's most important to them.

And in that way, I think you bring to the table much more authenticity, innovation, problem solving and that kind of thing. And at a very simple level, the more people you can bring to the table, the more likely you are to produce answers to the problems that you need to find answers to.

And from the Faith & Belief Policy Collective perspective, what would you like policy makers to know about engaging with religious communities? Are there any common misconceptions or gaps that need to be addressed?

I think a common misconception is one that sort of wants to see faith groups is very loyal.

Was it? Who was it? I think it was Edmund Burke who called them platoons of volunteering. And I do think that, most policymakers I know are all too happy to utilize the goodwill and resources and innovation and energy that faith groups bring to social problems. But the big intellectual and political stumbling block is actually saying faith groups actually know a lot about the problems that are being confronted:

why don't we allow faith groups to, along with other sectors of society, actually shape the policies that we're implementing towards things like food poverty or inclusion and diversity?

So I once wrote a review of the Bloom Review, which was the first government inspired or produced response to how government should deal with faith.

And in a way that's a landmark document in itself. Because it's acknowledging for the first time officially that faith groups have a huge role to play in the flourishing of human society. But my conclusion was, the tone of that report was we're very happy for you to carry on doing the good work, fishing the bodies out of the river, as I would say, downstream working with the poorest, the most marginalized communities.

But actually what we're saying to them and I did some work on the pandemic which I think very much highlighted that that really faith groups have got huge amounts of knowledge, experience and imagination to bring to how we might create policies. that stop these problems happening in the first time.

So moving upstream rather than just simply operating downstream. And I think when you ask, when you say to some policymakers faith groups have got every right to be around the policy formation table, as well as the policy delivery table, I think for some of them that just taps into a kind of what I'd call an old fashioned secularism really, which says that, religion should be kept to the private sphere, seen but not heard that kind of thing.

And I think there's still some of that old- fashioned 20th century secularism perspective that's around that gets very angsty and nervous when faith groups are invited to actually offer something that could actually shape policy.

What specific initiatives or changes would you like to see in this space of interfaith collaboration around climate issue over, let's say, the next decade?

It's hard to quantify that in real terms. If I could speak more broadly, I think that in terms of interfaith collaborations in the future, climate change is clearly probably the most important one that we can do. Because I think what we're moving to now with, for example, the Faith & Policy Belief Collective is a view of interfaith itself, which says we've moved really beyond the sort of sharing “ tea and samosas” or talking about, where we find overlaps in what we believe.

I think with the minority faith communities, we're citizens, we've come of age now where we can participate and create change to the society in which we live. So in broader terms, I think interfaith has moved from a cognitive to what I'd call a much more activist phase.

We've moved from a cognitive understanding to an activist understanding of interfaith. And I think we're also in the process of moving away from what I'd call a representative model of interfaith where, when you have a gathering of different faith and belief communities, you've got to make sure that everybody, every faith group is represented and, the different strands within that faith tradition are represented.

I don't think we've got time to operate in that bureaucratic way. I think it's much more about tapping into people's experience. Tapping into that, saying, it's not important that you're here because you represent such a group. It's important that you're here because you bring specific insights and skills into what faith means at the grassroots, the good it's doing, the bad it's doing.

So within that overall shift, which I think is very encouraging, and particularly, I think younger people are finding that much more imaginative response. I think I'd like to see much more cooperation around climate change, building in local resilience, which we talked about before, which is based on understanding of how relationships work in a particular place.

And the attachment to place. And I think this work's already going on, but I really am excited by the desire, I think, by younger people of faith themselves to be leaders in their own communities, to take on that role of leadership. And therefore, I think part of the interfaith collaboration that we want to see in the future promotes that idea of fostering young leaders of the future from within the faith communities themselves.

Very insightful indeed. And finally, are there any misunderstandings you'd like to clarify for both the public or policy makers about the contributions of faith communities?

I think in a way, I think I've covered it. I think it's about, as I say policymakers having to let go of this idea that somehow religion is strange, irrational, a sort of bespoke activity that only a few people do. It is still the majority of people in this country, who affiliate and identify with a faith tradition.

But when it came to distributing funds or procurement or partnerships the kind of framework never allowed faith groups to say, “we're doing this because”.

So I'd really hope that we've moved away from those days now of people having to feel that they leave something of themselves out the door when they come into a public meeting about the public good. But actually that's a principle you can apply across the board, in terms of doing policy, better policy in the future.

Any public setup or forum where anybody feels under any pressure not to be able to bring their whole selves into that space is a deficient process in my opinion and it goes back to the bad old days of hierarchies and thinking that some people should be in a room and some people shouldn't and some people have the right to say things and some people shouldn't.

I think it's particularly focused around religion and belief, but it's not just in relation to religion and belief, so I'd like policymakers to just say, come as you are, your views are as valid as anyone else's. And let's co create solutions to these intractable problems together.

Very insightful conversation. Thank you so much, Chris, for your time today.

Thank you very much for having me.