Missional Explorer

Respectful Conversation

As anybody who lives in the U.S. knows, we are finding ourselves seriously divided by many issues: faith, politics, morality, security, "family values", and especially how to respond to perceived threats to the above.  Unfortunately we have also seemingly lost the ability to have respectful, open dialogue over these issues and are instead yelling across the divide, demonizing those who disagree with us (often using "straw men" stereotypes) in what seems to be a desperate need to be "right" on all things.  The red state/blue state divide is, in fact, only the tip of the iceberg as the chasm runs much deeper than politics, not only separating those of different faith cultures and backgrounds but even those within a single faith tradition. 

I am very mindful of this "yelling across the divide" these days on several fronts.  First, to some extent and over some issues it is happening at our school which leaves teachers (me included) very uncertain and even fearful as to what issues/questions are "OK" to unpack with kids without scathing criticism, unfounded accusations, and/or losing our jobs.  Secondly, to some extent and over some issues it is also happening in my extended family as we find it increasingly difficult to talk about certain things with objectivity, openness, and respect.   

In the midst of these minefields, I occasionally encounter conversations between individuals holding differing perspectives to be both hopeful and encouraging.  One such conversation has been made into a DVD entitled Purple State of Mind metaphorically combining the colors red and blue into a "purple" conversation between Craig Detweiler, a film maker and Christ-follower, and John Marks, a journalist formerly with 60 Minutes and US News & World Report who was once a Christ-follower but who has since walked away from faith.  John and Craig are long time friends having been roommates in college year ago (when John was still "in Christ").  Now they are both chronicling their journey, Craig in the form of the film and John in the writing of a book entitled Reasons to Believe: One Man's Journey Among the Evangelicals and the Faith He Left Behind.  I recommend both the book and the movie for anyone who is discouraged about the yelling.  While not for the faint of heart (or for those who think they are "right" on all things), Craig and John clearly model an openness and loving attitude toward their differences which gives me hope for the days ahead.  In fact, I'm trying to figure out if/how I can use their conversation in the context of my classes this fall.  Without a doubt I will be criticized for using Craig and John because they are not "right" on everything (and fuzzy on plenty) but I am so attracted by the possibility of civil and respectful conversation in the midst of our differences that I can't resist the attractivenss of their model.  All the more important in what is sure to be a dreadfully destructive election process this fall. 

"Blessed are the Poor in Spirit"

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven" (NIV) reads the beginning verses of Jesus teaching known as the Sermon on the Mount or perhaps better understood as keys to seeing/understanding His Kingdom.  Hugh Halter of Adullam talked about this passage yesterday at our gathering. . . spent 45 minutes unpacking one simple phrase but a phrase that is rightfully loaded with meaning.  I found it very convicting on multiple counts.

The NLT reads "God blesses those who realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is given to them".  Eugene Peterson phrases it this way in the Message: "You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope.  With less of you there is more of God and his rule." 

No matter what translation you read, it appears that being "poor is spirit" is an emptying process or a "peeling away" (like an onion) as someone suggested to Hugh.  Convicting because I ask myself what needs to be "peeled away" in my life for the sake of emptying myself in utter abandonment to Jesus?  Unfortunately more than I can possibly recount in this short posting.  But foremost on my mind and heart yesterday which I wondered aloud with Hugh and Ryan is all of the perceived "needs" in my life. . . specifically in recent days, my acutely felt "need" to defend myself with others who differ in theology in general and missionality in particular (see previous postings)!  Can I give up that felt need to defend myself and/or missionality?  Honestly I don't know.  But there's no question that it needs to be peeled away!  God is fully capable of defending Himself and me re:what He is doing in the world.  So why do I feel so acutely the need to name and explain?

Addressing Conflict through Bridging Narratives

I was recently introduced to a newsletter by a close friend.  Because he knows of my new found interest in peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, Tom introduced me to Eric who lives in Jerusalem and occassionally puts his thoughts into writing in the form of a newsletter.  One of Eric's recent newletters featured notes from an address by Dr. Ilan Pappe who has done extensive work/writings on the conflict in the Middle East.  While all of Dr. Pappe's comments were signficantly challenging, one particular concept--the need in any conflict to find/develop a "bridging narrative--I found to be especially fascinating.  In Dr. Pappe's own words,  "It is a historical concept that in fact to create peace you need a bridging narrative. You need both national sides, each has their own historical narrative, but if they want to contribute to peace they have to build a bridge narrative."

Since reading these words, I have been pondering the importance of "narratives" in general and, in the midst of conflict, "building bridge narratives" in particular.  In any conflict (especially a long, seemingly intractable conflict such as what exists between Israelis and Palestinians), each side, unknowingly or not, creates a "narrative" of the struggle, a history (or story) which serves to explain and/or justify the ongoing actions and attitudes that each has towards the other.  For example, the Israelis have created a significant narrative of their history (including but not restricted to the Holocaust, the Wars with surrounding Arab countries, the Palestinians, etc.) which is not only assumed to be true in it's totality but is intentionally inclucated in the lives of every Israeli citizen.  The results color not only the past but the present and future as well including any interaction they may have with the "other" side of a conflict, in this case the Palestinians.  The Palestinians, of course, have done he same with regard to Israelis. 

The good news of narratives is that they are highly successful in unifying people together in building a cohesive and coherent consensus with regard to identity and purpose with a justification of specific attitudes and actions regarding the "other".  But, asks Dr. Pappe, what if significant aspects of each narrative are wrong. . . either wrong in their assumptions of "self" and/or the "other". . . or wrong based on a false view/presentation of history?  Which is exactly why, in the midst of any conflict, Dr. Pappe advocates finding/creating a "bridging narrative", a narrative that is open to re-assessing misleading perceptions of history as well as mistaken perceptions of the present.

I confess that I am presently fascinated with "narratives" at every level of my life including the reality that I/we live within existing (and often competing) narratives daily.  For example, I live within  narratives of my family-of-origin, my own family, narratives as an American, and most of all the Narrative of Jesus.  At what point do those narratives need to be examined and questioned as to their authenticity, trustworthiness, and truth?  And am I open to (a) changing my view of reality based on the journey of examining narratives (b) bridging narratives that will help create personal peace and reconciliation between myself and the "others" in my life and/or realities of larger conflicts in the world around us and (c) evaluating all competing narratives in light of the MetaNarrative presented by Jesus?

"Where is your Limp?"

I may have mentioned previously one of my favorite quotes from a pastor who stated that "I never trust anyone who doesn't walk with a limp!".  Tom was not talking about a physical limp although in many cases this may be true.  What Tom was eloquently describing was the necessity for all of us to walk in the awareness of our own limitations, brokenness, and therefore need for God daily.  As Jacob wrestled a blessing from "a man" who threw his hip out of joint and later re-named him Israel (God-Wrestler) because "you've wrestled with God and you've come through" (though not without a limp), I have been continually reminded lately that we all must wrestle with God in the pain and brokenness of our lives and, as evidence, we will all walk with a limp forever.  I think the question might be legitimately asked that, if we have no limp, have we truly wrestled with God in the awareness of our humanity and our simultaneous need for His presence in our lives? 

Our school administrator told me last year that he knows of an organization that, as part of their job interview, asks every applicant "Where is your limp?".  If the applicant cannot answer this question, the employer hears this non-answer as either (a) he/she has not matured to the point where they can identify their own inadequacy, struggle and/or brokenness or (b) he/she is not sufficiently authentic, honest, or trustworthy to share such an important weakness.   The specifics of a "limp" of course varies by the person but the reality is one in which we all share, acknowledged or not.  I love this question and admire the organization for asking it.

If you've read anything in this blog over the past year, the obvious truth is that I am walking with a significant limp these days. . . multiple limps actually.  Some are limps that I've described in recent postings.  Others are limps from previous encounters with God in the context of my own hurts & brokenness.  If we are truly human living in this "bent" world, the question is not whether we "limp or not" but rather do we have the courage to admit our limps and especially share what they are with others around us.  So I am pleased to ask you this important question: Where are your limps?       

Nationalisms and the Gospel

Lest anyone find my recent postings unbalanced or unfair, let me once again reiterate the dangers of ALL nationalisms as truly incompatible with a Gospel commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus.  Here are two recent readings which illustrate the point.  The first is an interview conducted by Christianity Today (questions in italics) with Ugandan-born theologian Emmanuel Katongole.  The second taken from an article by Israeli author David Miller.

CT:You've lived in three continents and in four countries, and your parents were from yet another country, Rwanda.  How does your story affect your understanding of God's mission in the world?

Katongole: Being an immigrant can be a blessing.  God's mission, as I read it in 2 Corinthians 5:17, is a new creation.  God is reconciling the world to himself.  And there is a sense of journey that is connected with that.  When, later on, Paul says that "we are ambassadors of God's reconciliation, God is appealing through us," he is inviting us into a journey toward a new kind of community.  People looking at Christians should be confused.  Who are these people?  Are they black?  Are they white?  Are the Americans?  Are they Ugandans?  In Revelation, John sees people drawn from all languages and tribes and nations: an unprecedented congregation.  Living on three continents has deepened my understanding of the church as such a congregation; at the same time, it has heightened my sense of Christian life as a journey and of what it means to live as a pilgrim, a resident alien.

CT:That is reminiscent of the name Christians gave themselves in Acts, "people of the Way."

Katongole: That is, the way of Jesus.  I also take that to mean people on the way, on pilgrimage.  We have settled too easily.  Instead of living out that story of journey toward a new creation, we tend to live out the stories of nationality.  And then we forget what it means to journey.  It's not difficult to see why we settle, because our nations or tribes or races try to convince us that life can't get any better than this.  They ask us, "Where would you want to go?  Why would you want to leave?"  This is not just something that happens in a superpower like America.  Even small nations like Rwanda, even small tribes, have an America-sized imagination of themselves.  The challenge that Christianity faces in our time is the challenge of tribalism.  .  .  Many of us feel we are beyond that, but the dynamics of national identity remain.

David Miller puts it even more explicitly and to the point in the Middle East: "Nationalism and the Gospel are forever and eternally opposed.  The former engenders hatred, the latter love.  Let me ask my fellow Israeli believer, "Are you first an Israeli, of first a believer?"  Which allegiance is higher?  Let me ask the Christian Zionist, "Are you first a Christian, or are you first a Zionist?" We must remember that our true citizenship is in Heaven (Phil. 3:20).  Let us also remember that Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight" (Jn. 18:36).  We can be sure, that if we find ourselves striving in the interest of a nationalist, political point of view, we are fighting servants and are not serving the interests of the Kingdom. . . Let me ask of my Arab brothers and sisters the same question I ask of my fellow Jewish believers: "Are you first an Arab or are you first a Christian?  To which kingdom does your allegiance belong?". . . I cannot say it strongly enough: Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is the way of peace, not a political, nationalistic substitute on either side.  When one is committed to Jesus, sides (Israeli  & Palestinian) disappear and love conquers.  I don't see a political solution to the very complicated West Bank situation in the near future, though I earnestly hope for one.  I personally urge my government to do all possible to arrive at the negotiating table.  However, I realize that even if both sides operate in good faith, which they are seemingly both getting further and further away from doing, that we might learn to love our enemy and so make him our friend."

Heavy words on nationalism that American followers of Jesus must also ask of ourselves: Are we first an American or first a follower of Jesus?  Which allegiance is higher??

Dilemma of Reconciliation With Both Sides as "Victims"

Just finished my second book by Rashid Khalidi called The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood which has reinforced what we have heard/seen in our recent trip to this region.  Summarizing this first (external) dilemma in his final chapter "Stateless in Palestine" and continuing in our search for reconciliation possibilities in this part of the world (I took this picture of a mosaic on the left near a kibbutz that is known for reconciliation work among Christians, Jews, and Arabs), Khalidi compares the two peoples this way:

"In spite of their vigorous sense of collective national identity, the Palestinians never succeeded in creating an independent state of their own, and have no sure prospect in the future of ever having a truly sovereign state, or of possessing a contiguous, clearly demarcated territory on which to establish it.  Beyond this, for their entire modern history--since 1917--they have suffered from a series of traumatic impositions.  These included the denial of their very existence and their legitimacy as a national entity by Great Britain, the Zionist movement, and much of the rest of the world; domination and repression by a range of foreign powers; repeated expulsions from their homes, including the expulsion of over half their number in 1948; and over two generations of harsh, alien military occupation for many of them.  In consequence of the lived experience of their own recent past over several generations, the Palestinians are thus understandably prey to profound, justified, and realistic fears of being destroyed and dispersed as a people.

By contrast, the Israeli people today have a very powerful state, one that has been in existence for over fifty-eight years.  They nevertheless harbor intense fears of their own, for their state's continued survival and their survival as a people.  These are born mainly of a recent history of discrimination persecution, expulsion, and genocide against Jews that took place primarily in Europe, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, all of this against the background of a two-thousand-year-old history of expulsion and persecution. . . Moreover, this is a state that fully and completely controls a territory--Israel together with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip--that today has a bare and rapidly shrinking overall Jewish majority.  These fears are powerfully reinforced by a peculiar Israeli narrative of their recent experience in Palestine, whose subtext is a specific reading of millennia of Jewish history.  This narrative sees the Israelis as the continuing victims of those they have decisively defeated, dispossessed, and dispersed, although they have been victorious in very military conflict they have engaged in over the nearly sixty years of existence of their state.

Clearly, for both peoples in Palestine, the Palestinians and the Israelis, this sense of victimhood (a sense that almost by definition involves a claim of exclusive victimhood) is underpinned by existential fears that in turn produce enormous anxiety about establishing a state, or for preservation of an existing state, in both cases as a shield against further misfortune."

From our experiences and conversations in the Middle East, this mutual sense of having been "victimized", past and present, presents a huge challenge to reconciliation and forgiveness in the Middle East both individually and collectively.  The only hope I see is if/when allegiances can be placed to identities beyond specific nationalisms, letting go of the legitimate and collective pain/unforgiveness that each side seems to hang onto however pathologically.  (One of our trip leaders referred to this dynamic as "bonding to our pain".)  It is my sense that God alone--the Creator God who transcends local, tribalistic, and/or culturally biased claims proclaiming God is on "my side"--is the only allegiance that can trump these powerful and local nationalisms.  Absent this Universal God, all nationalisms (including the equally powerful American nationalism) would seem to be guaranteed success in eliciting and manipulating emotions of fear, hatred, and mistrust whenever they wish.  But if primary identities and allegiances can be re-discovered in this Universal God Who stands above/beyond local cultures yet paradoxically works uniquely and contextually within every culture, I think it is possible to rise above the petty "gods" of nationalism that command our allegiance.  In my heart and mind, herein lies our only hope.      

A Two-State Solution to the "Palestinian Problem"?

I see in the paper today that President Bush last week called for a peace conference of nations that support a two-state solution to the "Palestinian problem".   Quoting David Ignatius in the Washington Post, President Bush "used language intended to woo the Arabs, referring to Israeli 'occupation of the West Bank' and saying that peace must include 'agreement on all the issues, including refugees and Jerusalem.  Casting aside implications that the "problem" is primarily Palestinian as well as the perceived hypocritical, unbalanced, and unquestioning American support for one side alone over the past 30+ years, what would seem to be the current prospects for a two-state solution?

In a 1991 letter of assurance to Palestinians prior to the Madrid Peace Conference, the U.S. declared it's goals to include an end to the Israeli occupation, emphasizing that nothing should be done that would be "prejudicial or precedential to the outcome of the negotiations".  This, in itself, presents a huge problem in 2007 because, as Rashid Khalidi correctly points out (and we saw this first hand on our trip), "From the grim perspective of at least the past six years of Palestinian history of intifada and crushing Israeli repression, of consolidated and constantly expanding Israeli settlements, it is clear that this entire teleology. . . is very much open to question.  Whatever may happen in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, independent, sovereign Palestinian statehood seems as far off as ever.  Some sober analysts now feel that an irreversible situation has been created by nearly four decades of Israeli occupation and settlement, and that Palestinian statehood, and with it a two-state solution, are now in fact completely impossible. . . [particularly] if a "Palestinian state" is taken to mean a viable, contiguous, sovereign, independent state on the entirety of the 22 percent of mandatory Palestine constituted by the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in June 1967." 

With this in mind and as we talked with both Israelis and Palestinians during our trip, questions regarding a two-state solution were met with "probably not in our lifetime".  Wherein, then, lies hope for peace, for forgiveness, and for reconciliation?  More on this in the days ahead. 

Musalaha

"Musalaha" is an Arabic word meaning forgiveness and reconciliation. As mentioned in my previous posting, the founder and director of the Middle East organization called Musalaha, Salim Munayer, is planning a Denver visit in late November.  I have exchanged several emails with Salim exploring how I might be able to help him network with like-minded and like-hearted folks here in Denver.  If you have an interest in meeting Salim and joining with a gathering we may put together, could you let me know.  Salim is a huge risk-taker for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East and, from a missional standpoint, I see reconciliation as one of God's favorite missions.  In other words, whenever and wherever one sees reconciliation happening, God's fingerprints are probably all over it.  So, if God is doing it, I'd like to participate, too.  If you feel the same way specifically about what Salim is doing, please let me know. 

Response to Previous Posting

I continue to ponder various comments and responses to my previous postings (public and private) which is one reason I have really enjoyed this opportunity to blog online.  I am guessing that some of you may have found my posting reference "God loves Jewish settlers as well as Palestinian suicide bombers" to be somewhat provoking.  Let me clarify.  In my mind and as I read Scripture, God obviously does not "love" the sin we dwell in daily.  Sin is, in fact, the primary context in which we live and one reason we all desperately need a Savior to rescue us from this bondage.  But, as we all dwell in sin, I think we need to see the difference between sin (however gross) and the sinner whom Jesus died for and desperately seeks to redeem. 

In my post, I intentionally pushed the envelope because I truly see the "wrong" in both parties.  Jewish settlers are provocatively and illegally (according to both international law and Israeli acceptance of UN Resolution 242 which stipulates pre-1967 boundaries for Israel) confiscating/stealing Palestinian land without any compensation whatsoever.  If Jewish settlers want Palestinian land, they get it whether it be in the West Bank or setting up squatter settlements on the roofs of the Arab quarter in Jerusalem. . . another story all by itself. 

Some Palestinians, in responding to oppression, are committing equally grievous sins including the outrageous and indiscriminate murder of unarmed civilians.  We met the Israeli father of one murdered daughter (14 years old at the time) in meeting with the Bereaved Parents organization in Jerusalem.

Can either of these despicable acts be condoned? NO!!!. . in every sense of the word!  They are each grievous acts of sin with ongoing and violent consequences (including the cancer of bitterness, hatred, unforgiveness and a thirst for revenge).  But, as I asserted in the original posting, while God hates all sin (including instances of violence and injustice), my view of God is that He is steadfastly seeking a loving redemption and reconciliation with every person in all the nations of the earth. 

One more note to dispel further stereotypes.  We obviously did not find nor do we believe that all Israelis are thieves any more than all Palestinians are terrorists.  In fact, this view of reality could not be further from the truth as we found/saw love, acceptance, and graciousness on both sides in abundance.  But the rationalizing that is taking place on both sides is enormous.  With one side, we get a sense that is it "God's will and/or political expediency that we take this land" while on the other side we see that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".  Which only serves to prove the truth of Gandhi's claim so  many years ago: "An eye for an eye will only make the whole world go blind".

Don't know if this helps or that you agree but hopefully it clarifies my thoughts.   

Talking Reconciliation

     

Two organizations/websites that are incredibly important in this conversation are Musalaha (www.musalaha.org) which actively seeks opportunities for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians and Reconcilation Walk (www.recwalk.net) who's mission is to "build peace through relationships" wherever there is conflict.  Rec Walk works not only in the Middle East but in Rwanda and Northern Ireland as well.  In my view, both of these organizations are walking in missionality daily as there is not question that wherever reconciliation is happening, God is at work.  And if participating in God's mission (what God is doing) is our mission, these are two ideal avenues for significant missional engagement.

Pictured here is our recent Rec Walk team heavily engaged in conversation at the Tent of the Nations, a remarkable endeavor by one Palestinian family to walk in reconciliation in the midst of five Jewish settlements in the West Bank.  Very informative and provocative.