Courageous Conversations: Chris Walsh and William McKenzie on Pluralism

George is joined by Chris Walsh and William McKenzie, both of the George W. Bush Institute where they engage in the advancement of freedom and democracy in the world.

In this second episode of the Courageous Conversations series, they discuss what they call "the pluralism challenge," the role of pluralism in strengthening our democracy, the importance of a vibrant religious pluralism, and what American democracy means—even when it falls short of its own ideals.

Chris Walsh serves as Director, Global Policy at the George W. Bush Institute. In this role, Mr. Walsh manages communications, evaluation, and public policy research projects that advance freedom and democracy in the world.

William McKenzie is senior editorial advisor at the George W. Bush Institute, where he is working on editorial projects on democracy and freedom and education reform.

Watch the video, here.

George (00:00):

Welcome to Good God, conversations that matter about faith and public life. I'm your host George Mason, and I'm delighted to have another in our series of courageous conversations today with two people from Dallas who are doing important work in these kinds of conversations In the public square, uh, we welcomed Christopher Walsh and Bill McKenzie, uh, both from the George W. Bush Institute here in Dallas. And, uh, they are engaged in a, uh, project, uh, on pluralism that includes, uh, various, uh, arenas of pluralism in, uh, strengthening our democracy. Uh, but at the same time, uh, we, uh, know that one of those areas is pluralism and religion, and that's what we're gonna focus on, especially today. Chris is the Director of Global Policy for the Bush Institute, and Bill is a senior editorial advisor, and it's a delight to have you both with us today. Thank you for joining me.

Chris (01:02):

Thank you, George. Likewise. Really, really appreciate the opportunity.

George (01:06):

Well, you've, um, launched out into these, um, uh, papers, uh, I guess you might call them, and, uh, editorials. We had one of the Dallas Morning News recently, and, uh, this particularly is, uh, an important subject to us at Faith Commons, the organization that, uh, sponsors the Good God Podcast as we believe that pluralism in religion in America is, uh, unfinished business, you might say. So tell us more about what is behind your, uh, conversation about this and, and your project.

Chris (01:43):

Well, bill, maybe I can take a stab and I'll let you, I'll let you jump in. Uh, let me, let me take a step back. In terms of our general work on pluralism, we call this the pluralism challenge, uh, because quite simply, we, we fear and we're concerned that a lot of people in this country don't really appreciate or even understand the concept of pluralism. Uh, to be perfectly honest, one of the inspirations behind this series, uh, was a survey that was released by a group called Pace, it's Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, if I'm getting that correct. And in this survey, they had looked at a bunch of different terms related to democracy and what, what kind of feelings or, or associations were evoked by those different terms. Now, pluralism was the most outstanding term, not for a great reason in that the, uh, uh, 40% of the people surveyed said they had never even heard of the word pluralism.

Chris (02:37):

Another 40% said either they, they had, they, they had a negative association with pluralism or a neutral association, and only about 19% said that pluralism was a good thing. Uh, and in our mind, this, this struck a chord because we said, if, if we have a country of 330 million, very different, very, very strange and quirky people, we need to understand this term of pluralism because it's what helps us navigate our differences. It's the social tolerance for different backgrounds, different beliefs, different religions, uh, that help us all work around our shared American values and, and how we, how we solve our differences. Um, I'll, I'll let Bill jump in, uh, uh, would offer some more thoughts, though.

William (03:20):

No, I think that's a good, uh, uh, summary. I, you know, Chris and I were involved with a series before this on Pluralism Challenge series, and that was called Democracy Talks. And we kept hearing over and over again various, uh, experts, scholars, uh, talking about this importance of pluralism. And, you know, in, in our time where obviously we know there are a lot of divisions and, and, uh, schisms and friction and polarization. So what is the, the antidote to some of that? And this kept coming up over and over again, not necessarily in a religious sense, but just in sense of a larger culture to have a, a respect and understanding for pluralism and in our work, uh, for this series, a pluralism challenge. I think one thing that really jumped out at me was, and, and I'll borrow this from, uh, Harvard has a pluralism project where they make the difference. They emphasize the difference between diversity and pluralism. Diversity is very important. We want diversity. Uh, that's, that's an asset in our country. But diversity by itself is not pluralism. Pluralism is how you create or attempt to create one among many, uh, and one out of all those different sorts of diverse groups. So, uh, I think, you know, pluralism is that next step, and I would like to think it is part of the answer to how we reduce some of the tensions, um, in our society.

George (04:52):

Although the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion is not <laugh> popular, it's contested these days more and more. I, I think moving from diversity to inclusion is what you're really talking about. Uh, this, this notion is not just enough to, uh, to, to have people in the room, but it's, it's important that they all have a voice and are participating in a sense, and that they have a sense of being belonging and being part of it. Right.

William (05:18):

But, but I'd also add in there, there there is going to be friction in those conversations, and there's going to be differences in those conversation. And I think part of what we're getting is that's okay. Yeah. As long as we're not tearing each other apart over our differences. And, uh, one thing that's come up in the, the religious pluralism series we just finished was those who are really good at practicing pluralism, if you will, religious pluralism, they'll always emphasize, you're not there to try to convert the other, you're trying to hear their view. And in your case, present your view, the moment you start trying to convert somebody, the deal's done.

Chris (05:59):

And if, if, I may just to add one more point to what Bill is saying, and, and I'm gonna use different language, although I don't think we're far off, but, but maybe we are. And, and I think that's okay. That's where we're having this conversation, is that, you know, sometimes when we talk about inclusion, it, it also means inclusion of groups that you may not necessarily like very much, that might not be popular or that you just <laugh> violently disagree with. And I mean that in, in verbal terms, not actual violence, but, but pluralism, I would argue is the system that allows us to coexist peacefully, gives us a space to work out our differences, to hash them out, not with violence, but through debate discussion. And as Bill said, we may come away at the end of the day not agreeing, and that is okay,

George (06:44):

So I come from the Baptist tradition as, uh, uh, you might know, uh, and one of our hallmarks of our tradition has been, uh, devoted to the protection of the, so-called, uh, separation of church and state. Now, not all baptists are in favor of that, of course, but that was, uh, in early America, that was one of our major contributions. And while that's still critically important, I think pluralism takes it a step beyond that. It's not just a defensive posture, uh, in terms of church state separation, but it's a, it's a, it's a positive, uh, understanding of the role that all these religions can play in creating a vibrant democracy and, uh, uh, and, and breaking through some of these divisions that we have. Uh, it sounds like that's where you're headed with this, uh, more in terms of this, uh, more positive vision of how the religions can play a role. Would that be right,

William (07:41):

Where one of the experts we're interviewing kept talking about, we in the United States are not a blood and soil nation, and, and this, uh, person, uh, was in the uk, uh, and, uh, I, you know, and he was the one talking about this importance of pluralism in a society like ours in a, in democracy, uh, because we're not, uh, blood and soil. So your point then, you know, having these various, having room for these various religious traditions, um, is important in our country. It's important for, you know, our culture and our society, even if I may not, even though I don't agree with them all, uh, we have room for, we're not blood and soil. We don't, we have, we're not just a country of one.

George (08:28):

To be a country of blood and soil is to have an intention of a common culture that is organized around, uh, something like, um, you know, race or, uh, language or something of that nature. And that seems to be a, a pressure point in our public discourse today, doesn't it? I mean, it's, so, the, the, the idea that we are losing our country, losing our culture seems to be a language in our political discourse that is fighting against this idea of pluralism. So how do we, how do we help redeem that, uh, when we know that there is, uh, uh, an instinct in our country right now for that more maybe blood and soil sort of approach to things that is not historically true to our, uh, organization as a country, but is culturally happening, uh, at, at this moment?

Chris (09:25):

You know, I, I think another way to think about this is, and I, I, I may no offense to those who, who may long for some sort of traditional blood and soil type type country, but I, I think with all due respect, that misses the idea of America, right? And, and, and some may hear me say that and be, and, and, and instantly jump to Will America hasn't been perfect. But, but you know what, no country has been perfect. But what I love about America, and I do think America and American democracy is a good thing, is that it was, it was built on ideals, uh, noble values, the pursuit of, of life, liberty and happiness. It's, it's about justice and opportunity. Again, when I say that, it doesn't mean we always achieve. In fact, we often fall short and have throughout our history, but that's human nature.

Chris (10:12):

Uh, that's, that's <laugh>, that's unavoidable in my opinion. Now, we, the people strive for a more perfect union all the time. And I'd like to think, and I, I I would argue that we have made considerable progress in a number of areas. Doesn't mean we can't do better, doesn't mean we won't do better, but it, it's, it's missing the idea of America to suggest that America was always intended or has traditionally been a blood and soil nation. It's been a nation of ideals. It's been an idea that's been passed on to different generations of, of people both, both naturalized and naturally born here. And, and that's the country we should strive to be.

William (10:48):

And, and I would, I would add one other thing to those who may, who may fear, like the culture is moving away from it. Undoubtedly, the Judeo-Christian tradition had a big influence, uh, on, on our country and its evolution, and its founding ands, but so did other things. Uh, and so, you know, the founders were complicated human beings, uh, some inspired by their face, some not. Uh, so I, you know, I hear what people are saying in terms of our Judeo-Christian heritage. It's there no doubt about it, but it's not all we were, uh, and it's not obviously the only over time, the only faith, uh, that has come to, to play. Uh, so, you know, it's a, it's a delicate thing

George (11:37):

During the re reaction period that followed the Dobbs decision in this country, I found it interesting to, uh, be in conversation with people from different religious traditions about, uh, this decision because it seemed that it was being portrayed as a victory for a religious position that was, uh, dominant in our American culture. And yet, uh, voices came up from the Jewish tradition, for instance, uh, in particular, even, uh, the Muslim tradition, that that would say, wait, that's not really our perspective on, uh, when life begins, but one religious perspective dominated the political discourse, and one, the legal challenge, uh, that had been, uh, simmering there. So I guess one of the questions I have is, if you have a vibrant religious pluralism in this country, how do you actually elevate the voices of those more minority religious traditions that want to speak to matters of common good in a way that, uh, can be heard in a way that actually influences the, the, the larger democratic project and, and allows us to honor those, uh, different religious voices?

Chris (13:02):

Well, one, one place I'll start, and <laugh> Bill wants to add some stuff, and I, I can have a minute to think about it then, then I'll add some more things. But one place I would start, and this, this will sound like a cop out, it will sound unsatisfying, but I, I honestly believe this is, it, it, it's engaging with other faith traditions. Uh, we, we have what Arthur Brooks, the social scientists from Harvard calls a culture of contempt, or at least a developing culture of contempt in our country, where we view the other, not just with anger, but with the complete devaluation of their humanity. And, and, and often we have found social, social research is found that this is based on perception. It's, it's, they're boogeymen that don't reflect real life. And so if we can engage with one another, if we can find spaces to do that, and there are different organizations around the country doing this, we highlight a few of them in our work from, uh, interfaith, uh, America, uh, run by a Muslim American named Ibu Patel to the Multifaith Neighbors Network, run by, uh, Dr.

Chris (14:05):

Robert, uh, Bob Roberts here in, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that are bringing these different communities together to get this very perspective. And, and again, I wanna emphasize that doesn't mean they're gonna come away agreeing on every issue ne nevermind in an issue as, as controversial and as polarizing, because people feel such passion for it as abortion and abortion rights. Right? But the fact of people getting in the room humanizing the other, I think is the, the only place you can start. Because if you don't do that, we continuous cycle of demonization, that that will get us nowhere.

William (14:39):

Yeah. And I would, I would add to that, that, uh, what's kind of stood out to me or has stood out to me in this research we did for this project is that religious pluralism, practicing religious pluralism requires the active voice. Now you have to actively engage with others, and that requires listening to each other. As I said a second ago, you're not trying to rebut them or convert them, you're trying to hear their story. And let me just say, I don't do that perfectly, you know, 10% of the time. Uh, so I'm, I'm guilty too. I think one thing that, uh, stood out to me was, you know, there re to respect the citizenship of others. And Darrell Bach, um, a a college friend of mine from University of Texas Days, who's the Dallas Theological Seminary, been there as professor a long time, had a good line.

William (15:29):

He said that if you, if you're entering the public arena in some capacity, whether that is in politics or that's in social media or someplace else, uh, you know, consider first whether you're entering as a citizen or you think of yourself entering as in a privileged position. If you're entering as a citizen, which he suggests we should in a public pluralistic society, then you're here, you're here to understand the other respect, the other, share your own views, um, respect each other. Uh, that would be different than if you entered with a position of privilege where you are assuming that, uh, you know, you, you have this, uh, um, uh, power over the other that, that you're a, a position of p privilege will lead you more likely to try to dominate the other person

George (16:22):

In line with what you're saying. I, I was taken with, uh, the introduction in the Washington Post by a new, uh, series that's gonna be, uh, uh, coming out this year by a man named Daniel Pink called Why Not. And in introducing it, uh, he said, this is gonna be based on three sets of values. And I thought this perfectly applied to my organization, faith Commons, and I think to this pluralism project as well. And it, it's in line with what you're saying. The first is curiosity over certainty, then openness over cynicism and conversation over conversion.

William (17:05):

Hmm.

George (17:06):

Seems to me that those three pairings would be wonderful guiding principles for this, uh, uh, pluralism, uh, approach that you're talking about. Yeah,

Chris (17:17):

Agreed. I agree a hundred percent. Um, you know, the <laugh>, the only problem is actually doing it. And, you know, and it, and it seems so simple when we say it in three easy steps, but this, this is something that needs to be practiced. These are skills to be developed. Um, and again, that's why, that's why engagement with these other faiths and other groups that think differently from us is so important. Those are opportunities to engage these very things. And you hear this a lot, these, these different skills because, because they've been proven to work from, instead of trying to win an argument, exemplify curiosity, ask them why they feel that way, uh, for genuine interest, but also just to help them explain their point. Uh, maybe there's something you missed. Maybe there's something they missed. There's great value in, in going through that exercise. Um, but no, a hundred, a hundred percent agree.

William (18:10):

And, and one other thing that I, I would throw in there, um, is, you know, we found through this research, in fact, we found this over and over, that collaborating on common projects is really, uh, key and important to kind of breaking down, you know, whether that's a, a common project of, of serving meals to people who are unhoused or whether that is caring for the sick together in some capacity, whatever the project, you come together, uh, as one. And Chris brought up, uh, IBU Patel, who we've interviewed, uh, before, and he makes a point about hospitals being a great example. Pluralism. You may have a doctor from this faith, a nurse from that faith, a anesthetist from this faith, a you know, recovery person from that faith. They're all there on a shared project, and that's to get you well, um, they, you know, you're not there <laugh> to get baptized into their faith. You're there. They are there together on a common mission. And finding those opportunities for common mission is really important.

George (19:13):

You know, I think too, uh, coming out of my, uh, more conservative Baptist background, there was a fear that when you got into these kind of conversations, uh, that you would, uh, lose your commitment to your own, uh, faith truth. And that by engaging on an equal basis, you would be somehow legitimizing the idea of another religion being equal to yours. And I, I think that's part of the stumbling block that people have, uh, in, in, in doing so, is that they, uh, are, uh, they're, they're, they're afraid that, uh, en engaging will compromise something of the truth of their own religious tradition. What would you say to them in, in, uh, in, in that process?

Chris (20:03):

Well, I, I think the first step, and I, and I understand that fear, no one, no one wants to be proven wrong or to doubt, uh, deeply held beliefs. But I, I would argue when you're building, when you're entering into that relationship, when you're not to be talking about matters of faith, maybe, maybe start with the smaller questions. You, you don't have to get into the existential right away. Build trust in your relationship. Talk about common interests over a meal. I I know studies have shown that, uh, adding food to the mix, uh, adds definitely adds a sense of comradery, uh, sense of fellowship, uh, and work your way into those issues. And if someone challenges you and, and you're, you, pause, that is a, that is a chance to dive deeper into your own faith to answer questions maybe you don't fully have. And, and I, I can't stress enough. I think that's perfectly okay. It's scary, but I think it's okay. And you may go back and find out, oh, you were misthinking about something, thinking about something the wrong way, or you had misunderstood something that was said, and you didn't explain it very well when you were in the debate. So that's an opportunity for you to go back and strengthen your own argument.

William (21:08):

Right? And I also think of times where I've engaged others, you know, about my own religious faith. So I'm a Presbyterian, uh, you know, there are times I will come away thinking, and, and I hope this doesn't imply a closed mind. I've certainly learned from others, and I've learned you to broaden my own Christian faith through being engaged with other people clearly and through experience. But there are times I come away thinking, okay, now I know really why I do sometimes think the way I do, why I am kind of in the reformed tradition. Uh, and it doesn't mean I think the other person is bad. I just think, okay, this is why this makes sense to me. In the same way, and this is going through my mind when we're talking about this, um, backpacking through Europe many years ago, uh, as a recent college graduate, uh, I really discovered I was backpacking through Europe. I really discovered I'm an American. It was through engaging with these other cultures, uh, right down to the shoes I wore, you know, the type of shoes, <laugh>. Uh, and I just thought, okay, I'm an American. That's who I am. And that doesn't mean they give me the right to just, you know, trumpeted over somebody else all the time. But that's who I'm,

George (22:17):

Well, I, I, I think if we, if we begin with the idea that reality is one and whole, and truth is therefore, uh, one as well, then if there's any truth in other religions as we are listening to them, it should actually help to, uh, give us some deeper understanding about our own right. I, I, I, I, I found myself, um, uh, in this interfaith work, and, and I tend to choose the language of interfaith rather than multifaith only because it feels to me like interfaith allows me to be changed by the other, uh, where in a multifaith sense we, I, I'm respecting the place of everyone around me, but I, I want to know how God might be at work in someone else's faith to, uh, deepen my own. And an example of that might be for me, for instance, in relationship to, uh, a, a Buddhist tradition, when I hear Jesus saying, uh, to deny oneself and take up the cross and follow me, uh, there, there's a, there's a lot in the Buddhist tradition that talks about setting us, emptying oneself and setting aside, uh, the egocentricity and those sorts of things.

George (23:36):

I'm not sure I would've fully understood that, uh, in, in the way that I do today if it were not for engagement with the Buddhist tradition and saying what's similar and different in, in the way they think of that in, in the way our Christian faith, uh, treats. It, it, it enriched my understanding of my own faith tradition to, to hear that and to recognize that, uh, they're working on a concept concept, uh, that's not terribly unlike what Jesus said.

Chris (24:07):

You know, I, two, two thoughts that come to mind after hearing you say that is, I brought up Arthur Brooks earlier. He's, uh, he's also a devout Catholic. As, as am I, at least I try to be. Um, and, you know, he often talks about, to your point, the Buddhist faith, um, uh, the Dalai Lama, uh, and the, his, his spiritual enlightenment and guidance. And I think that has made Arthur Brooks more confident in his own faith, having those insights, learning from that perspective. Um, for myself, uh, talking with some of my, uh, uh, Protestant friends, uh, you know, Catholics are notoriously bad about reading their bibles about knowing scripture. I remember getting into a, a debate, not an argument, but a, a, a good natured debate about why Catholics believe in confession, uh, and ended up forcing me to go read my Bible and, and look at some of the arguments for that. So again, I, I go back to this idea about engaging with other faiths or even other faiths from your, your particular or other perspective, other sex and your particular religion helps strengthen your own viewpoint. I, and I don't know why you would, why you would resist such a thing.

George (25:18):

So, uh, Hans Kung, the Catholic theologian, uh, famously said, no peace among the nations without first peace among the religions. And I think we've recognized that religions have been at the heart of a lot of, uh, conflicts among nations. We certainly are seeing a piece of that right now in the Middle East, uh, with, uh, the war in Gaza. And, uh, that's not the only place in the world. We've, we've seen this, uh, but we have on, on a lesser scale, but on a cultural basis, uh, a similar struggle here in the United States even now. So as we, as we sort of wrap up our conversation today, I, I wonder if you would express some, uh, hope to our listeners about how this, uh, commitment to a more vigorous, uh, religious pluralism might play out, at least in our own country, uh, toward a healing of our, uh, democracy and a strengthening of our national, uh, identity.

Chris (26:30):

No easy questions on this discussion, for sure. <laugh>,

William (26:34):

I'll take this, and then you can jump in after you get the bat cleaned up. Chris, take your time. I'm encouraged both at the international level and the local level. Clearly there are a lot of tension. So let me just preface that. So no doubt. But you look at this multifaith neighbors network that Pastor Roberts and others, uh, leaders of three major Abrahamic face, uh, get together. They have these conferences, they have these projects they work on together, and they, and Chris and I went to one, and maybe you were, were there too, George, but it was, uh, at, uh, in Keller, Texas at Pastor Robert's Church. And there are people who have very sharp differences and come through this differently, uh, but to see them be real pals and really un try to understand each other. So I'm encouraged by that. I'm encouraged about other projects I've seen, some of which we mentioned this essay before.

William (27:26):

You see scholars laity coming together to try to understand each other's text and what they mean. Uh, and I think that's really encouraging. And then at the local level, what you're doing there, George, what others are doing, uh, in our backyard here in North Texas, which is true in other local communities, they just probably don't get the attention, but they are, uh, points of light, if you will, that are creating kind of a common ground. Going back to that Harvard definition I talked about a second ago, that you're trying to create a common society out of this diversity, uh, and they give me hope. Wonderful.

Chris (28:05):

I mean, hard to, hard to put it much better than that. So maybe just a quick, broad, broad thought on this is that almost 250 years later, our democracy is becoming more demographically diverse. Um, and it's standing, you know, and it, it endures. And that doesn't mean there are challenges, but guess what? There were challenges a hundred years ago. There were challenges when our nation was divided through a brutal and bloody civil war, and yet we're still standing. Um, and I'm, I'm encouraged by more leadership in general, uh, that says something is wrong where we're so polarized and our discussions and debate are so toxic that we need to make a change. I think specifically of a, of a governor, Spencer Cox, Republican of Utah, governor Jared Polis, uh, uh, governor, democratic governor of Colorado, who have come together to put together a, what they call the disagree better initiative.

Chris (28:59):

How can we use developed skills that we can engage with one, one another? And we've, we've talked about some of the different skills that they promote to have better disagreement, to have better argument toward a more productive end, instead of just vilifying and demonizing others. Uh, that gives me a lot of hope. And, and, and the last thing is, you may think, oh, it's just a couple governors who are saying something, and their words will be lost in the, in the, in the void of, of contempt. I disagree with that. There's very little incentive it seems, nowadays, to take that courageous step of actually saying, we should not demonize a opponent. So I think that's a huge win. But here's the, here's the selfish part that we can take away for, for our political leaders. There's actually incentive for them to do this kind of thing for all of us to do this kind of thing.

Chris (29:44):

Uh, there is a, a group called A More In Common, and they do a study called Hidden Tribes. And what their study shows is that they're the, the vast majority of the country, almost, uh, two thirds is what we call the exhausted majority, who are tired of the current state of polarization, toxic divide. Uh, and they're hungry for people who are willing to compromise and to talk to the other side. And even if they don't get everything they want to get things done, uh, that says a lot of the elements are there to turn things around. And that gives me a lot of hope.

George (30:18):

Well, Chris Walsh and Bill McKenzie, you are po points of light, uh, that are pointing away, uh, for us. And it, it may not be a high beam at this point, but there's enough to take one more step together right along this path. And thank you for the work you all do at, uh, the Bush Institute as well. Uh, a treasure here in Dallas and, uh, uh, uh, always a contributor toward, uh, knitting back together the fabric of our afraid, um, nation. And we, uh, are grateful for all of that. Where can they go? Where can our, our listeners go to find more articles and more about your project?

Chris (30:57):

Well, they can go to, uh, www.bushcenter.org, uh, and they can find the pluralism challenge there on the site with all the different articles that we had, uh, mentioned earlier.

George (31:08):

Terrific. Well, Chris and Bill, thanks so much for being with us on Good God. Thank you, George. Thank you.

Chris (31:14):

Good to see you. Appreciate it.