Saturday, March 31, 2007

A Great Book for Holy Week: "Beyond the Passion" by Stephen Patterson

Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus by Stephen J. Patterson, 2004, Augsburg/Fortress Press.


I just finished reading this great little book. Its a quick read with 161 pages of text, with its extensive notes at the end of the book and chock full of information about the life and society in the time of Jesus.

The author Stephen J. Patterson teaches New Testatament at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis. "One of the great mistakes of Christian theology has been our attempt to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus apart from his life," he writes. When I spoke at Eden last week, I made the same point, even though I approached it through the theologies of Atonement. (See my blog post on March 19, 2007)

In recent times there has been an eagerness in the Christian community to make such a separation, the highlight of which is Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," where the violence of flogging and the crucifixion was at a pornographic level. Basing himself on the scripture "By his stripes we are healed" Gibson seemed to say that the more Jesus sufferred the more we were atoned for our sins. I argued against such a theology when the movie was released three years ago, and Patterson offers a similar argument in this book.

The first followers of Jesus generally did not understand the death and resurrection apart from his life. The gospels portray his death only as a consequence of his life. Therefore before we can deal with Jesus' death, we must deal with his life.

For instance, when Jesus came into Galilee he announced that the empire of God was at hand. The Pax Romana, the established emprie maintained itself through violence. It was politically, economically and socially structured as a pyramid of patronage, the wealthy and powerful at the top and the poor and dispossessed at the bottom, held together by “loyalty, piety and Roman family values.”

The empire of God, described and demonstrated by Jesus, was structured horizontally, as a “open table” where all people are equally welcome, including expendable people like fishermen, prostitutes, lepers, beggars, the sick and the disabled. Soon, the empire of God was seen as subversive of the empire of Caesar.

Who killed Jesus? The Roman empire did; for sedition. It was probably around Passover, on order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect. Jesus was a victim of the Empire. Christians must totally get rid of our inclination to say the Jews killed Jesus -- this is critically important, not just because our history of anti-semitism, but it is important for our own theological consistency and spiritual well-being. Patterson clearly points out that those people in Pilate's yard who shouted "crucify him" were a different crowd than those who followed him into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Those "Jews" were not allowed in Pilate's yard. Those who shouted "crucify him," were a mob organized by the Empire's operatives.

How do you find meaning in such a death? Patterson focuses on three early Christian understandings of the death of Jesus: as “Victim,” as “Martyr,” and as “Sacrifice.” Each chapter building on the previous one takes the reader through what these conceptual strands would have meant at the time of Jesus. Patterson says that these three ways of understanding the death of Jesus were also ways of calling attention to his life. “His death mattered to them because his life had mattered to them. They spoke of his death in ways that affirmed his life, and reaffirmed their own commitment to the values and vision stamped into his life by his words and deeds.”

Patterson reminds us that resurrection was a common belief in many ancient religions. The proclamation that Jesus has been resurrected was not a unique one. In Jewish tradition, to say that God had raised someone from the dead meant that because he was faithful to God unto death he was vindicated by God. But Jesus was a nobody. He was born a peasant and died a criminal. What is remarkable is the early church's claim that this Jesus had been raised from the dead. It was Jesus, and not Caeser. The resurrection signals how the Empire of God triumphs over the Empire of Rome.

This rethinking of the death and life of Jesus is a profound challenge to the contemporary church. Patterson suggests that the death of Jesus as victim could hold meaning for us still, “if we have the courage to face it - and to face the consequences of realizing how inhospitable the world remains to Jesus’ vision of God’s empire.”

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Interfaith ministry a model for diplomacy

On Wednesday, March 28th I gave a briefing to the Committee of Religious NGOs at the UN on our delegation to Iran. The text of my material was similar to my speech at the World Public Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations in Paris. Please see blog entry of March 14, 2007. The following is a press release from the NCC on that event. Click here for the story on the NCC website.



New York City, March 29, 2007 – The tension between Iran and the United States was on the minds of many in the international religious community today. The Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana, associate general secretary for interfaith relations at the National Council of Churches USA, spoke to nearly 50 leaders from religious non-governmental organizations working on issues at the United Nations.

"Tensions can often be creative," said the NCC's Dr. Premawardhana. While he was speaking directly about work between differing religious traditions he was pointing also to the necessity to remain in dialogue when tense issues develop between nations. "We need to commit to being at the table when things are tense," he said.

Premawardhana was one of 13 Baptist, Episcopal, Quaker, Mennonite, Roman Catholic and United Methodist religious leaders from the U.S. who spent a week in Iran last month meeting with religious and governmental leaders there. The delegation was organized by the Mennonite Central Committee which has had relationships in Iran since it engaged in relief work following an earthquake in 1990.

The delegation earlier this week had called for restoring diplomatic relations between Iran and the U.S. In a statement, the delegation said: "The US and Iran should have the same channels as the United States did with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War to avoid circumstances where misunderstandings, accidents, or other unanticipated events could lead to a military confrontation."

The statement came following Iran's abduction of British sailors and Royal Marines in either Iraqi or Iranian waters.

The religious delegation was engaging in what is called "track two" diplomacy. It is direct, unofficial and person-to-person diplomacy that often develops relationships among constituent leaders in nations that find themselves at odds.

"It is my hope we see the Iranian religious leaders visit this country to continue the dialogue," said Premawardhana, speaking in a conference room overlooking the U.N. complex on Manhattan's east side. The several story office building, owned by the United Methodist Church, is home to many religions and faith groups.

"My second hope is to encourage exchanges between members of the U.S. Congress and the Iranian Parliament," said Premawardhana.

Many questions came from representatives of the Bahai International Community who have grave concerns for Iranian Bahais. Tahirih Naylor, representative of the Bahai U.N. office, asked if there was any encouraging news from the delegation about members of their faith.

"One of the questions we asked was how a theocratic country can make room for religious minorities," reported Premawardhana. But he told the leaders the answers "unfortunately" were eclipsed by the discussions on nuclear weapons development and the Holocaust denial conference held in Iran.

Premawardhana said members of the delegation were making contact with members of Congress reporting on their discussions with the Iranian ayatollahs and Iran's controversial elected leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The NCC's Interfaith Relations online ministry, seasonsofprayer.org, was launched to help various faith groups plan religious services for peace. More resources will be added next week as Jews celebrate Passover and Christians enter Holy Week leading up to the Feast of the Resurrection.

The NCC is the ecumenical voice of America's Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, historic African American and traditional peace churches. These 35 communions have 45 million faithful members in 100,000 congregations in all 50 states.

NCC News contact: Dan Webster, 212.870.2252, NCCnews@ncccusa.org.Picture of Premawardhana by Kathleen Cameron
Latest NCC News at http://www.councilofchurches.org.

Monday, March 26, 2007

U.S. religious leaders say Iranian-British dispute shows need for diplomacy -- NCC Press Release

An Interfaith Dialogue Session at the Organization of Culture and Islamic Relations

Below is the text of a NCC issued a press release today on the statement of religious leaders who went to Iran on the urgency of diplomatic ties. Click here for the NCC Press Release


Philadelphia, March 26, 2007 – The delegation of U.S. religious leaders who visited Iran last month says the "Iranian seizure of British naval personnel underscores in dramatic fashion our call for diplomatic relations" between the U.S. and Iran.

"The US and Iran should have the same channels as the United States did with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War to avoid circumstances where misunderstandings, accidents, or other unanticipated events could lead to a military confrontation," said a statement [complete text below] released last Friday (March 23) by eight members of the delegation including the Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana, associate general secretary for interfaith relations at the National Council of Churches USA.

"When political leaders mess up, religious leaders ought to be here to go and build up the people, build up relationships, and bring the conversation up to the high moral ground," the Rev. Dr. Premawardhana told this past weekend's PBS broadcast, NOW. A producer from NOW accompanied the 13 religious leaders on its February trip to Tehran and the holy city of Qom. The program may be viewed online at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/312/video.html .

The leaders of Baptist, Quaker, Mennonite, Evangelical, United Methodist, Episcopal and Roman Catholic church groups were the first official American delegation of any kind to visit Iran in 28 years. They met with Iranian religious and government officials including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the controversial president of Iran.

The statement's release came following a meeting here of the delegation to plan future actions designed to help lessen tensions between Iran and the U.S.


The text of the statement follows:


U.S. Religious Leaders Issue Statement Regarding Iranian-British Incident in the Gulf. Renew Call for Direct Talks with Iran

(March 23, 2007) The incident today of Iranian seizure of British naval personnel underscores in dramatic fashion our call for diplomatic relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran does have an ambassador in London and we understand that communications between Great Britain and Iran are already underway. We pray that this matter will be resolved quickly and peacefully, without harm to human life.

The US and Iran should have the same channels as the United States did with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War to avoid circumstances where misunderstandings, accidents, or other unanticipated events could lead to a military confrontation. That is why we again call for diplomatic ties with Iran, believing that a new day for US-Iran relations is both possible and necessary.

Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary, American Friends Service Committee*
Rev. Ron Flaming, Director of International Programs, Mennonite Central Committee
Rev. J. Daryl Byler, Washington Office Director, Mennonite Central Committee
Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Service Committee on National Legislation
Jonathan Evans, Special Representative for Iran, American Friends Service Committee
Maureen Shea, Director, Office of Government Relations, Episcopal Church USA
Rev. Dr. Shanta Devadasa Premawardhana, Associate General Secretary for Interfaith Relations, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
Rev. Jeff Carr, Chief Operating Officer, Sojourner/Call to Renewal

*Organizations listed for affiliation purposes only

Saturday, March 24, 2007

NOW Program: Talking to Iran

In case you missed the PBS' NOW News magazine about our Iran delegation click here to see the video.


For other details on the show click here for the NOW website


Producer Jamila Paksima with
former president Khatami

Friday, March 23, 2007

An Exercise in Christian Realism: My Response to Rabbi James Rudin

Rabbi James Rudin, a respected voice in Jewish Christian relations wrote a strong critique of the Christian delegation's trip to Iran in his Religion News Service column of March 8, 2007. The following published by Religion News Service yesterday, is my response to Rabbi Rudin.


GUEST COMMENTARY: An Exercise in Christian Realism, Not Spineless Diplomacy By SHANTA PREMAWARDHANA c. 2007 Religion News Service

The late William Sloane Coffin, standing squarely on the tradition of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and preaching from the pulpit of Riverside Church, said: "The axis of evil is not Iraq, North Korea and Iran. A much more formidable trio is environmental degradation, the pandemic of poverty and a world awash in weapons."
That is Niebuhr's Christian realism at its best, the type of Christian realism that Rabbi James Rudin says he admires. Yet Rudin might say to Bill Coffin, "There you go again!"

I'd like to respond to Rudin's March 8 column for Religion News Service, "An Exercise in Spineless Christian Diplomacy." Rudin wrote about the delegation of Christian leaders to Iran last month led by the Mennonite Central Committee and the American Friends Service Committee.

I was a member of that delegation.

I am astounded that Rudin, a respected voice in Jewish-Christian relations, began his column with a condescending and derogatory remark made by Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again," to insult the necessary and critically urgent work of peace-building undertaken by the Christian delegation to Iran. His ire for Christian initiatives in peace-building, particularly with foreign leaders, colors this one.

Far from "swooning," as Rudin says, the delegation recognized the dire circumstances of the region, engaged Iranian religious leaders in dialogue, argued with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and clung to the slightest ray of light that might illuminate a way forward.

My close relationships with Jewish colleagues -- including those at Rudin's organization, the American Jewish Committee -- have made me deeply sensitive to the issues around the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and the denial conference he held in December are clearly despicable. We at the National Council of Churches have said so, and loudly.

As Rudin himself acknowledges, I raised the question forcefully and forthrightly with Ahmadinejad, indicating in no uncertain terms our strong disdain for his views. I believe he needed to hear that challenge from someone other than a Jew. It is good that he heard it from an American Christian.

Refusing to engage the so-called "enemy" is a prescription for disaster, yet that seems exactly what Rudin would have us do. Consider the following:

-- Ahamdinejad told us he is not building nuclear weapons because Iran is an Islamic country and Islamic Scripture forbids them. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has issued a fatwa against such weapons. On the other hand, as a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he said, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy.

Rudin, rather than seize the slight ray of light that is in that statement, would disregard that comment and continue as if Iran is building nuclear weapons. And to what end? Would he encourage President Bush to attack Iran? Would he encourage Israel, which unlike Iran is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to use its nuclear weapons against Iran?

Perhaps Rudin is pushing for the military option. That, in my opinion, does not fit into any definition of realism, let alone a Christian one.

-- Second, Ahmadinejad told us there can be no military solution to Israel/Palestine conflict. Does Rudin disagree with that? Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seems ready for a political solution.

Ahmadinejad's solution to holding a plebiscite of all the people in the region is totally unacceptable, and I told him so. But again, I look for the single ray of light. The point is that the solution must be political and not military -- which means that we must engage in talks.

-- Third, Ahmadinejad said he is willing to talk to the U.S. government. He said he had written two letters: one to President Bush and another to the American people expressing his desire for dialogue.

The U.S. government is placing conditions before dialogue can take place. Show us some goodwill and we can talk, Ahmadinejad said. Here again is that ray of light. He referred to an old Iranian saying: If you take one step toward building a bridge, I will take 33 steps towards you.

Sometimes it is hard for governments to talk. Even if they do talk, governments know reasonableness sometimes can be misconstrued as weakness. This is when citizens must step in to the gap, and religious leaders must lead the way.

Citizen diplomacy can significantly grease the wheels to enable governments to talk to each other. If this delegation even cracked open the diplomatic door for other religious leaders, for other people-to-people dialogues, then that is an achievement in Christian realism.

(The Rev. Shanta Premawardhana is the associate general secretary for interfaith relations at the National Council of Churches in New York.)

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Iran Delegation on PBS' NOW Program


The Christian delegation to Iran last month will be featured on PBS' NOW program this weekend. Most broadcasts will be on Friday night at 8:30 p.m. (Eastern).

Their reporter traveled with us to Iran. I don’t know what perspective she’ll bring to the program, but whatever it is, it will be interesting.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Christians Stand for Peace while Other Christians Promote War


On Friday, March 16th, over 3000 Christians kicked off the weekend long protests in Washington DC, with a service at the National Cathedral. The event was organized by Presbyterian Peace Fellowship and included many mainstream Christian denominations.

Rick Ufford Chase, the organizer of the event told me that it is a specifically Christian event because Christians need to take ownership of a self-professedly Christian President who has taken us to war. 3210 US soldiers have so far died in that war, over 23,000 US soldiers have been injured and according to conservative estimates over 100,000 Iraqis have died so far.

As I said at the lecture at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis yesterday, we have to ask some hard theological questions about what in our faith makes Christianity a violent religion.


Interestingly, at the same time as Christians mobilize for peace commemorating the sad fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, other Christians namely John Hagee of Christians United for Israel are actively promoting war. I give you a link to a news report of an address Hagee made to AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee).

Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the State of Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and [President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."

Peace loving Christians must mobilize to actively challenge people like John Hagee. I would love to hear your suggestions about how we might effectively do this.

Click here to read Bill Berkowitz' opinion column entitled: Iran: The Religious Right's New Bugbear


Monday, March 19, 2007

Mission and Peace Lecture at Eden Theological Seminary

Eden Theological Seminary, St. Louis

On Monday, I gave the Mission and Peace lecture at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Prof. Damayanthi Niles whom I've known from our young days, invited me. On campus also were colleagues Prof. Michael Kinnamon, a leader in the ecumenical movement and the National Council of Churches, and Rev. Patrice Rosner, former colleague at the NCC, who now is director of Churches Uniting in Christ. It was a delight to meet many other colleagues who are professors and students at the Seminary.

My lecture entitled "A Theological Self-Critique: Prelude to Interfaith Dialogue" follows.


Theological Self-Critique: Prelude to Interfaith Peacemaking

Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana
Associate General Secretary for Interfaith Relations
National Council of Churches USA


A month ago, I participated in a delegation of Christian leaders to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Organized by the Mennonite Central Committee and the American Friends Service Committee, the delegation spent 5 days in Tehran and one in the sacred city of Qom. We met Ayatollahs, academics, political leaders, former president Khatami and President Ahmadinejad. That two and a half hour meeting signaled the first time in 28 years that any US delegation met with an Iranian president in Iran.

Our primary task, the delegation felt, was to cut through the confrontational rhetoric coming out of both Washington and Tehran, deepen the dialogue and create a safe space in which each can listen and begin to grasp the other’s expressions of pain embedded in tightly held narratives. We sought the partnership of religious leaders in Iran, so that we might together “stand in the gap” on behalf of our peoples.

When US Americans think about Iran, the first images that come to mind are those from the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis. Those images flashed on our television screens each of the 444 days the hostages were held. We did not take kindly to Ayatollah Khomeni who called America “the great Satan” and we looked upon their religious fervor with fear and disdain. Most Americans have had an adversarial relationship with Iran ever since.

When Iranians think about the United States, the first images that come to their mind are from 1953, when the CIA collaborating with the British intelligence agency overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. His sin, nationalizing the oil industry! He argued that Iran should benefit from its oil industry rather than the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became British Petroleum. In his stead, they placed the Shah. Iranians recall how this US backed dictator oppressed them for 25 years, until in a popular rebellion inspired by religious fervor; the people overthrew the Shah and instituted an Islamic Republic.

How do you negotiate between such competing narratives? This is where skills of interfaith dialogue can play a helpful role, for in interfaith dialogue we are constantly confronted not only with competing narratives, but also with competing truth claims and alternative centers of power and life’s allegiance. Some years ago, New York Rabbi Leon Klenicki famously said that interfaith dialogue is often about “Tea and Sympathy.” That time is now long gone. Interfaith dialogue today is often a complex negotiation between religious identities which are an entangled dynamic of not only culture and ethnicity but also of political ideology. So, for instance, the American military and economic involvement in the Middle East is perceived by some to be a Christian intrusion into the heart of the Muslim world. Threats by the Iranian president against Israel are seen as a Muslim war against Jews. And Jews as a religious people are seen as intricately involved with the modern state of Israel and its violence against Palestinians. Events such as the war in Iraq, the Israel-Hezbollah war, the cartoon controversy and the comments by the Pope have created an added level of complexity. Yet, among the religious leaders of Iran, we found partners willing to engage in such a dialogue. I can speak for hours on this, but I won’t, since that will take away from my main topic. Let me encourage you to visit my blog: www.nccinterfaith.blogspot.com. I look forward to your comments there.

Interfaith dialogue within the US too, is often a complex negotiation. Before the trip I called my Jewish colleagues to give them a “heads up” to help them understand my theological convictions that made this trip necessary. To some of my Christian colleagues who expressed reservations about this trip to Iran because they worried about what it would do to my relationships with Jews, I insisted that we never go to the dialogue table compromising the convictions of our faith or the practice of our ministry. None of our dialogue partners want that from us. I expected and did receive strong criticism from some in the Jewish community and I have responded with similar energy. Energetic engagement I believe will result in deepened dialogue and stronger relationships.

For three years now, I co-convene for the Christian denominations, a Jewish Christian leaders’ dialogue table. We have explored at some depth, questions like the theology of land and covenant, because we’ve come to believe that at the heart of the political crisis in the Middle East are such theological convictions. This table faced a crisis last year when the Israel-Hizbollah war erupted. We discovered to our utter dismay that we as Jewish organizations and Christian denominations could not together issue a call to our congregations to pray for peace – or more precisely, for ceasefire and dialogue. If Christians were to call for a ceasefire, one Jewish colleague told me, there would be no conversation. And of course, many of our churches, and the National Council of Churches vigorously called for a ceasefire. After the war, I asked my Jewish colleagues to help us understand how their theological convictions were able to justify that violence, if indeed they did. That conversation is still pending.

Similarly, our conversations with Muslims in the US are complex. I’ve said to my Muslim colleagues, I will gladly accept that Islam is a religion of peace, but we must acknowledge that many terrorists go to their suicide mission quoting the Qur’an. It is critically necessary therefore, that you take a hard look at those parts of your scripture that tend to legitimize such action, and provide authoritative interpretation so that when imams preach on Fridays they know that there’s another way to read that scripture and young people will understand it differently.

But those challenges put the onus right back on me. As a Christian I have to ask, how is it possible that a self-professedly Christian US president would consider war as his first response to international relations and use his faith to legitimize his violent actions. Indeed when people in many parts of the world think about Christianity, they immediately think of it as a violent religion. We in the west don’t have strong historical memories, but people elsewhere still remember the crusades, the practice of blessing wars and the warrior popes. They think about Christians even today as endorsing capital punishment, justifying slavery and racism, engaging in world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, empire building through pre-emptive war, systemically subjugating women -- do I need to say more? The question comes right back to us.

What follows therefore is my attempt to engage in such a self critical reflection. I seek to engage with you, the theology of Atonement, a subject that is central to Christian theology. You may feel that this is a bold, foolish or even dangerous subject to deal with. But rest assured: I am not ready to make declarative statements yet, rather a proposal and a direction for continuing theological reflection.

Before we get to the substance, I have two methodological suggestions. First, although I begin with a self-critical reflection, I suggest that we Christians cannot theologize by ourselves anymore. We are learning, painfully, that we have made serious mistakes because much of our theological reflections have occurred within the insularity of our Christian traditions. It took us a while to begin to theologize ecumenically, a practice that has greatly enhanced our theological depth. But that table must now be broadened to include Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and colleagues of other religions, whose perspective and critique we must take seriously. Our theology, when it is subject to the testing, refining and sharpening that comes from such an encounter will be significantly stronger. The question of atonement – or the “search for what saves us” in particular, I think, needs broad participation.

Second, I propose that the conversation must not stay at the level of theological/ philosophical dialogue but move from there to the churches. And yes, that means messing with liturgy, hymnody and the preached theology of our churches. Now, I know, this is scary. I’ve been a local church pastor for over 20 years! But if you agree that the symbols, rituals and words that are used in worship determines our day-to-day practiced theology more than what we theologians write in books, and if you agree that given the volatility of our world, the question of Christian justification of violence must be urgently addressed, then you know that it is imperative that we think creatively and boldly about worship and how we engage people in action.

Before we go any further, let me to broaden the definition of violence. We are now in the seventh year of the World Council of Churches’ initiative Decade to Overcome Violence. Here’s how this program describes it:

[T]he ever widening gap between the powerful and the powerless, the rich and the poor, further aggravated by the processes of economic globalization; countless civil wars and violent conflicts; terrorism and the war on terrorism, now issues in the dangerous new doctrine of pre-emptive war; a revived arms race and renewed drive for military security; the proliferation of and continuing threat of a variety of weapons despite international treaties; the glorification of violence by the media and entertainment industry; the rise of religious fundamentalism and growing intolerance and the legitimization of all these implicit and explicit forms of violence against the innocent, poor and the powerless.

The document then calls the churches to repentance that as Christians “we have been among those who have inflicted or justified violence.” That confession, the document asserts, is also “a confession of faith that violence is contrary to the spirit of the gospel and that the churches are called not only to affirm life in its fullness to all people but also to overcome violence within and around.” The document goes on to “discern ways in which some theological convictions and traditional attitudes that the churches have cherished for too long have allowed or perpetrated or justified certain forms of violence.” Among several theological convictions that deserve scrutiny it lists: “the way atonement is understood and interpreted in contexts where violence and the suffering of the innocent are held inevitable for the ultimate good.”

Fundamentally atonement is about what saves us. Together with WCC’s Decade to Overcome Violence, I hope we can agree that violence does not save us. When I was a young seminarian I was inclined to believe that violence can sometimes be legitimized as a means towards a justifiable end. However, having seen (from afar) now for more than two decades, the devastation that violence has brought to my native Sri Lanka, having seen (from close proximity) the horrible carnage that was caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11th in New York and continuing to monitor closely the pre-emptive war in Iraq and the continuing horrible violence in Israel and Palestine – I have reinforced my opposition to that position. While I have no doubt that acts of violence are often counter-attacks on previous injustices, it seems clear to me that such responses are not bringing terrorists or governments that engage in violence any closer to their strategic objectives. Instead, I want to propose that violence takes us deeper into the abyss of despair and degradation, to the opposite end of what we hope will save us. If the theories of atonement do indeed legitimate violence we might agree that what is intended to save us may be causing us to be enslaved even further.

The Christian theology of atonement starts with violence, namely, the killing of Jesus. Our common theology is that God so loved the word that God gave God’s only begotten son, and that he was obedient unto death, even the death on a cross, so that we sinners may be reconciled to God or be saved. Theories of Atonement developed mostly during the middle ages try to explain this absurdity. The standard account of the history of doctrine[1] lists three families of atonement theories. Let me give you very cursory summary of these.

The predominant theory of the early church, Christus Victor, existed in two forms. In the first, the ransom version, the devil held the souls of human beings captive. In a seemingly contractual agreement, God handed Jesus over to the devil as a ransom payment to secure the release of captive souls. The devil killed Jesus, in an apparent victory for the forces of evil. But by raising Jesus from the dead, God deceived and triumphed over the devil; hence the name Christ the Victor. In the second version there’s a cosmic battle between the devil and God. In this struggle, God's son was killed, but the resurrection then constituted the victory of God over the forces of evil, and definitively identified God as the ruler of the universe.

The satisfaction theory, which has been the predominant image for much of the past millennium, has two versions as well. One reflects the view of Anselm of Canterbury who wrote that Jesus' death was necessary in order to satisfy God’s honor offended by human sin, and restore the order of the universe. For the Protestant Reformers, Jesus' death satisfied the divine law's requirement that sin be punished. Thus with his death, Jesus submitted to and bore the punishment that was really due to human beings as sinners, and therefore, died a penal, substitutionary death. This is the more common theory subscribed to by western theological traditions.

In the third atonement theory, God the Father shows love to us sinners by giving us his most precious possession, his Son, to die for us. Peter Abelard saw the death of Jesus as a loving act of God designed to get the attention of sinners, and reveal the love of God for sinners while they were yet sinners. Since it is designed to impact the psychological or moral character of human beings, it is identified as the moral influence theory of atonement.

As you can tell, this is very brief summary. Since I am speaking at the theological seminary, I am reasonably confident that you all must be, or have the potential to be, experts on these! But these theories leave us with present-day problem. If God could allow the use of drastically violent means to save us, why should we not use violence to achieve noble ends?

I want to briefly summarize for you a few critiques of these theories, but with the caveat that I can’t do justice to these views in this short time. I say this only to whet your appetite so you will read and study them as well.

J. Denny Weaver, a Mennonite theologian in his recent book The Nonviolent Atonement presents a full-scale attack on Anselm's and others' atonement theologies from the “peace-church” perspective. During the first century of the church the dominant atonement motif was Christus Victor. Weaver says that in addition there is also what he calls the “narrative Christus Victor.” The church in the first century, he suggests, saw the saving work of Jesus in his struggle against and victory over the structural evil powers of this world. The saving work of Christ therefore is not just in his death on the cross, but in the entire “narrative” of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. The persecuted church did not need a metaphysical theory to understand how Jesus saves. They only needed to remember the story of how Jesus confronted the empire. All this changed when the church developed a symbiotic relationship with the empire. The church’s endorsement of the military force of a Christian state corresponded with the rise of a theology of God's redemptive use of punishment. Weaver’s work is also an attempt to historicize these a-historical theories, to inject an ethical dimension to it and ask how the “narrative Christus Victor” might be a new way to think about living towards the eschatological vision of God’s Kingdom.

James Cone, a premier liberation theologian from the African American tradition rather than focus on the churches’ legitimization of the use of the sword, points to the church’s legitimization of slavery and oppression. In his classic God of the Oppressed he posits reconciliation as the primary object of the atonement. Primarily an act of God that embraces the entire world, reconciliation changes sinful human beings in to new creatures, enabling them to have new relationships with other human beings and with God. “God’s reconciliation is a new relationship with people, [ephasis his] created by God’s concrete involvement with the political affairs of the world, taking sides with the weak and the helpless.”[2] The liberation that follows God’s political involvement is a pre-condition for reconciliation. While the Christus Victor image is typically presented as a non-political, metaphysical theory, Cone sees possibilities in that image as a political theory. It is a return to the biblical emphasis on God’s victory over the power of evil. In doing so, Cone reconfigures the classical theory of Christus Victor as a historical reality rather than some “mystical communion with the divine.”

It is important to note Cone’s point that the Nicean and Chalcedonian Christological formulas, accompanied by Anselmian and Abelardian atonement theories, were formulations developed by the ruling classes. Since the ethics of the ruling classes had a foundation other than Jesus, these formulations are devoid of any ethics of Jesus. Cone points out that this problem continues in the church even today as these formulas are assumed to be mainstream theology that accepts the status quo of the white power structure.

Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker in a fascinating theological memoir Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us, echo the cry of Job to his friends who spouted pious platitudes in the face of his suffering. Coming from two distinctly different backgrounds, Brock, a Japanese American and Parker, a Caucasian, discuss how their personal lives and experiences shaped their theology. "We were convinced that Christianity could not promise healing for victims of intimate violence as long as its central image was a divine parent who required the death of his child," writes Brock, What sort of God requires his son to die to redeem others' guilt? What sort of son would submit? What sort of human being feels redeemed by such a death? The two authors share deep and painful traumas as they weigh the concept of "redemptive suffering." Too many Christian women, they argue, have remained in abusive situations because they have been taught that their suffering is like how Jesus “carried the cross” and is necessary for redemption. The doctrine of atonement, they poignantly argue, is inherently dangerous and destructive, especially for women.

Walter Wink, in his valuable work Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination writes that violence is a powerful idol that has been accorded the status of a religion, demanding from its devotees an absolute obedience to death. He identifies a subtle kind of violence, which has made us think that violence is the nature of things. There’s a myth that legitimizes that violent nature, which he calls "The myth of redemptive violence."
This myth inundates us on every side. From US foreign policy – we must use violence against Iran before they develop a nuclear weapon – to the Sri Lankan conflict – if we kill so many Sinhalese we’ll get Eelam, or if we kill so many Tamils we can crush the Tigers – to movies and cartoons on TV, it is pervasive. The easiest way to understand this myth, suggests Wink, is to look at some classic cartoons such as Batman, Roadrunner and Tom and Jerry. There has always been an absolutely moral and indestructible good guy who is stubbornly opposed to an irreformable and equally indestructible bad guy. Nothing can kill the good guy although for the first three quarters of the show he (rarely she) suffers grievously and is often hopelessly trapped until somehow the hero breaks free, vanquishes the villain and restores order, until the next episode. All these cartons rather strictly follow this mythic order. The premise is simple; good guys are needed to restore the moral order of the universe. There is absolutely no way to reason with, persuade or negotiate with the totally depraved bad guy who must be totally destroyed. The good guy must use violent means to achieve this noble end since due processes of law are assumed to be too weak to deal with evil. The theories of atonement too legitimize this myth of redemptive violence. Our children watch these cartoons day in and day out, and then go to church on Sunday and hear violence legitimized again. Are you surprised that we are so trigger-happy!

Ignoring these and many other criticisms, that I don’t have the time to get into, allows Christians to assume that these theories and therefore the Christian legitimization of violence, is valid. Conversely, I suggest, an alternative theology of atonement will offer a significant motivation for Christians to actively work towards a non-violent world.

Thankfully, the ecumenical community has laid some foundational building blocks for re-thinking our theologies of atonement during the past century. New thinking on the prior question of soteriology was one of those building blocks.

For much of Christian history soteriology has meant rescuing of human souls from the damnation of hell in order that they might spend eternity in heaven. For much of that history Christians also assumed that theirs was the only way to heaven. The turbulent decade of the 60s saw some significant changes occur in our thinking about soteriology which became formalized at the Uppsala Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1968.

M.M. Thomas, a leading voice at Uppsala, argued that the most urgent task for contemporary Christian mission is to participate in the people's struggle for the "realisation of humanity" rather than following the traditional missionary task of conversion. He Thomas insisted that the mission of the church must take into account the "religious and secular movements which express men's search for the spiritual foundations for a fuller and richer human life" as manifestations of the “new reality of the Kingdom at work in the world of men in world history." The main problems of Indian Christianity, he said, were "pietistic individualism," which emphasized dogmatic belief and the inner experience of conversion, and the isolationistic tendency of the Christian community, which closed off Christians from others. The work of Jesus Christ is to ultimately unite all people’s struggles for humanization. Therefore "[s]alvation itself could be defined as humanisation in a total and eschatological sense."[3]

Thomas’ booklet Salvation and Humanisation published in 1971 became so influential that the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism meeting in Bangkok a year later followed his thinking in producing the document “Salvation Today,” calling on Christians to understand salvation holistically.

The Conference saw the saving work of Christ in four social dimensions: in the struggle for economic justice against the exploitation of people by people; in the struggle for human dignity against the political oppression of human beings; in the struggle for solidarity against the alienation of person from person; and in the struggle of hope against despair in personal life. In the process of salvation we must relate the four dimensions to each other. There is no economic justice without political freedom and no political freedom without economic justice. There is no justice without human dignity, no solidarity without hope, no hope without justice, dignity and solidarity.[4] This change in soteriological paradigm signaled a new theological direction in subsequent ecumenical thinking.

Maintaining that emphasis, however, has been difficult for the churches. The Evangelical movement emerging as a backlash against this “liberalism” of the ecumenical churches came together in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1974 under the leadership of Billy Graham. The Lausanne Covenant on World Mission, which understands salvation only in the sense of the conversion of the individual enjoyed wide acceptance by churches and evangelical organizations worldwide. A new missionary movement that based itself entirely on those theological premises arose energetically in the early 1980s.

Although in the past two decades the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism attempted to bring back the holistic understanding of salvation, three factors worked against this. First, it took a long time for this understanding of salvation to gain currency in mainstream Christian theological circles. Second, with the steady decline of their numbers, mainstream Christianity, particularly in Europe saw a corresponding decline in its power and self-confidence. Third, the Evangelical movement was so successful in its missionary enterprise that the demographics of world Christianity saw a major shift. There are significantly more Christians now living in Asia, Africa and Latin America than in Europe and North America. However, since that movement was spurred by fundamentalistically and pentecostally oriented Christians, the dominant understanding of salvation has remained an individualistic one. Subsequent ecumenical assemblies have not been able to adequately address the holistic soteriology of Salvation Today.

I began this presentation by suggesting that Christianity is a violent religion. Indeed it is. However, like other religions, Christianity also is a strong proponent of peace. Christians, after all, are followers of Jesus, who in the Sermon on the Mount taught nonviolence and love of enemies, who faced his accusers nonviolently all the way to his death, whom we worship as the Prince of Peace. His nonviolent teaching inspired a movement of Christian pacifism as well as the Gandhian and Kingian movements of nonviolent social change. As we saw earlier, Denny Weaver among others suggests that it was the church’s allegiance to empire that caused Christian theology to go awry.

Whereas before, Christians did not wield the sword and pagans did, now Christians wielded the sword in the name of Christ. The claim was that “Christian” concerns required the use of the sword in order to defend the society and the empire, which is now a defender of church and Christian faith. In a manner of speaking, not applying the teaching of Jesus became the “Christian” thing to do.[5]

The contradiction persists to this day. The World Council of Churches’ invitation to the churches to join in a Decade to Overcome Violence acknowledges this tension.
Churches have always stood divided, and continue to do so, on issues of war and peace, exposing the complexity of considerations that churches have to make in such situations. This is exacerbated by different ways in which churches are associated with ‘the state’ or ‘political powers.’[6]

At least one reason for this continuing contradiction is our theology of atonement. Churches often find themselves confused because their desire of peace often runs into conflict with their inability to deal constructively with this theology which stands at the core of our faith, is liturgically affirmed and preached weekly.

The search for what saves us, however, is not just a Christian concern. It is a concern for Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims as well as for people unaffiliated with any religious tradition. Also rather than remain theoretical, our methodology must be historically rooted, politically viable, and motivate people to strive towards wholeness for individuals and communities. So, let me offer a few concluding suggestions.

First, Christian theologians are slowly coming to terms with the inadequacy and insularity of theology that is done without the presence and participation of people of outside the Christian tradition, and are welcoming the robust testing, refining and sharpening that occurs when theology is done in their presence and with their participation. In the context of our current crisis, the question of “what saves us,” particularly if we would re-engage M.M. Thomas ideas, requires the presence and participation of those outside the Christian tradition.

However, in convening such a table, we need to be careful about language. The question “the search for what saves us” needs to be modified since “save” is a particularly Christian word. Wesley Ariarajah has persuasively argued for two possibilities. The first is peace, which he suggests is not a secondary tenet of the gospel but a primary one. Peace, of course, has multiple shades of meaning that includes justice. His second suggestion is healing, which too has multiple shades of meaning that includes wholeness. People of other religions and people who don’t belong to religious traditions are also concerned with the search for peace with justice, healing and wholeness, and the struggle for full humanity, and therein we may have a common agenda.
Second, it must move beyond a theological/philosophical conversation to a strategic conversation based on an astute analysis of power that leads to organizing religious communities to work for change. We must find ways to put feet on the theological conversation. To begin with, it must impact the totality of church life. Liturgy, hymnody, preaching and teaching that is fraught with violent language must be re-configured. What if, baptism is not simply be a sign of our conversion from sin to redemption, but from a life committed to active engagement in or passive accommodation of violence to a life committed to justice and non-violent social change towards peace? What if, the eucharist is not simply be a means of God’s grace for forgiveness of sin, but also as a means of empowering the church to confront the religion of violence and to promote peace and wholeness.

It boggles the imagination to think that religious people are the most organized people in the world. Most religious people throughout the world gather in one place usually weekly or at least monthly, to hear usually one person exhort them about what is the right thing to do and the right way to live and most religious people at least try to follow those exhortations. What if a tenth of all the religious leaders committing to preach peace and mobilize their congregations to engage in that task – imagine that!

Friends and colleagues, I don’t need to tell you that we are at a time of crisis. And our colleagues from other religious traditions tell us that it is at least partly the fault of Christian theology. I think it behooves us to urgently and critically examine our theologies. Atonement is only one of those, and here I have only raised some questions. There are obviously others that need careful examination as well. I hope we can engage our best theological minds in this urgent task.

[1] For a detailed account of the theories of atonement see Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor.
[2] Cone, 209
[3] Thomas, 12
[4] Bangkok Assembly 1973: Minutes and Report of the Assembly of Commissions on World Mission and Evangelism, Geneva, WCC, 1973, pp. 88 - 90.
[5] Weaver, 85
[6] “Nurturing Peace, Overcoming Violence: In the Way of Christ for the sake of the World” Faith and Order Document, World Council of Churches.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Christians Support CAIR

The Council for American Islamic Relations is a mainstream Islamic advocacy organization, which has done excellent work in highlighting the struggles of Muslim people in the United States particularly in the period following 9/11. Among their significant efforts has been the cataloging of islamophobic activities in many states.

Predictably, pressure on CAIR has been mounting. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a front page article highlighting recent political attacks and scrutiny against CAIR. Click here for the full article

Other newspapers also ran an edited version of the article. All in all the article is but it does repeat false and baseless allegations launched by some extreme right-wing anti Muslim groups. The article does make it clear that there is not a shred of evidence that CAIR is doing anything illegal. An FBI official is on record saying there is no evidence.

Yesterday, Bob Edgar (General Secretary, NCC) and I signed a letter to the Editor initiated by Rita Nakashima Brock on behalf of Christian leaders.

Dear Editor:

As Christians leaders, we oppose attacks against the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The capitulation of members of Congress to a campaign to discredit Islamic organizations places Muslims in the U.S. in danger of character assassination and false charges. We are profoundly disturbed by the long-term damage now being done to CAIR’s reputation, to interfaith relations, to freedom of religion, and to American principles of justice, when no evidence exits that CAIR endorses terrorism or supports terrorist groups.

In retrospect, we will see the same fear-mongering that led to McCarthyism and the illegal incarceration of Japanese Americans in WW II. CAIR is a responsible force for reconciliation and sanity, both in international affairs and in deepening religious understanding here in America. We urge Congress to state clearly what we know is true: CAIR makes a valuable contribution to democracy and interfaith relations.

Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, Co-Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good
Rev. Peter Laarman, Director, Progressive Christians Uniting
Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker, President, Starr King School for the Ministry

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

World Public Forum -- Dialogue of Civilizations

Over 200 religious leaders, academics, economists, scientists and politicians have come together in Paris, meeting at the UNESCO head quarters. I was invited to speak on the role of religious leaders as they bring together people who have different narratives. My presentation follows:



Standing in the Gap:
How Religious Leaders Can Deepen Dialogue Between Two Narratives

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues. I was honored to be a part of this gathering in Rhodes, Greece last year and even more honored to be asked to speak this time. I congratulate you, Chairman Vladimir Yakunin and the Executive Committee of WPF for organizing these gatherings.

Mr. Chairman, I was one of 13 US Christian leaders who visited the Islamic Republic of Iran three weeks ago. We spent 5 days in Tehran and one in the sacred city of Qom. We met Ayatollahs, academics, political leaders, former president Khatami and President Ahmadinejad. We did a dialogue of civilizations! My comments today are a reflection on that process.

The Mennonite Church in the United States with their distinguished history of working for religious liberty and building infra-structures for peace has been in Iran now for 17 years. They first went there in 1990 following the devastating earthquake. As they continued their work in partnership with the Iranian Red Crescent Society they began to build strong relationships with government and civil society leaders. As the confrontational rhetoric between Washington and Tehran began to intensity, those relationships provided an opportunity for a first meeting between 45 US Christian leaders and with President Ahmadinejad when he came to address the UN General Assembly in New York. Since that hour and quarter long meeting was not nearly enough to answer all the questions we had, the president invited us to Tehran. That second meeting in Tehran was the first time in 28 years that a US delegation met with an Iranian president in Iran.

There was a time when such a meeting of religious leaders or citizens would have brought instant condemnation from the highest levels of the US government for interfering in foreign policy. We did get some criticism, but several US congresspersons and Senators welcomed our initiative. Many have begun to recognize the value of citizen diplomacy.

Indeed it was a former US State Department official and career Foreign Service Officer, Joseph Montville who back in 1980, first legitimized the idea of Track II diplomacy. His proposal was a ground breaking reassessment of diplomatic endeavors which in part addresses the perceptions adversaries have of each other. Policy statements by presidents and other government officials are frequently hamstrung, limited by formalities and complex posturing, he said. For example, a Track I diplomat “cannot risk the chance that adversaries will misperceive reasonableness as a sign of weakness.” Track II, on the other hand, is “an unofficial, informal interaction between members of adversary groups or nations that aims to develop strategies, influence public opinion, and organize human and material resources in ways that might help resolve their conflict.” Since then we’ve learned a lot about Track II diplomacy. Indeed this conference itself can be called an exercise in Track II where influential elites, many of whom are non-governmental actors, come together not only to build critical relationships, but to think together about creative alternatives to what Track I is able to produce.

Sometimes we expect that our Track II work can actually lead to quick Track I results. Indeed, there are rare exceptions: the back channel talks that led to Oslo Accords and the Alexandria Declaration crafted by panels of religious leaders, academics and political elites are prime examples. In the late 1970s a Middle East policy document crafted by a similar group for the National Council of Churches USA provided a framework for the Camp David accords. But those are exceptions. Since Track II participants are usually not authorized by their governments – that’s why they are track II – there is no guarantee that their governments will listen to their findings. If we go into Track II dialogues expecting such outcomes, we are likely to be disappointed and perceive our dialogue to be a failure.

The successes of Track II often occur when participants are changed in the encounter. Their getting to know each other leads to the breaking down of psychological barriers and stereotypes. It humanizes the enemy, provides an opportunity to demythologize the narratives about the past and evaluate the others’ threat-perceptions. Indeed, facing your adversary across the table at lunch rather than at the formal negotiation table, personalizes the conflict even more and helps the parties recognize that the so-called “enemy” shares many of the same fears and constraints, and similarly experiences human pain and suffering.

Our primary task, the US religious delegation felt, was to cut through the confrontational rhetoric coming out of both Washington and Tehran, deepen the dialogue and create a safe space in which each can listen and begin to grasp the other’s expressions of pain which are embedded in tightly held narratives. We sought the partnership of religious leaders in Iran, so that together we will “stand in the gap” between those narratives, on behalf of our peoples.

When US Americans think about Iran the first images that come to mind are those from the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis. Those images flashed before us on our television screens every night for some 444 days. We did not take kindly to Ayatollah Khomeni who called America “the great Satan” and we looked upon their religious fervor with fear and disdain. Most Americans have had an adversarial relationship with Iran ever since.

When Iranians think about the United States, the first images that come to their mind are from 1953, when the CIA collaborating with the British intelligence overthrew Iran’s first democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In his stead, they placed the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Iranians recall how this US backed dictator oppressed them for 25 years, until in a popular rebellion inspired by religious fervor; the people overthrew the Shah and instituted an Islamic Republic.

How do you negotiate between such competing narratives? This is where skills of interfaith dialogue can play a helpful role, for in interfaith dialogue we are constantly confronted not only with competing narratives, but also with competing truth claims and alternative centers of power and life’s allegiance. It is a complex negotiation. Religious identity is invariably entangled in a complex dynamics of culture, politics and ethnicity. Sometimes religious groups are perceived to reflect the ideology of a particular state. The American military and economic involvement in the Middle East is perceived by some to be a Christian intrusion into the heart of the Muslim world. Threats by the Iranian president against Israel are seen as a Muslim war against Jews. And Jews as a religious people are intricately involved with the modern state of Israel. Events such as the war in Iraq, the Israel-Hezbollah war, the cartoon controversy and the comments by the Pope have created an added level of complexity.

Yet, among the religious leaders of Iran, we found ready partners. Ayatollah Mohammadi Araqi, the president of the Organization for Culture and Islamic Relations, who I have come to know before through interfaith dialogue events, carries significant clout within that power structure. A moderate leader who is sincerely committed to dialogue, Araqi spoke passionately about how dialogue should lead to action towards peace. Ayatollah Taskhiri, the president of the World Forum on the Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought, expressed views so liberal minded that it surprised many of us. Speaking of the role of women in Iranian society, for instance, he said he waited for the day when a woman would be a Grand Ayatollah. I asked him what he is doing to make that dream a reality. He replied that since some 65% of students in Tehran University were women, the next generation will see women in leadership as never before. Some meetings were difficult. I think particularly of one in Qom, where the meeting’s agenda was so crafted as to give them an opportunity to tell us off, rather than engage in a dialogue.

Meetings with religious leaders were our priority. We met with the Armenian Orthodox Archbishop of Tehran and the leaders of the Armenian Evangelical Church. We tried to meet the Jewish Member of Parliament but couldn’t only because of scheduling problems. But, since the media has focused mostly on the meeting with Ahmadinejad, I will reflect on that meeting.

First it is important to say that there is something very unique about the political structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The president does not have nearly as much power as the American president does in the US, although it is widely misperceived in the US that this is so. In matters pertaining to military actions, foreign policy and nuclear issues, authority lies with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. In addition, those who run for President or for membership in parliament must receive prior approval from him. We did not get to meet with the Supreme Leader apparently because our delegation didn’t have the highest level religious leaders – but interestingly we were high powered enough to meet with the president!

Mr. Ahmadinejad comes across as a religious man. He based his remarks on Qur’anic scripture and seems to acquiesce to the authority of religious leaders. I will remark on two of the several questions we asked: on the question of uranium enrichment leading to the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, and on the Holocaust conference and his remarks on Israel.

First on the nuclear issue, president Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran has never been interested in building nuclear weapons and that he does not intend to build them now. “We are against war and the production of WMDs, chemical, biological and atomic bombs” he said. “This is what our religion tells us. Iran is a religious government.” He reminded us that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has issued a fatwa (religious edict) stating that manufacture or use of nuclear weapons goes against Islamic teaching. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is strictly for energy purposes he said, and is needed for Iran’s 20 year long economic development plan. “As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),” he said. It is also true,” he continued, “that today, nuclear weapons are not effective. Nuclear weapons did not help the Soviet Union to survive. They could not help Mr. Bush in his war with Iraq,” he said.

Second, I raised the question of the Holocaust and Israel. I asserted that his views, rhetoric and actions at the very least, undercut our attempts to build relationships between the people of the United States and Iran. Ahmadinejad reiterated his view of the Israel/Palestine issue and the Holocaust as we have heard it before from him. He does not deny the reality of the Holocaust, he said, but believes that its disastrous effects are exaggerated to provide legitimacy for the state of Israel. He also reminded us that the way he seeks to resolve the question of Palestinians is by holding a plebiscite of all the people who live in the area.

In my follow up I remarked that this proposal is a non-starter, since it would indeed be a way to wipe Israel off the map. He indicated that he would be open to other political solutions but was firmly against any military options. I summarized the churches’ positions on Israel/Palestine, emphasizing our commitment for justice for Palestinians and peace and security for Israel. I pointedly disagreed with him on the Holocaust conference, asserting that this horrendous event in human history has been the subject of significant study. “Israel is a reality; it’s not going away” I insisted, “If we are to take you seriously, you must begin to deal with that reality.” “You are entitled to your opinion,” he said to me tersely, and with that, we closed the subject. I did not expect a Track II initiative to lead to immediate Track I results.

While there was much to disagree with, the meeting with the president provided us with three encouraging items: a clear declaration that Iran does not intend to acquire nuclear weapons; a statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved militarily, but only by political means and a willingness to talk with US government officials if there is good will.

I reiterate, that while the meeting with the president was the most high profile meeting we had, the meetings with religious leaders were, in the long run, far more significant. Interfaith Dialogue has provided these leaders —from both countries—the skills to navigate through the competing narratives each side brings to the table. Committed to working towards such a goal, the delegation called upon both the US and Iranian governments to immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks, cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” images, and promote more people- to- people exchanges including religious leaders, members of parliament/congress and civil society.

Perhaps most significantly, the delegation discovered on the streets of Tehran ordinary, normal human beings, who like us, live ordinary, normal lives. They are mothers, fathers and children all created in the image of God. They, like us, desire peace. We also met many religious leaders, who, like us, are willing to stand in the gap. Therein lies our hope for the success of our Track II diplomacy.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

"We Cannot Be Silent" Address by His Majesty King Abdullah II

I was in Washington DC yesterday with some members of the delegation to Iran. We visited offices of US Senators and Congresspersons to talk about the value of dialogue over war and our suggestions for moving it forward. At the same time King Abdullah II of Jordan addressed a joint meeting of the US congress. I really appreciate the passion with which the King speaks about issues of justice and peace in the Middle East. It is eminently worth our reading.

Click here for the address by His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Free Sami Al-Arian

The question of justice for Dr. Sami Al-Arian came before the NCC Governing Board in February 2005, as a part of the Interfaith Relations Commission's Report. The Governing Board received the report and the recommendations publicize the matter through Faithful America.org and to encourage prayer, such that Muslims and Christians know that Christians are supporting them.

The following is quote from the press statement issued following that meeting:

The Interfaith Relations Commission, in meetings last weekend in St. Petersburg, Fla., with representatives of a Florida social advocacy organization, HOPE (Hillsboro Organization for Peace and Equality) and the Tampa chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), heard about the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian.

Emphatically noting that it is not taking any stand on Dr. Al-Arian’s guilt or innocence but rather on his right to due process and humane treatment, the Council resolved to make known the plight of the former professor at Florida State University, arrested in February 2003.

CAIR “shared with us statistics and concerns about civil rights in the Muslim community since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act,” the Commission reported. “The Muslim community came to us as an authoritative Christian body and said, ‘We are hurting over this. Please stand up and be counted,’” said Betty Gamble, a member of the NCC Interfaith Relations Commission.

Asserted Mia Adjali, United Methodist Church, “We are using this person as an example of so many others. Whatever this man may have done or not, the issue is the inhumane treatment that’s befallen Muslim people, Arab people, anyone who looks like an Arab.”


Subsequently, Dr. Al-Arian was acquitted the most serious charges that were brought against him by the government.

Here's what The Nation's Alexander Cockburn writes about that.

In December 2005, despite Moody's diligence, the jury acquitted al-Arian of the most serious charges. On those remaining, the usual prosecutorial flailings under conspiracy statutes, jurors voted 10 to 2 for acquittal. Two co-defendants were acquitted completely. It was a terrible humiliation for the Justice Department, which had flung an estimated $50 million into the trial.

A jury split 10-2 in a defendant's favor doesn't augur well for conviction in a retrial. Indeed in the spring of 2006 the government declined to retry a wealthy Tampa businessman (the founder of Hooters) on tax evasion charges because the jury was hung 6 to 6, and therefore the proportion was too high to realistically expect a conviction during a retrial.

But the feds insisted they wanted to put al-Arian through the wringer again and -- prudently, given Moody's prejudice-al-Arian's lawyers urged him to make a plea and put an end to his ordeal and end the suffering of his family.

The terms of the plea agreement were in line with Al-Arian's long-standing contention, despite the government's accusations, that he never contributed to the violent actions of any organization. The government settled for a watered-down version of a single count of providing services to people associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Statement of Facts in the agreement included only these innocuous activities:

(1) hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, during his deportation hearings in the late 1990s;

(2) filling out immigration forms for a resident Palestinian scholar from Britain; and

(3) not disclosing details of associations to a local reporter. (I remain completely baffled as to why it should be a crime to withhold information from a newspaper reporter.)


Cockburn continues to describe the current situation

On May 1, 2006, al-Arian came before Judge Moody for sentencing. Watching the proceedings Sugg, as he reported on the CounterPunch website, noted a smug air among the prosecutors. He also noted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez had arrived in the Tampa area five days earlier. Under the plea, al-Arian's sentence amounted to little more than time served, followed by his departure from the United States. But Judge Moody sentenced al-Arian to the maximum, using inflamed language about al-Arian having blood on his hands, a charge one juror said the jury emphatically rejected.

Now al-Arian faced eleven months more in prison, with release and deportation scheduled for April 2007. But the feds' appetite was far from slaked. In October, Gordon Kromberg, an assistant federal prosecutor in Virginia notorious as an Islamophobe, called al-Arian to testify before a grand jury investigating an Islamic think tank. The subpoena was a outright violation of al-Arian's April plea agreement and his attorneys filed a motion to quash it. The motion included affidavits by attorneys who participated in the negotiations attesting to the fact that "the overarching purpose of the parties' plea agreement was to conclude, once and for all, all business between the government and Dr. al-Arian." The defense lawyers insisted that al-Arian would never have entered a plea that left him vulnerable to government fishing expeditions.

Al-Arian's lawyers feared that their client was being set up for a perjury trap. Up in Virginia, Kromberg ranted to al-Arian's attorney about "
the Islamization of America," while down in Tampa, Judge Moody ruled that federal marshals could drag al-Arian to Virginia to testify. On November 16, al-Arian was brought before the grand jury and placed in civil contempt for refusing to testify.

One month after al-Arian was placed in civil contempt, the grand jury term expired, so Kromberg promptly impaneled a new one. Al-Arian was again subpoenaed and again expressed his ethical stance against testifying. This judge also held him in contempt, which could prolong his imprisonment by up to 18 months.

Al-Arian, who is diabetic, then went on a hunger strike. February 26 marked the sixth week of his water-only hunger strike, in which he has lost 40 pounds and has grown considerably weaker. On the 23rd day of his hunger strike, Al-Arian collapsed and hit his head; he has since been moved to a federal prison medical facility in Butner, North Carolina.


This week Faithful America.org will send out an action alert seeking letters, emails, phone calls to seek justice for Dr. Al-Arian. I urge you to join in that action.

Click here to learn more about Dr. Al-Arian's situation

Click here to read Alexander Cockburn's article

Click here for Faithful America

Friday, March 02, 2007

Standing in the Gap: A reflection on the U.S. Christian Delegation's Visit to Iran

I presented an oil lamp to Ayatollah Taskhiri, as a sign of solidarity between Iranians and Americans. We said that we will encourage Americans to light such lamps as well, so that we can remember and stand in solidarity with Iranians.

March 2, 2006 – When Americans think about Iran the first images that come to mind are those from the 1979 U.S. embassy hostage crisis. Those images flashed before us on our television screens every night for some 444 days. Most Americans have had an adversarial relationship with Iran ever since, considering their religious fervor and the power of their Ayatollahs with apprehension and disdain.

When Iranians think about the United States, the first images that come to their mind are from 1953, when the CIA collaborating with the British intelligence overthrew Iran’s first democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. His sin, nationalizing the oil industry! He argued that Iran should benefit from its oil industry rather than the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became British Petroleum. In his stead, they placed the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Iranians recall how this U.S. backed dictator oppressed them for 25 years, until in a popular rebellion inspired by a confluence of factors, including religious fervor; the people overthrew the Shah and instituted the world’s first Islamic Republic.

How do you negotiate between competing narratives? This is where skills of interfaith dialogue can play a helpful role, for in interfaith dialogue we are constantly confronted not only with competing narratives, but also with competing truth claims and alternative centers of power and life’s allegiance. Over the years, through painstaking relationship building we have learned to navigate between those polarities and get to the underlying sources of conflict—we have learned to stand in the gap.

I participated in a delegation of thirteen Christian leaders from the United States that visited Iran last week. It was organized and led by the Mennonite Central Committee, who have 17 years of experience working in Iran and the American Friends Service Committee. The delegation included members of United Methodist, Episcopal, Baptist, Catholic and Evagelical communities in addition to Mennonites and Quakers. Our primary task, was to cut through the confrontational rhetoric coming out of both Washington and Tehran, deepen the dialogue and create a safe space in which each can listen and begin to grasp the other’s pain. To this end, we sought the partnership of religious leaders, Muslim Ayatollahs and Christian clergy, including the Armenian Orthodox Archbishop, Sebouh Sarkissian. Despite media depictions to the contrary, we found the Ayatollahs we met to be learned and wise men who enjoy significant public support, legitimacy and authority. As religious leaders, we found in them colleagues with whom we could engage in the task of finding common ground.

We spent five days on the ground in Tehran and one in the sacred city of Qom. In addition to the religious leaders, we met with political leaders including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Saeed Jalili. Initial contact with the president was made through relationships developed by the Mennonites. That contact led to President Ahmadinejad meeting with a group of 45 Christian leaders in New York in September. At that meeting he invited us to come to Tehran to continue the conversation.

We discovered that in Iran’s political structure, the president does not have nearly as much power as the American president does in the US. For instance, in matters pertaining to military actions, foreign policy and nuclear issues, authority lies with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. In addition, those who run for President or for membership in parliament (majlis) must receive prior approval from the Supreme Leader. This past December’s mid-term elections handed the President’s party a significant defeat, and in January the Supreme Leader gave a rare public criticism of the President and his inflammatory rhetoric.

Mr. Ahmadinejad comes across as a religious man. He based his remarks on Qur’anic scripture and seemed to acquiesce to the authority of religious leaders. Referring to a quote from Hebrew scripture first stated in our opening remarks: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks” (Isaiah 2:4), he asserted that his government is committed to such a goal.

We asked him several questions to which he gave lengthy answers. I will remark on two of these: on the question of uranium enrichment leading to the possibility of developing nuclear weapons, and on the Holocaust conference and his remarks on Israel.

First on the nuclear issue, president Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran has never been interested in building nuclear weapons and that he does not intend to build them now. “We are against war and the production of WMDs, chemical, biological and atomic bombs” he said. “This is what our religion tells us. Iran is a religious government.” He reminded us that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has issued a fatwa (religious edict) stating that manufacture or use of nuclear weapons goes against Islamic teaching. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is strictly for energy purposes he said, and is needed for Iran’s 20 year long economic development plan. “As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),” he said. It is also true,” he continued, “that today, nuclear weapons are not effective. Nuclear weapons did not help the Soviet Union to survive. They could not help Mr. Bush in his war with Iraq,” he said.

Second, I raised the question of the Holocaust and Israel, at which point the tension level in the room rose by several degrees. I asked, “Mr. President, you were quoted in the US media as saying Israel must be wiped off the map. I want to know if you really said that, and if so, what did you mean? Also, following earlier comments you made denying the reality of the Holocaust, you held a conference in Tehran in December that questioned one of the most horrible events in human history.” I asserted that his views, rhetoric and actions at the very least, undercut our attempts to build relationships between the people of the United States and Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, clearly annoyed at the question, shot back. “I answered this question in our meeting in New York, on CNN, Time and Newsweek,” he said. “Why do you want to ask this again? Let me ask you a question,” he railed. “What is it with Zionists and America? Anytime anyone says anything against the Zionists, it creates problems in the US. Are Zionists ruling America? I refuse to believe that Zionists have so much power that you have to ask this again. Perhaps this is due to the sensationalizing efforts of the media,” he said.

Ahmadinejad reiterated his view of the Israel/Palestine issue and the Holocaust as we have heard it before from him. He does not deny the reality of the Holocaust. He believes that its disastrous effects are exaggerated to provide legitimacy for the state of Israel. “Why should Palestinians suffer for the anti-Semitism of Europeans?” he asked. He questioned why the event should not be studied, giving a place to all opinions. “Why do you permit questions on the very existence of God, but not about the existence of the Holocaust?” he asked.

He also reminded us that the way he seeks to resolve the question of Palestinians is by holding a plebiscite of all the people who live in the area. Allowed the only opportunity in the meeting to follow up after his response to a question, I remarked that this proposal is a non-starter, since it would indeed be a way to wipe Israel off the map. He indicated that he would be open to other political solutions but was firmly against any military options.

I summarized the churches’ positions on Israel/Palestine, emphasizing our commitment for justice for Palestinians and peace and security for Israel. I pointedly disagreed with him on the Holocaust conference, asserting that this horrendous event in human history has been the subject of significant study. “Israel is a reality; it’s not going away” I insisted, “If we are to take you seriously, you must begin to deal with that reality.” “You are entitled to your opinion,” he said to me. And with that, we closed the subject.

While there was much to disagree with, the meeting with the president provided us with three encouraging items: a clear declaration that Iran does not intend to acquire nuclear weapons; a statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved militarily, but only by political means and a willingness to talk with US government officials if there is good will. The former president Khatami emphasized this same point to us in a brief meeting earlier that day.

I reiterate, that while the meeting with the president was the most high profile meeting we had, the meetings with religious leaders were, in the long run, far more significant. These leaders—from both countries—are the ones skilled in navigating through the competing narratives each side brings to the table, and can, in the end, facilitate relationships between Iranians and Americans. Committed to working towards such a goal, the delegation called upon both the US and Iranian governments to immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks, cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” images, and promote more people to people exchanges including religious leaders, members of parliament/congress and civil society. In that light, it is indeed encouraging to hear that our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will sit at the same table with Iranian Foreign Minister in regional talks about the security situation in Iraq.

Perhaps most significantly, the delegation discovered on the streets of Tehran ordinary, normal human beings, who like us, live ordinary, normal lives. In the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Evangelical (Presbyterian) Church, and in many mosques, we met mothers, fathers and children all created in the image of God. They, like us, are desire peace. We also met many religious leaders, who, like us, are willing to stand in the gap. Therein lies our hope.

Contact NCC News: Dan Webster, 212-870-2252, dwebster@councilofchurches.org

/body>