In June 2006, Maria Reis Habito and Kurt Schreiber gave an initial workshop on MWR during the conference “Rethinking Educational Change”, organized by the GHPF in Ifrane, Morocco. This was followed by a meeting to explore a replication of MWR in Germany in Neversdorf in July 2006. Another discussion on the replication of MWR was held during the conference “World Religions after 9.11”, co-organized by Mc Gill University and the Parliament of World Religions in Montreal in September 2006. The MWR model as part of the planned “House of Prayers” in Jerusalem was discussed in an Elijah Board Meeting during that same conference. The Lewes meeting was the fourth in this series of exploratory meetings. Additional meetings are planned for North America.

Purpose of the Lewes MWR Meeting:

Discussion of the applicability of the Taipei model to the United Kingdom and the necessary changes to the Taipei model that would be needed to meet local conditions and needs of religious education in the United Kingdom

Structure of the Meeting:

I) Introduction of the MWR by film and powerpoint. (see attachment 2: MWR Introduction) II) Report on the German initiative of replicating the MWR in Hamburg (see attachment 3: Werntgen report; attachment 4: Introduction UKS)

III) Participants’ Discussion of I and II

IV. Introduction of the St. Mungo Museum of Religious Art and Culture in Glasgow as an alternative model (see attachment 5: St. Mungo Museum)

V. Participants’ Discussion on the applicability of the MWR and St Mungo models in the current UK context.

Future Planning:

The next meeting of participants is proposed in Birmingham this coming summer with the purpose of further clarifying the issues.

Each participant was encouraged to consider further the following:

1. The mission, and suggested mission statements:

2. Names preferable to “museum”;

3. Additional “needs analysis” from the perspective of each of the participants:

4. Already existing institutions, both for links to those already addressing these issues
(such as St. Mungo) in the UK, and for lessons from others (such as the Museum of
Atheism in St. Petersburg):

5. Young people’s desires and views of the future;

6. Stakeholders in this project, and the role of religious leaders and communities – how
can this be created on a collaborative basis;

7. Alternative sites and structures, including the extent to which we need permanent structures, temporary structures (e.g., tents and festivals in outdoor spaces) and/or virtual structures (e.g., electronic and information resources and community networks);

8. Fundraising possibilities

SUMMARY of I [MWR]

MWR is an educational institution that teaches about religions and religious life in the world by exploring the fundamental values at the roots of religions. The mission of the museum is to encourage “Respect for every religion, tolerance of all cultures and love for all forms of life” by introducing its visitors to the wisdom of religious traditions in an interactive, transformative way, and by fostering dialogue among people of all religious and cultural backgrounds. The Museum is built on the vision of its founder, Ven. Dharma Master Hsin Tao, abbot of Wu-sheng monastery on Ling-jiu mountain, Taiwan. The content of the Museum was developed by a team of scholars under the direction of Prof. Larry Sullivan, director of the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard University; the design was created by Ralph Applebaum, designer of the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and other museums.

Key aspects of the Taipei MWR:

- An institution of learning in which the visitor will find well-structured information about important aspects of the World’s religions;

- An interactive, multi-media space which (a) immerses visitors in a transformative experience, (b) shows the relationship of religions to the stages of human life; (c) lets visitors view religions from different perspectives and time-frames; and lets them explore religions as expression of a universal search for purpose, meaning and enlightenment.

- The visit of the museum is conceived both as pilgrimage and participation in the 3 fold parts of a ritual: separation from everyday life, transformative experience, reentry into daily life.

- The vision of the relationship between religions is based on the Buddhist concept of the Avatamsaka world: Affirmation of religious pluralism and teaching of interconnectedness and interdependence, as symbolically expressed in the image of Indra’s net. All religions are interconnected as the jewels in Indra’s net. Religious conflicts and violence are not intrinsic to the teaching of religion, but based on misunderstanding, “religious blindness” or misuse of religion for other goals.

- The goal of the visit is transformation: from prejudice to mutual understanding and tolerance, from self-centeredness to realization of interconnectedness and compassion, from low self-esteem to the affirmation of the infinite value of life.

SUMMARY of II [German Initiative]:

The challenges of translating these aspects of MWR into the context of Germany were highlighted by Dr. Cai Werntgen in his report on the Neversdorf meeting, hosted by the Forum Humanum Foundation in July 2006. Key questions are the following:

-Can Dharma Master Hsin Tao, founder of MWR and a charismatic figure, be replaced in a German institution? Is creation of a MWR in Germany possible without a charismatic leader? Issues of vision, advertising, fundraising.

-To what extent should resources provided by the Sullivan-Applebaum team be used or replaced? Issues of possible alternative models, and of license fees.

-Can the transformative approach of MWR be replicated under Western conditions? Is the Avatamsaka concept translatable? If not, how can it be replaced? Issues of a workable foundation for an MWR based in a non-Buddhist cultural context.

Next, the report focused on a): the requirements with respect to the UKS foundation:

-Its academic “research” orientation: Any translation of MWR must fulfill requirements of German academic, science-dominated discourse. Issue: How to find a transformative approach that integrates dialogue with “science”?

-Any MWR replication has to fit the foundation’s mission of formulating a concept of human life and spirituality strong enough to withstand future challenges of technology and science.

b): requirements with respect to the situation in Germany

- marked by high degree of secularization, by “religious disinheritance” (fundamental loss of spiritual inheritance). What points of entry or reference can be found make spiritual transformation a possibility?

- the so-called “return of religions”-- which indicates an increasing religious disinheritance: a new constellation in which spirituality becomes an accessory lifestyle of the Ego-individual, without any link to a tradition or institutional framework.

- General treatment of religion by the media: open suspicion of any form of religious mission or commitment, especially with regard to Eastern traditions.

Conclusions:

1) The translation of the MWR model in Germany marks a project at least as challenging as the creation of the Taipei model. The transformative, life-based approach is a most promising model. But great care has to be taken that it will not be considered as too simplistic, naïve.

2) “Reinventing” the Taiwan model for a German context will require a new academic think tank. This think-tank will have to replace the “engine-function” of Dharma Master.

3) A three step approach is needed:

i.The programmatic translation work by academic scholars- based on an explicit neutral position of reflection, leading to ii.the formation of strategic alliances with academia, politics, media, leading to iii.Fundraising activities.

4) This is a long-term approach, but this much needed reflection work will raise the project to a higher level of complexity, which is seen as an asset to Interfaith work and a necessary condition for success in a German context.

The foundation is prepared to embark on this project, but its capacities are limited. Dr. Werntgen suggests a number of Think-tanks meetings, consisting of academic researchers, education experts, museum experts, politicians and media/marketing specialists to sharpen the focus of the project as precondition for any future systematic management of the German Museum project .

SUMMARY of III [Participants’ Discussion]

The discussion raised the following issues:

- Multiculturalism in the UK: a “deliberate piece of social engineering”. Can we deal with the problem by placing diverse groups on one level – giving them equal space, arts festivals etc. Many people feel this has backfired. What is a better solution?

- Process: Some felt that, while planning is necessary, the UK project should not be delayed by think tanks, which are only be based on current expertise. The better course is to proceed with the center and include processes to ensure that the program is adjusted from time to time in response to feedback.

- Religious education in the UK: Textbooks are not adequate; they teach stereotypes How to remedy the situation?

- Politicization of Interfaith: Fear-whipped up by politicians and media. Interfaith groups go to lottery, British home-office for support. Interfaith diverted from integrity into channels wanted by government. How do deal with the situation? How to find appropriate financial support?

- Diversity: How can the diversity within each faith adequately be addressed in a Museum? Who will be representative of which faction? How to deal with the problem of adequately translating religious terms and notions?

- Ownership/Fundraising: Who will be in charge of the Museum? How much power of decision will be given to the different religious groups? Will they buy into the project if the ownership is not theirs? How to deal with the problem of different groups wanting
to take over – as in the example of the Interfaith Center in Oxford? Where is the cut-off point? Who does the fundraising? Is a charismatic religious figure like Dharma Master necessary, or would it disaffect possible stakeholders?

- Name: “Museum” is a Western concept. Although it is changing, it is often associated only with exhibition of lifeless objects, rather than with transformation. “Museum of Religion” will keep many people off.

- Audience: Who is the Museum for? Will religious people be surprised to see sacred objects behind glass cases? Do we focus on the historical perspective of religion, or on needs of people right here and now? One problem may be how to attract those who do
not adhere to any religious faith. Although religion is not a popular topic in the UK, spirituality, wholeness, and values are regarded as important. The project should include a focus on the values at the root of religions, and promote an understanding of
“communality” and a global ethic of respect and sacrifice for others, rather than mere tolerance and acceptance.

- Sacred Space: Lower floor in MWR – stages of life- is very successful, but for some visitors the upper floor is like an “aquarium”. Each religious place has its own specific feeling, sounds, smell. How about including actual places of worship? Would it not convey the deeper meaning underneath the form? How does a museum create sacred space, shared sacred space?

- Transformation: Difference between knowledge (dead) and reflection. Transformative experience creates awareness of community between human beings and all things. What experiences would provide that transformation?

Suggestions given with regard to all these issues will be integrated in the summary of the final discussion in Part V.

SUMMARY of IV [St. Mungo Museum]:

Founded by the Glasgow City council, the St. Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art aims to promote mutual understanding and respect between peoples of different faiths and those of no faith. 9/11 and politicization of sectarianism in Scotland has made its work more relevant to society today than when it first opened in 1993. The presentation highlighted three topics:

- The purpose of the Museum: promotion of respect and tolerance in a city historically divided by religious practices. It does so by introducing objects and teachings of the different World Religions in the Gallery of Religious Art, as well as focusing on the local conditions in the Scottish Gallery. Special exhibits are changed every six months. In contrast to MWR, the St. Mungo Museum takes up very controversial and divisive topics to address how religions are used to support intolerance and hate (example: KKK poster) It also shows the darker aspects of religion – such as persecution, sectarianism, violence.

- Interaction with local faith communities: Members of local communities were consulted from the start, yearly Interfaith events (“Meet your neighbor”), monthly adult lecture discussion programs, issue-based programs on sectarianism, social justice etc. Outreach to art-groups, police, politicians, interfaith councils to provide training on matters of religious awareness

- Education: The museum functions as catalyst for discussion, visitors are invited to explore solution to problems affecting their lives and that of others. Workshops on sectarianism, workshops on citizenship. Education programs have been given priority --1200 people take part in learning programs each month.

Conclusion:

St Mungo is a constantly evolving Museum. It has dealt with many difficulties, including visitors` reactions. This year’s program will explore topics such as slavery and crimes against humanity. The museum understands itself as catalyst for social awareness and change.

SUMMARY of V [Concluding Discussion]:

The discussion picked up the previous issues of diversity, ownership, name, function, mission, audience, space and location of the new institution to be created. It concluded with proposed steps to move forward. Participants were in favor of creating an institution of learning about religions, and moving forward on such a project without delay. The following suggestions were given:

- Multiculturalism/Diversity: It was acknowledged that the Taipei MWR functions in a more culturally homogenous environment than that of Glasgow or the rest of the UK. While some praised the Taipei model for presenting the “most important” aspects of the Worlds` religion, others felt that in the UK, focus needs to be more on local communities- following the St Mungo model. One aspect to be considered is that people may have multiple religious belongings. As a religious leader, Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh emphasized the importance of highlighting the communality in diversity (“we are all sparks form the same divine flame”). Diversity in ritual should not obscure communality in substance. The way to create communality and connection is through an intellectually, physically, emotionally, spiritually authentic experience.

- Ownership/Fundraising: MWR in Taiwan cost 66 Million US dollars; this would be an estimated 35 Million pounds in the UK. Suggestions included: setting up a charity for a “project of religions”; having religious communities involved as stakeholders; involving a religious leader, such as Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh as charismatic figure; getting support of large foundations; getting support of a neutral organization such as UNESCO; involving WCRP; finding support of EU; involving Tony Blair, Gordon Brown.

- Name: Interconnected with mission and audience. Majority of participants do not want to call the institution Museum of Religion. The name is considered of “huge importance”. Big name is needed to inspire people. Having UNESCO in the title would attract and reassure people. Alternative suggestion to Museum: “Faith-space, Living Faith, Center” One suggestion was to focus on values common to all religions, rather than on the religions.

- Function/Mission: Depends on targeted audience, but dual aspect was highlighted: Importance of making sense both of the Self and of the world. Spiritual Self-discovery, Self-exploration emphasized as precondition for inter-religious understanding and dialogue. Museum should show how religion is relevant to both self-exploration and to people’s lives on a daily basis, in interaction with those of other faith traditions, no faith, popular culture. Mission should “aim big”, on national scale, not focus only on “small local thing”. Institution should in no way be conceived as proselytizing. Web-site considered of great importance.

Further comments: Robust defense of religion is needed in today’s world. The institution should address people’s fears of religion, should deal with issue of Fundamentalism. It should show interconnection between Abrahamic traditions (not explained in current textbooks). Periods of peaceful co-existence of these religious should be highlighted, not only conflicts. Huntington’s thesis of “clash of civilizations” should be dealt with- by supporting the concept of an alliance of civilizations. It could be called “UNESCO Center of World Religions”. It should also deal with the topic of Atheism. (The Museum of Atheism in St. Petersburg had been mentioned earlier).

Suggestion by Dr. Cai Werntgen for Germany: A “Center of Spirituality” with different compartments including Hall of religions, but also science and popular culture.

- Audience: Emphasis that this is not an institution for only “religious people”. Young people, and “free-style seekers”, should be involved in the planning. Ethical, religious background of audience has to be considered. For example, 45% of London’s population is from ethnic minorities.

- Space: Agreement that institution should not be in housed in old church buildings etc. One suggestion was to consider the URI initiative of the “Shared Sacred Space” community in Bolton, UK, or The Eden Project in Cornwall. Another suggestion was the use of tents; an inter-religious tent-festival in Jerusalem is in the planning as first step towards the “house of prayer project” in Jerusalem. It may be possible to use one of the new structures being created for the Olympics. Space has to be conducive to inner exploration, while creating a welcoming space for people of multiple faith backgrounds and multiple belongings (both in terms of faith and other identities).
- Location: London, Birmingham, Leicester. Drawback of London–too big, hard to reach, expensive.

- Timing: Opinions divided. Some feel it is needed “right now.” Taipei model considered possible by some “as it is now” – should be transplanted without too much time and resource consuming think-tank work, relying more on future adjustment in response to feedback and experience. But many participants considered think tank meetings in the UK important.

Reported by:
Maria Reis Habito and Kurt Schreiber