Last week, a code of conduct regarding evangelism was issued by the World Council of Churches, the Vatican, and the World Evangelical Alliance. Every Christian, at least, should read it, and think about how to put what it calls for into action.
But, as Michael Kinnamon often says, before I speak about that, I have something to say. Or, in this case, a story to tell:
On one of the last days before my retirement, I went to see the second in command of my denomination. This was late last August, at the time of the manufactured flap about “the mosque at Ground Zero.” He did not think that we should be taking a strong public position about the fact that Muslims families had lost members on 9/11, and that a commitment to religious liberty called for us to support the building of a Muslim center near the site. I had challenged his view in an internal email to a number of staff– something that he liked even less.
When we met, he explained that he thought we should not speak out on this because Christian families in New York were, or might become, upset about it. They had lost people as the Towers collapsed, and supporting the right to build a mosque near the site would be unsympathetic, and make a mockery of what they had suffered.
In return, I asked, What about the fact that Muslims also grieved for lost family members? And that it was not, as President Bush himself had made clear, Islam that had done this terrible act of terror, but a small group using a few Quranic quotes to justify their willingness to kill anyone to make their point? What about the need to uphold religious liberty for all, lest it be taken away from us all? Were we to put the feelings of a few Christian families before making a contribution to a clearer understanding of what was at stake, and give those feelings precedence over taking a stand against anti-Mulsim bias and injustice?
He had no answer to any of these questions, but just repeated his position. Then added, “And isn’t our calling to share the gospel, after all?”
I resisted the urge to say to him all that was in my mind and heart at that point. If he did not think that I had been talking about the gospel — and he obviously did not– then we had much more to discuss than could fit in this sort of encounter! This brother was obviously confused.
He seemed to think (and perhaps still does) that taking a stand for Muslims as human beings like us, who should receive the same treatment as a group that we do, is counter to the “gospel mandate.” He seemed to think that we should side with the poor, grieving Christians, and … what? Make some OTHER sort of effort to offer Christianity to the Muslims? Support the Christians over against the Muslims?
In short, he was standing for no action, or for an action without any sort of friendship, or love, or understanding for non-Christians.
Contrast the understanding and beavior of the Evangelical Synod of the Nile in Egypt. The Synod was contacted, around 2004-5, by Christians in a village where violence against them had been perpetrated by some of the Muslims in the area. They aided the Christian community in their need, and also made the decision to build another school in that village – for all of its people. This, they told us, was how to live out the gospel in a situation such as theirs: to serve all of the people, and by this to demonstrate, in action, what the good news is.
When human caring is missing from what we do, and from what we say, then more than the gospel is missing – WE are missing in action. We are parking our humanity somewhere as we walk on by. And we are turning our interactions and relationships into small acts of agression, division, and “other making”.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 11, 2011 at 01:11
Geoff
Hi Jay,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this important subject. There are several thoughts that come to mind, that our misperception of all the victims makes them into “collateral damage” or “collateral victims” of a crime against humanity. Another thought is that our faith is lifeless if it doesn’t entail some risk. Standing up for all the victims of these crimes is a kind of risk that we must practice if we are going to grow and if our faith is going to become vital and meaningful. When we, as leaders and pastors, abrogate our responsibility on these issues, we allow our faith to stagnate and for us to be motivated by fear rather than by the Spirit of love and faith. There are many ways in which I have failed to take risks on behalf of my faith and I pray that God will reveal new opportunities for me to see and step forth for those who are suffering.
Pace e bene,
Geoff
July 11, 2011 at 12:49
Wallace Ford
Jay, in your excellent initial blog, I began pondering the difficulty interfaith relationships presents, especially if we are to take seriously the faith claims of my own tradition and that of the other’s tradition. However, I am finding on the other side of that difficulty a similarity that is encouraging. That similarity shows itself as I place side by side “emerging Christianity” and “emerging Islam”.There are themes both movements are struggling to articulate which have similar echos. I was reminded of this listening recently to a CBC program called Ideas. Two recent podcasts (Muslems in the West, Pt 1 and Pt 2) gave voice to some who might be considered to represent “emerging Islam”. (www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcasts June 27,July 4). These voices are encouraging.
July 11, 2011 at 13:38
Amy Eilberg
Beautiful, Jay!!!!
b’shalom,
amy eilberg
July 13, 2011 at 08:13
Joe Small
Jay,
Your post reminds me again of how much i miss talking with you. Thanks!
July 13, 2011 at 22:39
shannonbeck2
Preaching the good news: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,” I think Jesus said it well. Thank you, Jay.
July 18, 2011 at 09:39
Hans Ucko
I remember at the time of the massacre of Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in July 1995 the discussion in the World Council of Churches (WCC): should the the WCC make a statement. Some of us said, yes and in no uncertain terms, because civilians were gathered and massacred. Some were a bit hesitant: the problem was that the perpetrators were Serbs and thus members of a member church and we shouldn’t go against our own people and such situations are always difficult and we shouldn’t let our emotions run away with us and you know the language.
In a recent talk in Tehran on how we prepare for the Imam Mahdi, returning Christ, the Messiah, I said: “We should whether we are Jews, Christians or Muslims above all be concerned with the victim and not with the powers that be. Identifying with the victim, whoever s/he is, would be to pave the way for media to see religion not as agents of the one against the other but as religious communities sensitive to the plight of all victims. The saying attributed to the Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) should be at the signpost of every religious community:
“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”
July 20, 2011 at 10:33
cevon
Thank you for a great post.