Just Peacemaking and positive action

Following on from the previous post on Abrahamic alternatives to war the participants at the forum agreed to the following action programme:

1. As Believers in the one God, we all believe that to continue our conflicts is violation of God’s moral code and its imperative of justice. Violent actions as humans do not promote the cause of God and have negative repercussions for all.

2. We all believe that the concepts of “holy war” or crusades are neither compatible with the will of God nor with the true spirit of our religions.

3. We all believe that Just Peacemaking is the best option to resolve human conflicts and actively work toward the elimination of the conditions that lead to violence. We define violence as the illegitimate use of force.

4. We all believe that we have the responsibility within our respective communities to correct scriptural misinterpretations used to justify violence, through education of our own religious communities about the true message of our faiths, and also through engagement in intrafaith dialogue.

5. We all believe that we need to look both inward to our traditions as we do this work, and look outward to share results and receive feedback.

6. We all believe that psychological issues, social issues, and historical narratives must be taken into account as critical components of the process of conflict transformation.

7. We all believe that there is no religious justification for “terrorism” that targets innocents/noncombatants.

8. We recognize that we have continuing tensions, unresolved issues, and tasks, such
as:

a) to take account, soon, of the extraordinary crisis and risk to human survival
in current global affairs. We cannot wait, however, to solve all the “issues” before we act;

b) to understand in what sense each tradition must promote its own claims for “truth” without engaging in triumphalism. Can an “invitational” religion not imply some form of superiority over others?

c) to determine if our diverse historical experiences remain merely side by side, or must we work to write a common account of our histories? Are histories reconcilable? Can we internalize the “other’s” history?

9. We propose to explore a world day of celebration of shared human dignity.

10. We all agree that we should explore the necessary procedures and steps to implement this document.

11. We all agree to mine our own religious traditions to further develop the Just Peacemaking practices.

–

The basic tennets of Just Peacemaking, as cited in the document are:

1.  Support nonviolent direct action.
2.  Take independent initiatives to reduce threat.
3.  Use cooperative conflict resolution.
4.  Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness.
5.  Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
6.  Foster just and sustainable economic development.
7.  Work with emerging cooperative forces.
8.  Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
9.  Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.

–

Sure, I hear you thinking, this is all mum-and-apple-pie stuff.  But it’s very real and very achievable, but only if we each take personal responsibility for making it happen.  This goes way beyond “have you hugged a Jew / Christian / Muslim today” to asking yourself, “what can I do myself, with my family, within my own community, in my own country, and in the world to make peace a viable alternative to war?“

World Council of Churches debate on “The Promised Land”

The World Council of Churches has announced an international ecumenical debate on “The Promised Land”, from 10-14 September in Bern, Switzerland. Sixty-five Christian theologians “will discuss the concept of the ‘Promised Land’ and related theological issues with a view to help more churches become advocates for a just peace.”

“One of the main goals we hope to achieve is to deepen church understanding of biblical promises concerning the land and its peoples. This will require a holistic approach to the biblical message, promoting common understanding of how theological issues may be related to the conflict,” says Michel Nseir, programme executive for the WCC special focus on Middle East. “Different approaches to biblical and theological issues should not prevent common action for a just peace.”

That’s all very interesting from my perspective, however without Muslim and Jewish involvement the prospect of real progress being made is slim. As my favourite local refugee organisation says, “nothing about us without us!”

The WCC’s “Public Witness: Addressing power, affirming peace” project has laudable goals and some great programmes such as the Decade to Overcome Violence. However, the rubber meets the road at the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, and it seems like a very one-sided road to this Jewish reader. By effectively taking sides and not acknowledging different perspectives, the Council has turned itself into a political tool rather than an instrument of peacemaking dialogue. To my mind, that’s moving backwards, not forwards, as such exclusion can only lead to more violence on both sides.

For a slightly different but aligned (and more scholarly) perspective, see Frank Crüsemann’s article recently published in Jewish-Christian Relations, 60 Years: The Church and the State of Israel.

Dave

World Council of Churches debate on "The Promised Land"

The World Council of Churches has announced an international ecumenical debate on “The Promised Land”, from 10-14 September in Bern, Switzerland. Sixty-five Christian theologians “will discuss the concept of the ‘Promised Land’ and related theological issues with a view to help more churches become advocates for a just peace.”

“One of the main goals we hope to achieve is to deepen church understanding of biblical promises concerning the land and its peoples. This will require a holistic approach to the biblical message, promoting common understanding of how theological issues may be related to the conflict,” says Michel Nseir, programme executive for the WCC special focus on Middle East. “Different approaches to biblical and theological issues should not prevent common action for a just peace.”

That’s all very interesting from my perspective, however without Muslim and Jewish involvement the prospect of real progress being made is slim. As my favourite local refugee organisation says, “nothing about us without us!”

The WCC’s “Public Witness: Addressing power, affirming peace” project has laudable goals and some great programmes such as the Decade to Overcome Violence. However, the rubber meets the road at the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, and it seems like a very one-sided road to this Jewish reader. By effectively taking sides and not acknowledging different perspectives, the Council has turned itself into a political tool rather than an instrument of peacemaking dialogue. To my mind, that’s moving backwards, not forwards, as such exclusion can only lead to more violence on both sides.

For a slightly different but aligned (and more scholarly) perspective, see Frank Crüsemann’s article recently published in Jewish-Christian Relations, 60 Years: The Church and the State of Israel.

Dave