**1. Introduction**

Human history is filled with numerous examples—both past and present—that make religion and violence appear to be best friends. The events surrounding 9/11 brought religiously inspired violence to the vanguard as one of the most pressing issues of our times (cf. Juergensmeyer 2017; Kimball 2008). While the conflictive dimensions of religion are still indisputably at the forefront of public and political attention, religion's significant resources for peace and reconciliation gain attention as well. The increasing interest in the constructive role of religion in processes of social change is embedded in a larger-scale development regarding the recognition of religion in public issues. For decades, Max Weber's pronouncement of a "disenchantment of the world", coupled with the post-Enlightenment relegation of religion to the private realm, had dominated the perception of religion in Western societies. Recent years, however, have seen the beginnings of a paradigm change. Religion sociologist Peter L. Berger even speaks of a "desecularization of the world" (Berger 1999). This assessment is supported by recent findings of the Pew Research Center, predicting that the 21st century will be a religious one

with almost all major religions gaining new members.<sup>1</sup> While Nicos Mouzelis points to "choice" as a "key element for understanding the present and future religious landscape" (Mouzelis 2012, p. 220) that is apparent in all three main features of modernity, namely the massive inclusion into the center, top-down di fferentiation and overall individualization, this sociological perspective neglects religion-immanent features from within their respective theologies as significant factors shaping both religions' self-understanding and their perception from the outside.<sup>2</sup> Policy makers, academics and practitioners have therefore started to pay closer attention to the significance of religion and the roles of religious actors in public issues and processes of social change.

Indicative of this increasing interest is the Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors, launched by UN Secretary-General Guterres in July 2017. It includes the following proposal: the United Nations should "establish a world forum of religions and beliefs that would bring together an equal representation of religious leaders and actors, policy makers, educators, and media personnel from all world regions. The forum would deliberate on the role of religions in enhancing peaceful, inclusive, and just societies. The forum would have regional hubs" (Plan of Action 2017). The plan not only points to the significance of religion in constructively addressing global challenges such as peace and justice, but also to the necessity of both a global perspective and local roots or "hubs".

While the acknowledgement and appreciation of the roles of religion in global issues are long overdue, religion is no panacea. Religion is innately ambiguous and can be employed to draw out both the best and the worst in humankind. This holds especially true with regards to peace and conflict. This contribution provides an analysis of the love–hate relationship between religion and peace in three consecutive steps. A first part focuses on the roles of religion in conflict. Owen Frazer and Mark Owen's six di fferent ways of thinking about religion provide a model for better understanding religion's conflictive sides (Frazer and Owen 2018; cf. Frazer and Friedli 2015). In a second step, this article discusses religion's potent, ye<sup>t</sup> often neglected constructive resources for sustainable peace. While taking into account the vast diversity of religious actors, certain content-based and formal characteristics emerge that help to shed light on the otherwise vague "religious factor" in peacebuilding (cf. Schliesser et al. forthcoming). In a third and final part, an example taken from post-genocide Rwanda will illustrate the preceding discussion.

### **2. Religion and Conflict—Six Ways to Better Understand Their Relationship**

In the past decade, the number of conflicts with a religious dimension have increased substantially. While in 2007 about 20% of countries world-wide experienced conflicts in which religion played a role, only ten years later the number had increased to 25% (Pew Research Center 2018). At the same time, there is wide-spread unclarity as to what in fact constitutes "religious violence". One problem connected with this term is that it might lead to the misunderstanding as if religion were the main or even sole driving force behind a certain conflict. Rather, conflicts always have multiple dimensions, including economic, political and social factors. Second, as of now, "no universally accepted definition of religion or faith exists" (Ware et al. 2016, p. 324). Yet, if it is not clear what exactly constitutes "religion", "religious violence" remains equally opaque. For the purpose of this contribution, I will employ a constructive-pragmatic concept of religion. This means understanding as "religion" what is described as "religion" by interlocutors and communities in a given context (Waardenburg 1986). A third problematic factor connected to the term "religious violence" is a potentially one-sided

<sup>1</sup> The Pew Research Report 2015 indicates that all major religions, with the exception of Buddhism, will increase in membership. By 2050, the number of Muslims worldwide will match the number of Christians. In Europe, 10% of the population will be Muslims (Pew Research Center 2015).

<sup>2</sup> In Christian theology, for example, the paradigm of "Public Theology" has been gaining increasing attention as it emphasizes the relevance of both theology for public issues and public issues for theology (cf. Storrar and Morton 2004). For a more sceptical view on the question of a "return of religion" (cf. Wilson 1982 and Martin 2005).

legitimation of violence by insinuating that "religious" violence is always irrational and fanatical and must be contained by "secular" violence which is always rational and controlled (cf. Cavanaugh 2004).

Conflict analysis tends to shy away from the consideration of religion. The "religious factor" is either deemed irrelevant and therefore neglectable or too complex to be of any real use. The first perspective ignores a sometimes fundamental aspect in the analysis of a conflict, while the second perspective neglects the fact that religion is often tied to di fferent dimensions that each impact a conflict in a certain way and that can be clearly di fferentiated. In the following, I will outline six di fferent ways of how religion might function within a given conflict.<sup>3</sup> These six dimensions are not mutually exclusive, but rather any conflict is likely to display several of them. At the same time, these di fferent ways of thinking about the role of religion do not have clear-cut boundaries, but canoverlap at times. Like religion, each aspect is ambiguous in and of itself; it can serve to create division and strife, while it also contains potent resources for overcoming hatred and for building peace.
