How Did The United Religions Initiative Get Its Name?

By William E. Swing

How did the United Religions Initiative get its name?

The answer is both simple and complex.

The simple part is that I named it.

Now for the complex answer. I had spent several years pursuing a “United Religions.” When I mentioned this concept to others – of high religious esteem or ordinary believers of religions – I noticed that this concept usually elicited strong reactions and set imaginations stirring. Most people immediately told me why it would never work or that they were genuinely excited by the prospect. Or they cynically said, “Good luck with that!” But, by and large, the thought of a United Religions provoked resounding, fresh and novel speculation. I thought that I was on to something.

In addition, my own thinking had been spurred by the existence of the United Nations. (“If there is a United Nations, why shouldn’t there be a United Religions?”) I was looking for a title that would convey global gravitas and universal name recognition similar to the United Nations. Even if we were young and struggling ourselves into existence, our name would conjure up our intention to be – as arrogant as this sounds – a global reality on par with the United Nations.

Also, I got started on this pilgrimage because of the United Nations. Hosting the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations was the foundation point of all that followed. As a matter of fact, one of the early thoughts circulating in our founding group was that we might appeal to the United Nations to be an official arm of the UN. “The United Nations’ outreach to the faiths of the world – the Department of United Religions.” But we feared drowning in a sea of bureaucracy. Better to set off on our own path.

At the inaugural summit in late June of 1996, those assembled were shaken to the core when I reported that I had failed in my worldwide journey to be a catalyst for a United Religions. Moving on, we then decided to go beyond religion and to incorporate people of Indigenous traditions and spiritual expressions. If we were no longer exclusively focused on people of religions, then why stick with the words “United Religions” in our title?

This line of argument has popped up again and again in our history. And I am sure that it will in the future. For instance, rich foundations which give money away, often say to us, “We don’t give money to religions, and with a name like United Religions Initiative, we can’t give money to you.” We explain to them that our first principle is that “URI is a bridge-building organization, not a religion.” But they can’t get beyond our title.

Getting way ahead of the story, today we refer to ourselves as “URI,” and only use “United Religions Initiative” on formal occasions. “URI” is a much easier sell and requires far less explanation.

But back to the story. In 1996, we did try out other prospective names. People threw around words like “friendship,” “peoples of high value traditions,” “Love Alliance,” etc., but none of these seemed to me to bear the depth and universality that I envisaged. I didn’t want a trite name for a profound organization.

To add to the difficulty, it seemed to me that hardly any global organization dealing with religion has an accurate title. For instance, “The World Council of Churches” doesn’t have, as official members, Roman Catholics or Pentecostals. How can that be a World Council of Churches? Or take the Roman Catholic Church. “Catholic” means “universal,” but it excludes the Orthodox and the Protestants. How can that be the universal church? Or the “Parliament of the World’s Religions” implies a legislative body promulgating laws on a daily basis. Yet from 1893 to 1993, it didn’t meet once. What kind of a parliament is that? In my mind, I figured that, no matter what we called this new thing, we would end up advertising more in our title than we would be delivering. So we went ahead and chose a title that was bold, aspirational and reflective of its deepest roots. Even if it set us up for being misunderstood.

The year was 1996 when I named it. This was four years before we had a Charter or a Cooperation Circle. We had no money and no idea of what it was that we wanted to create – other than we knew it was going to be grassroots, women and men, and people of religions, Indigenous traditions and spiritual expressions. The hope for a coming United Religions was dead. Yet something else was coming alive, waiting to be born. And this baby had to have a name. So I named it. The United Religions Initiative. Now that name is 24 years old.

Why did I go with this name? a) It was very personal. I had invested so much in a United Religions, and I did not want the idea to evaporate. If, in the title, I could keep these first two words – “United Religions” – then I could keep an old dream of mine alive. A sacred dream, I thought. Someday in the future, there might actually be some organizationally creative way for religions to serve the world together. Not a super religion, but a super gathering place of common religious service to all humanity and all life. That goes to the deepest roots of my heart, and I wanted it in the title.

b) I really like the word “Initiative.” I love the feel of its spontaneity, creativity, fearlessness and willingness to be on pilgrimage into the unknown. By 1996, I had been a parish priest for 18 years and then a bishop for 16 years, and I had almost always elected to take the initiative. I was comfortable in ambiguity and balancing on the border looking for new life-giving solutions. So “Initiative” it became, and it too was very personal. Besides, it carries with it the humility of not having arrived but always being on the road.

Has the title “United Religions Initiative” proven to be a good one? A case could be made that it has.

Out of the Earth’s 7 billion people, about 5 billion are religious, so there is definitely a big pool of people to appeal to. Like it or not, religion is a major, consequential force in societies, cultures and nations all over the world. If we intend to assist in conflict resolution and society’s better functioning, then focusing on people of religions is a solid place to start. As a matter of fact, when URI receives applications for potential Cooperation Circles, individuals tend to describe themselves as coming from one religion or another, although plenty of them describe themselves as being from Indigenous tribes or humanistic movements.

Has the title “United Religions Initiative” proven to be an unfortunate one? A case could be made that it has.

For instance, in the present culture of the world, religion is often seen as “part of the problem rather than part of the solution.” Therefore, more and more young people are distancing themselves from anything that mentions religion and are looking for other agencies to find meaning for their lives. As URI begins a new phase of trying to appeal to individual members in addition to Cooperation Circle members, our title may be a problem for young seekers.

Historically, new members have come into the URI family and strongly suggested that we change our name. Ah, back to the naming! For 20 years, the world has gotten used to our name. But should the name be changed? Will the name be changed? That is for others to decide as time goes by. As for me, I got to name it once. The rightful name is in the hands of generations far removed from June, 1996.