Mozaik 21/2008 Peace as a lifestyle by WSCF-Europe

The Power of

Nonviolent Action

– Disregarded History

Norman Kember This subtitle comes from an article written in 1976 by the leading thinker on nonviolence, Gene Sharp, and the truth of his thesis has not been affected by subsequent events. National leaders forget that a whole range of historical conflicts have been resolved by nonviolent action so that when confronted by a new dispute between or within nations they act as if violent solutions are the most reliable. This blinkered view derives from the assumption that national prestige rests not on the ability to solve problems peacefully but on a nation’s willingness and capacity to fight. Britain’s retention of nuclear weapons has no other rationale.

Subversive Action

Governments may also see nonviolent actions as subversive—giving power to the people— although we may remember that nearly all take-over coups have been by the military. There remains the sad fact that nonviolence generally lacks news value and, to be even more cynical, where are the profits to be made from nonviolent actions? And yet some governments have made serious studies of civilian based nonviolent national defence, although none (apart from Costa Rica) have gone as far as to abolish their military forces. In Switzerland in 1989, 30% of those polled were in favour of closing down their armed forces. The advocate of nonviolent social defence would not understate the risks. In contrast, British army recruiting material never emphasizes the dangers of military service. It is accepted that nonviolent actions may not be successful in the short term. The events of Tianamen Square are legendary but, although that image of the solitary protester highlighted the true nature of the Chinese system, it did little to change that regime. More recently the world witnessed the failure of the street protests in Burma to change that repressive military government, but it is now widely seen as a pariah regime.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Norman Kember was born in 1931. In Sunday school, he was inspired by the stories of Christians who undertook hazardous missions overseas, and as a student discovered the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor hung by the Gestapo in April 1945 for his participation in the resistance movement. When he was called to national service in 1952, Kember registered as a conscientious objector after long ethical discussions in the SCM at Exeter University. With his future wife Pat, he joined the Ban the Bomb march to Aldermaston in 1959 and they were both active in CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) in the 1980s. After retiring as a Professor of biophysics at St Bartholomew’s Hospital College of Medicine, Kember became a voluntary worker with Christian peace movements including the Baptist Peace Fellowship, the Catholic peace organisation Pax Christi and the inter-church Fellowship of Reconciliation. In March 2005 he attended a day’s workshop about Christian Peacemaker Teams, who place violence-reduction teams in crisis situations and militarised areas around the world at the invitation of local peace and human rights workers. Kember was challenged to experience CPT at work by joining a short-term delegation. That decision led him to Iraq where he was kidnapped.

Kate and Elen Matthews

Nonviolent ‘Victories’

In order to reinforce my argument, I give a few examples of nonviolent ‘victories’. Some have been inspired by charismatic leaders while others have arisen from ‘grassroots’. Some actions have followed training in conflict resolution techniques but most have developed new methods as they progressed. There, as yet, are no instances of government led nonviolent actions—perhaps covertly the CIA have supported peaceful protest—but experience argues that they are more likely to have supported armed revolt. 1a) Transvaal; 1907-14. Gandhi successfully campaigned with strikes and boycotts for the legal rights of Indians in Transvaal 1b) India; 1918 on. Among many nonviolent campaigns against the British imperial rule, Gandhi reversed the government salt tax laws by a symbolic march (1930) to make sea salt. The British reacted with brutal force against the nonviolent campaigns. 2) England/France; 1915-8. The stand of WWI Conscientious Objectors against threats of execution won the right ‘not to kill’ in the UK. 3) The Ruhr; 1923. German passive resistance forced the withdrawal of occupying forces from the Ruhr. 4) Kashmir; 1938. Abdul Ghaffar Khan mobilised the traditionally fierce Pathans to resist British rule by nonviolent actions. 5) Norway; 1942. Teachers refused to co-operate with the pro-Nazi Quisling regime and, although many endured prison, the teaching of Nazi doctrines in schools was withdrawn. 6) Denmark. In 1943 there was a widespread movement of non co-operation and strikes against

the Nazi occupation. SS troops were sent in but were powerless against the passive resistance. Finally, they were withdrawn. 7) Berlin; 1943. ‘Aryan’ wives of German Jews obtained the release of their husbands from prison by peaceful demonstration. 8) Guatemala; 1944. The regime of General Ubico was overthrown by the peaceful demonstrations of students and other citizens in spite of police brutality. 9) Sicily; 1953. Danilo Dolci organised a strike in reverse to draw attention to destitute people. Villagers provided free labour to built roads and civic amenities in spite of local government opposition.

Some actions have followed training in conflict resolution techniques but most have developed new methods as they progressed.

10) Vorkuta;1953. About 250,000 political prisoners were held in camps in the Vorkuta region to work in appalling conditions in coal mines. The prisoners went on strike and, in spite of brutal reprisals, stood out until conditions were improved. 11) USA; 1955 on. The campaign for racial justice in the USA started with the bus boycott in Montgomery. 12) The Larzac, France; 197080. Demonstrations—including the driving of sheep into Paris—forced the Government to withdraw plans to extend military practice areas over grazing land.

13) Himalayan foothills; 1973 on.Tree huggers prevented widespread deforestation activities. 14) Argentina; 1977-83. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, by their silent witness in spite of intimidation, stopped human rights abuses and helped the establishment of democracy. 15) Algomar, Brazil; 1980. Sugar barons appropriated land. The dispossessed returned to grow their own crops, but the plants were pulled up. Public opinion supported the peasants and the government made extensive land grants to them. 16) Philippines; 1986. In 3 days of breathtaking tension, crowds of civilians in Manilla defied and then won round the army, thus bringing about the fall of Marcos. 17a) Hungary; 1980-89. The gradual change from a totalitarian to a democratic government—the Soufflé Revolution (Communism collapsed like a soufflé). 17c) East Germany; 1989. Mass prayer meetings at St Nicholas Church in Leipzig spread across the country and the government was forced out in favour of democratic change. There was no bloodshed. 17b) Czechoslovakia; 1977. Charter 77 for human rights led on to the ‘velvet revolution’ and the restoration of democracy in 1989. 18a,b,c) Baltic Republics; 1988-90. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia took part in the 600 km human chain that linked the 3 state capitals. When Lithuania declared independence, the Soviets sent in troops and tanks but the people stood firm without resorting to violence and the troops eventually withdrew. In Estonia, vast crowds gathered in Riga to sing

traditional Estonian songs (banned by the USSR)—the ‘singing’ revolution. All 3 states gained independence without resorting to violence. 19) Mozambique; 1989-92. A religious community in Rome was able to broker an agreement between the RENAMO and FRELIMO forces. 20) Thailand; 1991. The Military seized power—prayer and fasting by monks for 7 months gave rise to popular demonstrations such that democratic rule was re-instated in the face of military repression. 21) Peru/Ecuador; 1995-6. An American Conflict Management Team brokered a peaceful solution to a disputed border conflict. 22) Australia; 1988. ‘The Sorry Book’ campaign was an example of one of many nonviolent actions for the rights of the indigenous population.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Norman Kember: The Power of Nonviolent Action

23) Ukraine; 2004. The people’s ‘orange’ revolution for democracy

students from all over the world—including officers from the armed forces...

24) Nigeria; 2002. 150 village women in Nigeria shut down an oil operation for a week— seeking jobs for their impoverished sons and husbands. They occupied the Escravos pipeline terminal of Chevron Texaco.

On recollection, nonviolence is the norm. In everyday life in communities—and between nations—disputes are solved without resort to violence. We must remember that VIOLENCE IS THE EXCEPTION.

These are a selection of some notable examples of nonviolent actions. Other protests have heightened awareness of the dangers, injustices and problems associated with nuclear weapons, road building, GM crops, women’s suffrage, hunting with dogs, the arms trade, etc.

Suggested Reading Buttry, Daniel. Christian Peacemaking – from Heritage to Hope. Judson Press 1994 Open Hands. ed. Barbara Butler, Kevin Mayhew 1998 Ferguson, John. Give Peace a Chance. Gooday 1988 Matthews, Dylan. War Prevention Works – 50 stories of people resolving conflicts. Oxford Research Group 2001

An important development of the 20th Century has been the growth of conflict resolution courses that train people in peacemaking in schools, churches, communities and between nations. The Quakers and Mennonites have led this development. Bradford University has a large department of peace studies which attracts

The Classic Study: The politics of nonviolent action Gene Sharp, Porter Sargeant 1973. Gene Sharp lists nearly 200 techniques of nonviolent action to achieve justice, overthrow oppressors or fight for environmental causes. Thus Jesus’ original suggestions of 3 transforming initiatives (turning other cheek, going the extra mile, going naked in court) have been imaginatively multiplied over the years. The philosophy remains the same , i.e. to empower the oppressed, leaving open the possibility of converting the oppressor. Now available as ‘Waging nonviolent struggle’ Gene Sharp 2005, Porter Sargeant, Boston.

An important development of the 20th Century has been the growth of conflict resolution courses that train people in peacemaking in schools, churches, communities and between nations.

Pieces of Peace:

Until Lambs

Live with Wolves Personal Reflections Rachael Weber

Hobbes and Calvin stand in the yard with dart guns and helmets. Hobbes asks, “How come we play war and not peace?” Calvin replies, “Too few role models.” After assigning sides, Calvin explains the roles “We’re at war, so if you get hit with a dart you’re dead and the other side wins, ok?” Hobbes understands and they point their dart guns at each other; both shoot at the word “go”. The scene ends, Calvin contemplates, “Kind of a stupid game, isn’t it?”1 Comedy often best reveals tragedies; as in the above scene from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, sometimes we are able to illustrate truths much better through the eyes of a child. Isaiah prophesies, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them” (Isaiah 11:6, NIV). The innocence of a child and the wisdom of the elderly - can we combine them with a view of history and vision for the future to connect the pieces of peace?

Origins “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind...War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” John F. Kennedy, Speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1961 As children, my brothers and I were not allowed to have water guns (if they were shaped realistically as guns) nor army figurines, etc. My parents desired that we not trivialise or glorify weapons or war in innocent play. Adventurous games and brave imaginings could take other forms, but not at the expense of “death” to figurines representing humans. My parents had faith behind their stance, that all violence, within the family and personal circles, or broader, as a result of war, was wrong. I grew up in both the Mennonite and Brethren Churches, two of the three historical peace churches (along with the Quakers). All three of these churches emphasise a pervading peace, which includes resolutions that all war is wrong. The Mennonite, Quaker, and Church of the Brethren denominations all emerged as a part of the Anabaptist movement during the Reformation. Among other reforms, the Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Rachael Weber: Reflections on Peace

Rachael Weber is from Harrisonburg, Virginia and currently lives in Budapest, Hungary where she is working for WSCF through the Brethren Volunteer Service. Reading on the banks of the Danube is one of her favorite things. Her email address is weberrl@gmail.com.

churches were committed to nonviolence and believed in religious tolerance. As a result of their beliefs in separation of church and state and commitment to nonviolence in all aspects of life (including resistance to military service), all faced persecution from the state sponsored churches throughout Europe, and many left for the United States and other parts of the world. Menno Simons, seen as the founder of the Mennonites, spoke of the call of the church, “We who were formerly no people at all, and who knew of no peace, are now called to be ... a church ... of peace. True Christians do not know vengeance. They are the children of peace. Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, and they walk in the way of peace.” Stepping even farther back, it seems the early Christian church did not participate in war until after Constantine. Justifications for war and violence came as Christianity became the official religion in many areas, tying its practices with state power (or vice versa). As Christ admonished Peter’s defense in Gethsemene, so the early church refrained from violent response, dying for their faith. On the cross, He cried, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” Reflecting upon Ivanovich Karamazov’s monologue about the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s Brother’s Karamazov; would, or do our lives and churches kill Him again?

When Military Service is Mandatory “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace” Luke 19:42 Differing from many European countries, all 18 year-olds in the US must register with the military, but military service is only mandatory during times of draft, when the voluntary army is not sufficient for

the national government’s demands. The last draft occurred during the Vietnam war. In the US, members of the peace churches do not have to join the military in times of draft, but have to do other forms of service. The military does not always accept one’s word or church creed only, but sometimes sends a board of people to interview friends, family, etc, to see if one truly does have a peaceful lifestyle before accepting exemption from military service. My grandfather had to go through one such draft board, and was exempted. At a Brethren youth gathering, Baptist pastor Tony Campolo gave a touching speech about how the gospel of peace influenced him. Tony also stood before a draft board, but was not a member of one of the historical peace churches with an official theological stance to fall upon. He, however, explained to the board, “As a Christian, I am called to live my life as Jesus did. I could train with the other soldiers. I could fly a military helicopter, but when given the order to push the button to drop the bomb, I would have to ask myself, what would Jesus do? And I couldn’t do it.” The leader of the draft board exploded, “Of course Jesus would not!” and Tony was exempt from military duty. In 2006, one columnist for the Boston Globe argued that if the US had instituted the military draft for the war in Iraq, it would have ended much quicker as many more young people within the US would have been affected. She correctly wrote “[a] key difference between Iraq and Vietnam is the country’s ability to keep this war at a convenient distance.”2 And this seems to be the problem with all wars and forms of violence. Do we see our enemies as humans also? When Hannah Tervanotko, the former regional secretary returned from a trip to the Global office in Geneva, she told me about a pin someone showed her. During WWI, WSCF distributed these pins to SCMers to wear on their uniforms. Then when they met in conflict, on either side of the lines, they would recognize that they came from the same Christian organization.

As children, my brothers and I were not allowed to have water guns (if they were shaped realistically as guns) nor army figurines, etc.

Truth and Inherent Value Calvin looks up to his father; he is reading the newspaper in his armchair, “Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world’s problems?” His dad looks up from his paper, clearly puzzled and out of creative answers. Calvin continues, “I think grown-ups just ACT like they know what they’re doing.”3 At the WSCF-E conference, Religion-Source of Peace or Violence, we began with a role-play as an “appetiser” to introduce the topic. We were asked to draw a picture that describes ourselves and then to share about them. After explaining them, we were to exchange papers with someone else in the group. Then, the leader instructed us to ruin the pieces of paper. Most of us listened, and we crumpled up the paper, though no one tore them to pieces. One person refused to destroy the drawing. Personally, I did not place much value in the icebreaker game or in our personal colored pencil sketches on the piece of paper, so despite a little hesitation, I did not mind crumpling it up. But, the person in our group who refused to crumple it, valued the sketch as an expression of its artist, and had a larger vision, speaking up both against the requirements of the game and the violence of destruction. This activity led to discussion about religion, peace, and violence. What do we value? We concluded with the idea the faith itself is a source of peace, but that religion is misused and turned into a source of violence. Where do we place value? Do we see the image of God in the government? Or in each individual human being

fighting on the other side (and on our side)? Murder is considered wrong, one human against another, but in the context of nation on nation, society finds it justified and noble (and holds governments but not individuals responsible). Defense is a natural reaction, yet violent defense is not necessarily justified. The Pharisees were ready to fulfill the law, stoning the adultress, and Jesus stood, drawing in the sand. Reality and ideas are intertwined, the truth, if truth, should not need violent defense, but should naturally come when one seeks. Our defenses seem to grow stronger when we are afraid of differences, yet truth does not change, only human understandings of truth. In Lilith, George MacDonald vividly describes the earthly cycle of war and redemptive violence. Mr. Vane, the main character, finds himself in a battle field of skeletons. They fight each other, “not one fell or ceased to fight, so long as a single joint held two bones together.” They fought on top of skeletons in a cycle of madness; he continues: “The holiest words went with the most hating blow. Lie-distorted truths flew hurtling in the wind of javelins and bones. Every moment some one would turn against his comrades, and fight more wildly than before, The Truth! The Truth! Still his cry…None stooped to comfort the fallen, or stepped wide to spare him.”4 This cycle continues, even in wars we feel are justified. In our world today, it seems the escalation of weapons is the surest way of governments to preserve peace. But violence begets violence (are we learning from Gethsemane, Afganistan, Iraq, and the violent conflicts throughout history?).

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Rachael Weber: Reflections on Peace

Yet, throughout history, religions, individuals, etc, have used the truth as justification for war, death and the majority of society in given settings goes along with it. As Herman Goering, a Nazi war criminal, said, “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” As an American and a pacifist in the US when the Iraq war was “sold” to the population, this feeling rang true.

Swords and Plowshares They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore. Isaiah 2:4 Living peacefully does not mean living passively; the resistance to war and violence should not be because of fear of one’s life or injury but because of fear for the other’s life or injury. Christ says: “Blessed are the peace-makers”; those who make peace, not merely live in peace. I walk down the street to work

and try to stay unnoticed. I desire to stay out of conflicts in the work place or among friends. But this is different from actively seeking peace and pursuing it (Psalms 34:14). The call to peace is a call to action. Peace is not separated from justice. Throughout history, one can read powerful examples of peaceful resistance and revolutions that changed history, from Christ to Ghandi, from the abolition of the slave trade in the UK to the ending of apartheid. One, obviously, does not have to be a member of these historic peace churches to live peacefully, follow peace theology, etc. Many organizations, denominations, faiths, gather formally or informally and stand for peace. To give one example, with other partners, the Mennonite, Brethren, and Quakers together formed Christian Peacemaker Teams, which make it their goal to personally “get in the way” to prevent violence.5 At my orientation with the Brethren Volunteer Service, we visited a Jonah House Community in Baltimore, a member of the Plowshares Movement working for nuclear disarmament. In this house, Christian activists of all ages lived together in community. Carol Gilbert, a 59 year old Dominican nun, had recently completed a sentence in prison for demonstrating against the US’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. Together, with two other sisters in their seventies, they cut a single row of links in a fence to enter a missile silo in Colorado, housing a weapon illegal under international law, and using baby

Isaiah prophesies that one day they will “pound their swords into plowshares”, turning them from weapons to tools of harvest.

bottles of their own blood, drew crosses throughout the facility. They wanted to raise awareness of the large stockpile of weapons stored in Colorado during the time when the US was searching for weapons in Iraq, feeling they needed to symbolically spill their own blood in a symbol of solidarity with those who might die as a result of the weapons. She spoke about her reasons for this type of demonstration, the court trial, and the time in prison. The three nuns refused to pay the court ordered restitution to the air force, knowing the money would support the military, and, at the time, Carol was unsure if this would mean more jail time. Meanwhile, she was living in the Jonah house and “instead contributed hours working in the prison laundry, hours knitting scarves, mittens and sweaters for the poor, and continued running their free food pantry for the hungry”.6 A startling statement, seeming foolish and yet radical and raising awareness. Ezekiel lay on his side for over a year as a sign of the injustices Israel committed; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow. Prophet after prophet dramatically challenged the status quo of society. Overturned tables in the temple were not appreciated either. What is our call as Christians in the face of violence? When faced with violence or injustice, can we ask ourselves the somewhat clichéd question in today’s media and pop culture, but a question that should challenge to the extreme and that we should reclaim, “What would Jesus do?” His nonviolent response still changes lives and history. But he also warned that we must “count the cost” (Luke 14:25-34). In Christianity, we have promise of hope in the result of nonviolent action through the resurrection.

(Endnotes) 1 My description of the illustration of a comic strip by Bill Watterson, the quotes are his! 2 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/22/a_ military_draft_might_awaken_us/ 3 See end note i.

Christ stood for unconditional love and nonviolence with the assurance of resurrection, prophesying to those who did not yet understand that he would rise again after his death. This hope in resurrection, seen in the illustration of His ultimate use of nonviolent power, gives the peace stance its ultimate lasting power. His extreme love of his enemies led to his death, but still resulted in life. Isaiah prophesies that one day they will “pound their swords into plowshares”, turning them from weapons to tools of harvest. Wars emerge when one nation wants or needs something that someone else is protecting. There can never be peace while the majority of the population of the world is starving and a small portion is obese (whether we are referring to food, money, resources, etc). At a recent gathering of the volunteers from the Brethren Volunteer Service, one volunteer in Northern Ireland mentioned a group of protestors doing the “peace wiggle.” We looked at her, “the peace wiggle?” “You know it—all of you must know it. It’s what you do when you are arrested.” We stared at her with blank faces. Others in the group may have, but I had never protested anything to the extent that I might risk arrest. “You know, if they arrest you when you are protesting. You lay limp, not resisting, not helping them move you. It’s very difficult to be moved, especially if you wiggle a little.” In Jesus’ parable, as the persistent widow received justice from the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), we need more persistence. Perhaps we need a bit more of the “peace wiggle” in our societies or daily lives.

4 Macdonald, George. Lilith. 5 http://www.cpt.org/ 6 http://www.jonahhouse.org/Nuns/ rcassieOct06.htm http://www.jonahhouse.org/sacred_earth.htm

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Rachael Weber: Reflections on Peace

The Philosophy Nonviolence:

Still Radical, Still Relevant Martha Beale 2008 is an important year of remembrance for peace activists across the world. Marking the 60th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., 2008 presents an opportunity to look at the philosophy of nonviolence and the impact of arguably the most important tool the peace movement has ever benefitted from.

Philosophy of nonviolence

At its most basic, the philosophy of nonviolence is about recognising the worth of every person as a child of God. But at this most basic level, the philosophy is also its most challenging. Most people considering the philosophy struggle with loving thy enemy: truly recognising your opponent as an equal. Walter Wink, in his book Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way, reveals that this is difficult for us as it “means believing that anyone can be transformed regardless of the past.” He goes on to say that the real challenge is “trusting God for the miracle of divine forgiveness. If God can forgive, redeem, and transform me, I must also believe that God can work such wonders with anyone”.1 The strength of character needed to value people who may have treated you with hatred and prejudice is no mean feat. What is so difficult about the philosophy is

that it is not a methodology you sometimes use, but a way of life. Seeking to respect everyone you encounter, however rude, offensive or difficult they may be, is much easier said than done. But, this is also a source of strength: as only by striving towards perfection, can you ask others to do the same. And crucially, the philosophy of nonviolence is not something you pass or fail, but rather a journey you undertake which is never ending. For many, nonviolence appears to be a nice ideal but no use in real life. However, time and time again this has been proven to be untrue. Wink states, “In 1989-90 alone, fourteen nations underwent nonviolent revolutions, all of them successful except China, and all of them nonviolent, except Romania. These revolutions involved 1.7 billion people... And yet there are people who still insist that nonviolence doesn’t work!” 2

Martha Beale works as the Education and Campaigns Officer for the Fellowship of Reconciliation. After previously working for Quaker Peace and Social Witness and specialising in African American studies and the American Civil Rights movement during her American Studies Degree, Martha is committed peace activist, Quaker and youth worker. She enjoys reading, art and listening to music in her free time.

11 11

What would you do if…?

There are always situations and scenarios involving Hitler, fascism, mass genocide and the lives of our loved ones being at risk, which sceptics of nonviolence use to ‘disprove’ its power. However, as Joan Baez in the article “What Would You Do If...” argues, “no one knows what they’ll do in a moment of crisis. And [...] hypothetical questions get hypothetical answers.” 3 Many of these questions are based around the duty we all have to protect one another from harm. Proponents of nonviolence would agree with this, as they believe that everyone has a duty towards one another: to stand up to injustice, oppression and especially the violence they see in the world. Our difference would be, however, how we respond to that duty. The reason why nonviolence works is that it breaks down power imbalances between people. This is done by loving your enemies and also by admitting that we ourselves contain some evil. Proponents of nonviolence are forced to recognise that they hold within them the capacity for violence and hatred and are challenged to transform that energy into a positive. As Wink says: “The hardest moment comes when our own internal oppressor meets the outside reality that it supports. It is not out there, but in me, that the oppressor must die.” 4

Challenged

Many people are challenged by proponents of nonviolence who choose to accept suffering rather than inflict it. But this is a source of strength for the philosophy rather than weakness. By accepting suffering as a necessity,

nonviolent activists transform a situation and treat their opponents with the respect they hope to gain. Nonviolence promotes the rule of law by encouraging participants to willingly accept the consequences of their actions. They demonstrate that only by respecting the rule of law can we truly expect others to also uphold it. People hesitate to use non violence for many reasons which are understandable and need to be worked through individually before the philosophy can be fully embraced. These include fear of physical harm; in some cases having a criminal record or conviction; and appearing to go against mainstream opinion, among others. However, the philosophy is radical in its confrontation of fear, asking proponents to overcome it for the greater good of society and themselves. The philosophy is a process in which proponents learn about themselves and test their beliefs and courage to the maximum. It is not something which can be undertaken lightly and it is important to recognise that it is natural to feel afraid.

Choose your battles

Unfortunately, applying the philosophy does not immediately lead to success in all situations. Two of the most important lessons the philosophy can teach us are recognising which battles are worth fighting and the importance of thorough and intense preparation as a route to success. Conflict is

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Martha Beale:The Philosophy of Non-Violence: Still Radical, Still Relevant

THE PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE1 complex and needs to be responded to creatively; our response cannot be broken down into a set of rules, as each situation is different. And that is why the philosophy of nonviolence is so revolutionary; it does not tell followers what actions to take, but rather the mindset which is needed for actions to succeed. By using and developing the philosophy as Gandhi and King did, proponents of nonviolence are seeking to remember the lessons of the past as well as plan for the future. This is why the philosophy is still as relent today as it ever was. The legacy which Gandhi and King revealed for us was that by doing the unexpected a small group of people truly can change the world.

1. All life is one. 2. We each have a piece of the truth and the un-truth. 3. People are more than the evil they sometimes commit. Evildoers are also victims of the system they maintain. 4. The means must be consistent with the ends. Nonviolence is active resistance to evil; it is assertive spiritually, mentally, and emotionally. 5. Voluntary suffering can educate and transform. Proponents of nonviolence willingly accept the consequences of their actions. Suffering can have the power to convert the enemy when reason fails. 6. We reaffirm our unity with others when we transform ‘us’ versus ‘them’ thinking and doing. Nonviolence works towards creating a beloved community. 7. Nonviolence chooses Agape (all-encompassing) love, instead of hate. 8. Nonviolence is a process of becoming increasingly free from fear. Proponents believe the universe is on the side of justice. Resources on Nonviolence •

•

• • Endnotes 1 Wink, Walter. Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2003, p.68. 2 Wink, p. 3. 3 Baez, Joan. “What Would You Do If...”, Peace is the Way: A Guide to Pacifist Views and Actions. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1990, p.21. 4 Wink, p. 81.

• •

Turning the Tide, a programme of Quaker Peace and Social Witness, explores and promotes the understanding and use of active nonviolence for positive change. Offers resources and workshops. More details on www.turning-the-tide.org, by phoning: 0207 663 1064/ 1061 or emailing denised@quaker.org.uk or stevew@quaker. org.uk. Peace School, a year long programme exploring what it means to be a peacemaker in every area of life; local and global. Their website can be visited at http://www.peaceschool.org.uk/ or they can be phoned on: 0113 257 4572. Pace e Bene’s From Violence to Wholeness programme, examining the spirituality and practice of active nonviolence, or Engage programme, promoting learning, practicing, and experimenting with nonviolent options for our lives and for a sustainable, just, and peaceful world. Their website is: http://paceebene.org/. A Force More Powerful (DVD). A documentary series on how nonviolent power overcame oppression and authoritarian role in the 20th century. York Zimmerman Inc., 2000. www.yorkzim.com. Kurlansky, Mark. Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea. London: Jonathan Cape, 2006. Wink, Walter. Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2003. Wright, Cyril and Augarde, Tony (Ed.). Peace Is the Way: A Guide to Pacifist Views and Actions. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1990.

1 This is a summary of the combined Philosophies of Nonviolence as promoted by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

13 13

Pure heart – Basis of Peace Roman Králik

Purity of the heart: it is an image which compares the heart to the sea. But why exactly to the sea? That is because the heart has cleanness in its depth and clearness in its cleanness.”1 S. Kierkegaard

Negatives and superficiality – loss of values

Every one of us faces a large amount of negative news everyday. Television, radio and the internet bombard us with accidents and catastrophes, revealing that humanity nowadays has lost its peace and joy. Negativity has flooded the world and the human mind. Where to find peace? Where is the oasis where humans can find peace? In 1847, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855) published Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits, and part of this paper is influenced by the sermon of Jesus on the mount and by Matthew 5:8: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Why is Kierkegaard concerned with purity? Because he knew that the human heart is “dim, not deep but superficial.” Thus Kierkegaard wages war against superficiality. Superficiality denies everything deep and thus everything valuable. In order for humans to attain peace, they must not be superficial.

Kierkegaard stresses principles that warn against the loss of human values as a consequence of the loss of internal peace and a sincere relationship with God. Again and again he questions us: What are the human values of today? Where is humankind heading? But he goes even deeper. In his books, he leads a discussion with the reader; he brings his visions and confronts the reader with her or his conscience. Kierkegaard centres his attention on human motives, on each individual’s character and relation to God. Humans have become non-transparent, cunning, and long for rewards, advantages and to own and possess. These values are remote from Jesus´ beatitudes. Principles such as poverty, quietness, mercy and peace are not considered to be values anymore. This change of values has brought its fruit to humankind – suffering, distrust and fear. The trust among people has disappeared and ethics is at the periphery of interest. We do not have to talk about faith in God; trust is missing in relationships and friendships. As a consequence – the number of suicides has risen, prisons and orphanages are crowded and people live in fear of what the future holds.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Roman Králik: Pure heart – Basis of Peace

Roman Králik (1973) studied pedagogy, philosophy and theology in Banska Bystrica and Nitra, Slovakia, and in Prague, Czech Republic. He has twice obtained the Jonathan Stenseth – Stipendium in the USA (2004, 2007) and took part in a research programme at St. Olaf College in the Hong Kierkegaard Library. He has published a number of articles dealing with the Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard. In 2005, he established the Kierkegaard Collection in Slovakia in Šaľa, which is the only specialized library of this kind in Slovakia. He is the founder and chairperson of the Kierkegaard Society in Slovakia. He has a doctorate in theology from HTF UK in Prague. He is the author of the published monographs Problém zvaný Kierkegaard (The Problem Called Kierkegaard) and Zápas Sørena Kierkegaarda (The Fight of Søren Kierkegaard) in 2006. His email address is kierkegaard@centrum.sk.

Relationship between God and humans

Kierkegaard is aware of God’s demands and requirements for humans. God asks individuals to remember their “first love” – the time of decision involving burning desire for God, when one gives up things, desires and everything preventing a relationship with God. A human must give up everything preventing her or him from spiritual progress. Kierkegaard asks humans to desire and want the only thing. Kierkegaard sees the difference between God and humans. A human has many desires, which are actually the beginning of spiritual death. Unlike humans, God knows everything and is eternal. A human without God means nothing and lives in untruth – she or he is always negligible. Humans live in untruth, and have hatred, anger, and fear for tomorrow inside. Humans trust the world and have faith in themselves. In his works, therefore, Kierkegaard often warns through the Holy Wit: “Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded”. Humans are ill and have two types of diseases: on one hand their disease is a fight, a revolt of selfwill and on the other hand it is cowardice, slavery and hypocrisy. Only when reaching the second group of diseases does the doctor discover that the cure used for the first group of diseases was wrong. Thus, the disease has spread and the human has refused the good. As a protection against the disease, God gives two guides: one leads forward towards the good, the other one calls back to the good from the bad. God does not award deeds with admiration but with calls for truth.

Desire for wrong rewards

A human’s desire for God must be persistent in overcoming obstacles, exams which are present in a human’s life. A human must want the only thing in suffering – God – and must be careful with rewards of this world, which become easily the aim of life. Awards are a kind of trap and must not

15 15

be taken into account. Kierkegaard’s financial status and social background of priests were thorns in his side. To want the good as a reward in fact means that the human is of disunity and does not want just one thing! The human must decide at the crossroads: to want either reward, the world’s recognition, or the only thing, God, and also the disadvantages and hatred from others that is connected with it. To want is a condition and rewards are always temptations. A reward is a symbol of disunity. A humble person before God, who wants the good sincerely, is strong in God’s strength and is strengthened by full faith in God. The world and Church would look different if such people worked for the Church. People very often forget God’s reward and prefer early rewards. An early reward is unreal and not permanent or eternal. Humans want to prosper and profit out of the good. A human, however, does not want to be rewarded only, but to be true as well. The desire to own the truth is weak and vain and is connected with a wish to win in this world. The person must have a proof of being the strongest. Throughout the world’s history, humans have wanted to be clever, first, and equal to God, if not to overcome him. The peak of vanity is the human who begs for attention, not by offering beauty, skills or honesty but ambiguity and taint. A human must give up disunity and want the good in truth. This will penetrate into the soul and display hidden thoughts. Humans have stopped seeking for it, seeking only for themselves and relying only on their own reason (Proverbs 3,5). Everyone wants to win, to have victory run through them. The human finds her or himself to be the chosen one and a savior – even if he or she is bifurcated. If humans want to approach God and become saints, they must live in peace and create peace; they must have a pure heart. This is a presupposition of a spiritual growth and change. This desire must not come out of fear against the good or punishment. A human must not have a fearful heart and must not be afraid of the desire to have a pure heart

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Why is Kierkegaard concerned with purity? Because he knew that the human heart is “dim, not deep but superficial.”

because the heavens are closed to a fearful human. A human with a pure heart is not afraid of a punishment because she or he feels it as an act of love, the good. A bifurcated spirit is afraid of earthly punishment and does not understand punishment in eternity. This is a difference in perception of the good, not fear but love. Love is shown by trust in the middle of the dangers of this world. The good requires peace and patience. The human is able to want the good as a reward, as a security from punishment and desperation. To a certain level, the human wants to follow goodness. It is enough for one to attend church on Sunday and on Christian holidays. A person is brave just in decisions about small things. But then, in eternity, the individual will have to answer the question: to what extent was she or he punctual and persistent in following? Humans live in troubles and a busy world. They have forgotten to enjoy small things. Busyness is a problem. One has no time to think and understand oneself. One lives in noise and does not know and see oneself in depth. One does not have time to stop and face the mirror, to find out, in which spiritual state

one is present. Our era has everything but time. Humans are running but they have stopped living and thinking about personal disunity. Individuals make excuses to carry this burden and seek for agreements all around to apologise for behavior. There is a kind of cleverness in every human though – a dangerous power to see one’s own faults and failures. The human finds excuses and objections to get rid of guilt. A human who wants the good, needs wisdom and bravery to fight excuses.2 A human of disunity has lost peace and this is visible in actions which harm. This human forgets that the only and true proof of conviction and faith in life is deeds. Faith is proved by deeds, deeds of love and mercy towards your vicinage and fellowmen. It is not enough to declare the faith; it is necessary to confirm it by deeds. Such faith then becomes real. A human without deeds is unstable and lives in a fake idea of “Christianity”. Kierkegaard is critical of Luther because Luther underestimated Jacob’s epistle, which calls a human to deeds. If one really decides to follow the good, one must do everything. One must not be afraid of suffering and contempt from others. The good requires forgiveness, generosity, givingup position and the second mile. It requires personal bravery to survive the pressure of society. If one wants to do everything, than one must choose to remain in the good regardless of the circumstances. A human who wants the only thing saves time for the good and does not deal with many unnecessary things which do not build character. Humans face the challenge by suffering and learn what makes sense in life and what is the highest in a spiritual point of view. A human decides, by suffering, to refuse recovery or to follow the good.

Kierkegaard’s aim was for people to realise the seriousness of the situation. He pointed at human choice and the reality that our hearts must be purified from selfishness and handed to the hands of the higher entity.

17 17

Challenge

The human faces the challenge of living as an individual. One must leave the crowded mass of people and extricate from it. One must think about one’s life before God. Unless one leaves the crowd, one is only a fraction in a mundane mess and runs away from God’s voice as Adam in Paradise. Each person stands alone before God regardless of position or status. What does, however, a human do? A human wants to put conscience to sleep and move towards the crowd, which has forgotten its personal responsibility to want the only thing a long time ago. Kierkegaard does not doubt that he is loved by God. God, who is infinity, but loves him and comes down to him. Kierkegaard’s aim was for people to realise the seriousness of the situation. He pointed at human choice and the reality that our hearts must be purified from selfishness and handed to the hands of the higher entity. If even the smallest cloud comes in between the heart and the good, then, at that moment, the heart is not as clear as a mirror and does not reflect the heavens anymore. Kierkegaard realised that the Christianity of his times had declined and become formal. It stopped being the life-and-death fight, no longer seriously understood in terms of the New Testament. It was a children’s toy instead. The faith was always very deep, a strong but blissful feeling. Faith is the way, the journey which turns the problems and unrest in the world in a different

direction. The world’s misunderstanding brings condemnation on one hand, and joy on the other, because faith overcomes the world – and brings peace from God. The journey of a Christian is similar to a ship on the sea: there are different obstacles, but the important thing is the direction – the lighthouse is Jesus Christ. Kierkegaard requires the human to follow Christ. This journey should be the same, without compromise, as Jesus´ journey: to walk alone in the role of a small servant and to not long for the rewards of this world. One should not expect advantages and help as a result of this decision; it is not a question of tradition or of different speculations. When a human freely decides, the help comes, under the condition of relying on God and not on people and their skills. In heaven, each human will answer the question of what treasures she or he gathered in the heaven, not how much property and contacts she or he built back on earth. Everyone answers the question: how many times has one had denied oneself and bore suffering and insults? Jesus Christ is an example of this battle; he gave up everything, glory and recognition, and was killed on the cross in the middle of thieves. According to Kierkegaard, a choice always means “eitheror”. Kierkegaard is the philosopher of choice: to gain everything – or lose everything. There is only one way to victory: follow God and gain eternity. To follow does not mean that the human stops carrying the burden of Christ.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Peace as a lifestyle – Roman Králik: Pure heart – Basis of Peace

Kierkegaard often concentrates on and admires Christ, who sacrificed himself and did not want anything but to save all. He calls humans not to get rid of burdens but to learn how to carry them and remember the call of Holy Wit: carry the burdens of the others. There is a clear command; do not be Pharisees who preach about what the others shall do but forget about themselves. A Christian should be recognized by silence and mildness. They should forgive others and stand as examples. This forgiveness is not a careless forgetting but a conscious forgetting in active forgiveness. What is the point of theological quarters on Søren Kierkegaard today? He is perceived as a less important theologian than the one who wanted to point out the real level of Christianity and bring its improvement. Kierkegaard pointed at the poverty of theology which had changed the life of Church into a grey theory. Kierkegaard’s attack was connected with his awareness that the Church had succumbed to culture and society instead of having complete dependence on God. Due to Karl Barth’s preface of the Letter to Romans,3 Kierkegaard became the subject of interest in Germany in the 1920s. This happens even today, in an era when recognising value is a problem. What is the result? There is a story about a professor of theology who announced that he had never met any Christian apart from one, and that one was killed because of his ideas at the end of World War II. What has happened? An example has been lost, a pattern and a prior love to God. Secularization comes and values based on the Bible are lost as well. Kierkegaard, therefore,

(Endnotes) 1 Kierkegaard, Søren. Čistota srdce, Praha: Kalich 1989, p. 154. 2 Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed his personal bravery by sacrificing for the truth. “Mainly Bonheoffer’s death and sacrifice would be the real preachment according to Kierkegaard”. Králik, R. Zápas Sørena Kierkegaarda: Nitra: FF UKF 2006, s. 55.

focused on the absurdity of seeking the truth in Church. Why is he so radical? Because a Church which is concentrated mainly on the interests of this world cannot be an authority. The Church has a mission, which, if not being fulfilled, does not make sense. According to Kierkegaard, the understanding of the Church as a “community of saints” is not very much stressed. The individual is important – the Christian, who serves the only God and not only serves selflessly, but also loves with all mind, heart and strength. Kierkegaard, by saying this, stresses the deeds of love which are expressions of faith. These deeds and all human life are the measurement of faith according to Kierkegaard. The true love of a human is displayed in obedience “because God can be praised only by obedience”. 4 When a human proves obedience to God, then she or he gains God and everything connected to God. This obedience is influenced by the interpretation of the life of Jesus Christ and his life was a symbol of suffering. He proved his obedience through suffering until death on the cross, giving up everything. Kierkegaard’s stress of the difference between the human and God is popular, particularly this idea: “God is in the heaven and you Man on earth”. Humbleness and suffering – these are two important signs of a human’s faith, “because as the gold is cleaned with fire, the soul is cleared by suffering”. Such faith is not simple but a fight. A human then receives peace, creates peace and is no longer afraid of the future. This article was translated by Elena Buraková. Suggested Readings Barth Karl. Der Römerbrief, 2 Aufl. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1922. Králik, Roman. Zápas Sørena Kierkegaarda. Nitra: FF UKF 2006 (The Fight of Søren Kierkegaard). Kierkegaard, Søren. Evangelium utrpení. Brno: CDK 2006 (Gospel of Sufferings). Kierkegaard, Søren. Cˇistota srdce, Praha: Kalich 1989 (Purity of Heart).

3 Barth Karl. Der Römerbrief, 2 Aufl. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1922, p. XIII. 4 Kierkegaard, S.: Evangelium utrpení. Brno: CDK 2006, p. 131.

19 19

Promoting a Climate

of Mutual Understanding and Respect between Communities through Service: Ways and Means Elias El-Halabi

I will start my reflections on this theme with the conclusion of the World Council of Churches’ report on the Guidelines for Dialogue and Relations with People of other Religions. “In the many pluralist societies where they live, Christians and people of other religions are bound together in a dialogue of life, with all its difficulties but also its riches and promises. They gain new insights about their own faith and that of others. They discover afresh resources which will help them become more humane and make the world a better place for living together. They learn how to be more sensitive to the needs and aspirations of others and more obedient to God’s will for all creation.” 1

What is Pluralism?

The first question that comes to our mind as we read this passage is: what do we mean by pluralism? Pluralism is “[a] state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of common civilization.”2 We will restrict our definition of pluralism to the religious aspect for the purpose of this paper. The autonomous participation in the concept of pluralism entails a strong sense of positive identity, i.e. an identity that expresses itself in action, and therefore is not restrained or receding. There is a dialectic relationship between pluralism and identity. Pluralist society legitimates the quest for identity; in fact, this quest often becomes even more compelling in a context of close multiconfessional contact. However, if we restrict our concept of identity to a religious component, and in some instances to the denominational one, we will be planting the seeds of segregation, sectarianism and conflict, all of which may become volatile and explosive if not addressed adequately.3 We should not underestimate the role of religion in shaping our identity, especially in the Middle East where the

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Elias El-Halabi: Ways and Means.

Elias El Halabi is the Associate General Secretary of the Middle East Council of Churches. He comes from SCM background as a member of the Orthodox Youth Movement in Lebanon and Syria. Elias was the WSCF Middle East Regional Secretary from 1998 to 2007. He has a master’s degree in Christian Muslim studies from the Balamand University in Lebanon and is working on a research PhD in the same field at Birmingham University in the UK.

three main monotheistic religions were born. But, at the same time, we must not let the quest for identity justify hostility, injustice or discrimination in any form.

Pluralism in Holy Scriptures

Most religions put forward a holistic and comprehensive approach to the relationship between the creation and the Creator. Each approach is exclusive because it promises heavenly rewards to the ones that follow it, but at the same time is universal because it calls all human beings to God. Christians are called to bring the Evan Galion – the Good News – to the world; likewise, Muslims are called to spread the da‛ wa – to propagate Islam to all nations. Nevertheless, there are many references in the Holy Qur’an and the Holy Bible to the concept of pluralism. Take an example from the Holy Qur’an: “O Mankind, We have created you from a single (pair) of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other” (Qur’an 49:19). And from the Holy Bible: “Then Peter began to speak to them: I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Many regard their religious affiliation as part of a social or cultural heritage, and not as a belief system that governs all aspects of their life and directs their relationship with others. These are considered ‘nonpracticing’ believers. Islam makes a clear distinction between Muslims – Al Muslimun – and believers – Al Mu’minun. It is crucial at this juncture to differentiate between religion and faith. Faith is the essence of religion. Many find great difficulties in trying to disclose the true message behind the religious rituals and expressions.

Spirituality

Spirituality is the common denominator of all religions. In fact, such spirituality can transcend the rigidity of dogma. Religion can be likened to a path through the

wilderness. The wilderness is God’s saving revelation to all peoples; the path must necessarily pave the way to liberation. The personal benefit of spirituality is a more enriching relationship to the Creator, acting through the created, and for the welfare of the creation. “The interfaith movement needs to be erected on the foundation of spirituality, not of religion… Spirituality integrates the salvation of the individual with the transformation of the society….Shared spirituality …shifts the focus from the efficacy of individual salvation to the collective destiny of our species. In the process the spirit of competition is replaced by the spirit of a shared sense of mission.” 4 Some consider pluralism to be a synonym of religious diversity. Pluralism is not mere coexistence. Tolerance and acceptance are preliminary stages in the process of erecting a culture of pluralism. Religious communities may co-exist in a certain geographical territory but lack any kind of interaction; frequently, physically ‘close’ communities seem unimaginably ‘far’ apart. Religious diversity may be a given reality but pluralism denotes the way we make use of it.5 Pluralism is a means rather than an end.

Diversity as Development

This diversity could be (and is already) a source of community development, personal emancipation, good stewardship and common welfare, but only if taken in the context of pluralism. Otherwise, religious diversity may generate enmity, mistrust and may even intensify and exacerbate conflicts. In this era of globalisation, conflicts have also become globalised; even extending to distant emigrant communities or into previously

untouched domains such as the internet, chat rooms, and campuses. Communities are integrated (sometimes coerced) into the global system, all the while increasingly separated from each other. A good metaphor for this is the reality that millions of individuals watching the same television program are completely isolated from one another. Religions are dragged strongly into these conflicts and there are increasing calls for religions to play an active role in the public domain and in peace-building initiatives. How, then, can we promote this atmosphere of understanding and cooperation among people of diverse faiths?6 And how can we do this without losing sight of our separate and unique identities?

The Trinity and Pluralism

In the Christian faith there is an image of a Trinitarian God. There are three unique Hypostasis (Persons) yet they form one God7. Therefore, the unique denominational differences do not need to disappear, but can be positively expressed through the “quest for identity” and nurtured in a truly pluralist context.

Step towards interreligious communication

It is crucial to start by acknowledging that we are owned by God and do not own God. Salvation is a divine gift bestowed by God on whomever He sees worthy of it in His divine knowledge and judgment. In addition, we have to affirm the conviction that “God is not without witness among any people or at any time,” (Acts 14:17).8 The second step is to engage in all areas of interreligious communication. These encounters can take place in neighbourhoods, schools, work, and even public transportation.9 It is preferable to speak of interreligious encounters rather than dialogue at this stage for many reasons. The first reason is that many understand dialogue as the theoretical and academic discourse on theology and dogmas. The second reason is that it leaves out two major actors in those encounters: women and youth.10 They have to be allowed to get involved on their own terms and fields of interest and expertise. Going through such encounters in a spirit of humility and respect, the various actors involved will be able to discern their common interests and values. Most religions call for peace, justice and fairness to all. These must remain universal values not subject to compromise and intolerant of double standards. Moreover, we have to refrain from proselytism and denounce all forms of syncretism or double

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Elias El-Halabi: Ways and Means.

language. All these interactions have to be conducted in an atmosphere of transparency and be open to clarifications and constructive criticism. These are the building blocks of the bridge of trust requisite for any joint initiative at the community level.11 We need to bring emphasis to faith and spirituality above religious differences and, at the same time, ensure that the quest for identity is not cut short by easy syncretism or mere tolerance. There are a few points to take into consideration as we proceed in that joint venture: Partnership: All parties involved shall enjoy full partnership in any joint action. This partnership starts from detecting the need or threat to the level of diagnoses and treatment until the stage of evolution. It is collective ownership. Determination: All parties shall show a high level of perseverance and strong patience. They have to expect attacks, abuse, manipulations and sometimes failures. We may lose a battle but we shall win the war. Continuity: It shall be of great interest to promote a second class of committed and experienced leaders who will insure that there will be no breach or break. There has to be a commitment to make this “dialogue of life” a central aspect of our

(Endnotes) 1 WCC, ‘Guidelines for Dialogue and Relations with People of other Religions: Taking stock of 30 years of dialogue and revisiting the 1979 guidelines,’ Current Dialogue, no. 40 December 2002, 16. 2 Webster’s Nine New collegiate Dictionary ( Merriam-Webster Inc,1991) 3 ‘Current Dialogue, no. 40 December 2002, 17. 4 Swami Agnivesh, `Applied Spirituality A Spiritual Vision for the Dialogue of Religions,` Current Dialogue, no. 45 July 2005, 35. 5 WCC, ‘Report of a Consultation What Difference Does Religious Plurality Make? Bossey ecumenical institute17-22 April 1999,’ Current Dialogue, no. 34 2 1999, 60. 6 Current Dialogue, no. 40 December 2002, 16. 7 Hypostaisis in Greek language means:“who stands underneath, who

faith, and not merely an intellectual pursuit, something on the sidelines or occasional. Incorporation: Media plays a crucial role in propagating news about conflicts which may have negative repercussions on interreligious interactions. It is imperative to “recognize those newspapers, journalists or programme makers who actually want to act with a degree of responsibility and impartiality, cooperate with them by involving them in our work …”12 In the same context, it is advantageous to get all the social strata and influential groups involved. Creativity: There are no ready made recipes or tested medicines that can be safely applied. It always advisable to look into past experiences for critical assessment and to draw on the positive elements. Moreover, a contextual analysis that takes into account the actors involved, their relationship to each other and to the political authorities as well as any other relevant factors is needed.

Moreover, we have to refrain from proselytism and denounce all forms of syncretism or double language.

In conclusion, we have to keep in mind that each and every human being is a unique cosmos. In order to navigate in it safely, we have to have the precise knowledge of its space and to respect its laws of gravity.

sustains”. For more details refer to: Vocabulaire Theologique orthodoxe , Cerf, Paris 1985, 151. 8 Current Dialogue, no. 40 December 2002,17. 9 John D’Arcy May, `The Dialogue of Religions: Source of Knowledge? Means of Peace? ` Current Dialogue, no. 35, 17. 10 Christy Lohr, ` Interreligious Education Equipping People to be Citizens of the World`, Current Dialogue, no. 35 ,11. 11 For more details refer to the guiding principles , WCC, ‘Guidelines for Dialogue and Relations with People of other Religions: Taking stock of 30 years of dialogue and revisiting the 1979 guidelines,’ Current Dialogue, no. 40 December 2002, 19. 12 Jørgen S. Neilsen, ` The Contribution of Interfaith Dialogue towards a Culture of Peace` Current Dialogue, no. 36 December 2000, 25.

23 23

Interreligious Dialogue as a Contribution to Conflict

Transformation

– A Practitioners’ Guide Kristian Brakel

Kristian Brakel studied Islamic Studies, Education and Development Cooperation in Hamburg, Izmir and Berlin. Today he is working for the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs in the Palestinian Territories. Since 2004 he has been active in EMYB (www.emyb.org), a German development NGO fostering dialogue between youth from Europe and the Islamic world.

Faith - be it Islam or Christianity or any other - is not peaceful or violent in itself. Only the religious practices in everyday life, formed from the faith, support peace or violence. Today we witness an increase in the importance of religious belief and, at least since 9/11, religion is again on the agenda of security politics seeking to prevent violent conflict. While official political players mostly invest into institutions to reduce the risk of conflict, track two diplomacy1 on a civil society level uses tools of dialogue to foster mutual understanding. However, while the importance of interreligious dialogue is clearly recognized by all players, most of them seem to lack practical guidelines about how to create a fruitful dialogue process. The following article explores basic core principles needed to lead a dialogue and also discusses the difficulties of the process.

Dialogue to nowhere?

Dialogue, especially with Islam, is a buzzword in recent debates centering around peace and conflict. However, the high-level conferences held about this topic rarely produce results that go beyond mere abstract concepts of dialogue. Dialogue agencies like the EU funded Anna Lindh Foundation for the Dialogue Among the Cultures leave the methods of creating dialogue up to their “clients” to define. Practical concepts explaining how to design an impacting dialogue process are rare. This is not a coincidence. The people who deal with interreligious dialogue are usually those who have specialised in the facets of one or more religions: church professionals, groups of young believers, professors of political science or theology etc. These people possess an enormous amount of knowledge on the historical and cultural background of religious practice, and often its political impacts as well. They know how to convene in dialogue sessions with other academics,

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Kristian Brakel: Interreligious Dialogue as a Contribution to Conflict Transformation

but rarely are they the ones to lead a dialogue with people on the streets. If they do, then they do it only to advertise for their own religious group. If dialogue processes are meant to have a social impact, they need to reach the average believer and not only high profile leaders. The most basic question remains: “what do we want to talk about?”

The dilemmas of dialogue

There are three basic dilemmas in dialogue processes:

 The dilemma of all being equal vs. knowing the truth  The dilemma of being open vs. the need to restrict  The dilemma of simplification vs. the need to be accurate Dialogue is encountering “the other” and her or his beliefs. It is fairly clear that this dialogue always has a certain aim. We lead a dialogue because we want to live in a more peaceful world, to spread tolerance, etc. This implies that every dialogue encounter is ripe with conflict, as the goal is partly also to convince my vis-à-vis of the benefits of my own beliefs. This is not immoral but only a normal implication of human conversation itself. However, it is necessary that the two counterparts that meet in dialogue are on the same level, i.e. that one accepts the other to be equal. If this prerequisite is denied, what reason is there for dialogue? If I believe that my own faith is morally superior, why should I talk with the other and not either shun (as not being worth it) or dominate her or him by force? We face a dilemma here: in dialogue we have to have an equal counterpart (in intellect, social status, education and also religious knowledge), though, at the same time, the impulse to lead a dialogue is to convince the other that one’s own belief is better. This dilemma cannot be avoided but the ambiguity should be remembered because it implies a certain dynamic and also danger of dialogue. We can deal with this situation by accepting the other as equal in human rights and dignity, regardless of her or his beliefs and opinions. The content of her or his opinion, however, has to be disputed and the same must apply to my own beliefs. So we should not encounter the other as a child who has not found the right path yet and needs to be disabused but see her or him as a whole person who has been shaped by reasons and history, as we have been shaped. Again we face a new dilemma: How can I accept that my own beliefs will be questioned when I am sure that I am morally right? Of course, in theory we always willingly state that we want to learn from dialogue, as we hope our counterparts learn from us. I used the same statement when I was faced with a situation two years ago facilitating a dialogue seminar with a very religious man from Jordan. As always when Arabs and Germans sit together, sooner or later the topic of the

Dialogue, especially with Islam, is a buzzword in recent debates centering around peace and conflict.

Holocaust comes up. This man started to question if the Holocaust really happened, stating that he had read books proving the opposite. This is a very sensitive topic in Germany and as I am used to reacting to anti-Semitic statements in a very harsh way, I could not follow the rule I had set before, i.e. to question the truth I believed in to see if I could learn from the other. Of course I still think my point was right as there is plenty of historic evidence that the Holocaust did happen and I should have not thought: “Oh maybe this man has a point”. But the dilemma remains; with certain aspects of reality there is no space for negotiation. This means there can be no acceptance of the reality of the other. The problem of course is that this applies also to the other person, when I – for example – questioned aspects of his belief. How can we have a dialogue, when certain important areas are taboo? How can I expect my counterpart to put into question his ideas, if I do not do the same with my ideas? But if I

would do so, would that not open the gates to racism, anti-semitism and other degrading beliefs being accepted as equal in the dispute? The third dilemma occurs because of the need to simplify, we often tend to use analogies to illustrate our arguments in complex topics. This is often done to demonstrate to our counterparts how unacceptable their line of arguments would be if applied to another setting. These analogies, however, imply that one situation is identical to another. This in reality is not the case, as the historical, cultural and social backgrounds always differ. Analogies do a lot of harm to dialogue processes as they simplify situations and discredit the arguments of the counterpart in an unacceptable way. But the dilemma remains, as many of the topics tackled are connected to inner-personal beliefs which are not easy to put into words, resulting in the need for metaphoric explanations.

Dialogue is conflict

As described above, every dialogue has a potential for conflict. My counterpart will feel threatened by my attempt to convince because this means questioning her or his own beliefs. This step is hard to accept, as it means questioning inner moral guidelines that determine right and wrong. Putting this inner-self into question may – if done incorrectly – lead to severe psychological consequences such as a depressive breakdown (however, it should not be mistaken for brainwash or the like). Keeping this danger in mind, it is necessary for every dialogue practitioner to apply certain sensitivity when choosing the approach and surrounding for the dialogue. Such a dialogue is much easier to lead when an atmosphere of trust prevails among the dialogue group and when the physical needs of the individual are catered too (including, if needed, religiously adapted food, helping to ease the feeling of being in an alien environment). Educational methods

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Kristian Brakel: Interreligious Dialogue as a Contribution to Conflict Transformation

unwilling to approach the hot topics where conflict lies. And if they do so, the common tendency is to agree on a common quality, “all our religions/ cultures want peace”, rather than to question and explain the underlying reasons for a development. In the second approach, however, the danger exists that mistrust prevails and the counterparts barricade themselves in their dissimilarities, often justifying themselves with the sentence: “in our culture/religion it is like this and that”.

Dialogue is empathy

(like games) help to confront people with parts of their personality which are otherwise impossible to access, as they are part of the subconscious. Tying the dialogue to one specific topic like gender roles, human rights or prayer helps to speak about needs of people existing in reality and does not allow the dialogue to remain vague. Dialogue encounters are often led about cultural issues like art, dance etc. This can help to break the ice, especially for people coming from countries where political topics are not open to public debate. The danger remains, however, that such discussions stay on the surface, as the critical differences that may cause violence among groups are seldom those of art, music and dance but those in the socio-political sphere. Here two main approaches exist: either starting with what people from different backgrounds have in common or starting with the points where they disagree. The first approach helps to build trust but has the tendency to blur the reason why the dialogue was started in the first place. Because the counterparts agree on so many issues, they might be

Above, you can find some basic guidelines for leading a dialogue. This probably leaves you with more questions than answers and this is in the nature of dialogue itself. The reason why dialogue cannot be learned from a textbook is that the main component needed to set it into practice is empathy. Religion (and also “culture”) are only partly rational concepts but are based on what people accept as their inner-truth. Therefore these concepts are also only partially accessible by rational means. For example, for many European Christians, it was hard to understand the outrage of a lot of Muslims after the publication of the Danish cartoons. People in Germany always cited the basic rights to a free press and a free opinion, but what they did not understand was that the outrage was not necessarily meant to question these rights but to gain acceptance that the pictures were felt to be insulting. Developing this empathy is essential. If empathy is developed, than the money for many high level conferences on dialogue could be used for better ends.

For many European Christians, it was hard to understand the outrage of a lot of Muslims after the publication of the Danish cartoons.

1 Unofficial interventions with unofficial actors

27 27

Religion – Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace: Islamic pacifism Torbjørn Askevold

“It is my inmost conviction, that Islam is amal, yakeen, muhabat – selfless service, faith and love” Badshah Khan

Introduction

In this article, I will look at the tradition of Islamic pacifism. In a class, I studied role religion plays in conflict and positive potential in religions for conflict resolution. In the course, we looked at both the positive Islamic tradition of pluralism and acceptance of religious diversity and the more ambiguous Islamic justifications for the use of violence in conflict and even in terrorist attacks. We worked with the Islamic notion of just war, the tradition of jihad and the challenge with Islam’s prescriptions for use of force. In relation to these questions I find it interesting to look at how Muslim pacifistic peace-activists deal with the concept of jihad and just war. Pacifism can at a superficial glance be thought of as passivity. The Qu’ran clearly calls believers to act against injustice and to protect one’s own land and people, if necessary with force. Non-action, or passivity, will therefore not easily be accepted as a valid form of engagement for a Muslim. How is it then possible to speak of Islamic Pacifism? How should Islamic teaching with regards to conflict be applied today and how can we understand the concept of jihad? To elucidate this question, we also have to look at the concept of pacifism and the thought that lies behind this specific tradition. I will use the terms pacifism and non-violence interchangeably to express the same concept. As we will see in the account for the principles of pacifism, there is no equality between pacifism and passivity. According to Mohatma Ghandi and Badshah Khan, the true pacifistic approach to conflict is in all ways an active approach. I will first look at the development of the just war tradition in Western thought, using it as a method to approach the theme. Then I will refer to the Chaiwat Satha-Anand’s paper, “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Action”, to look at the traditional Islamic understanding of the concepts and how he deals with them as a pacifist. In addition to Satha-

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Torbjørn Askevold: Resource for Peace - Islamic pacifism

Torbjørn Askevold lives in Oslo and studies in a master’s programme on “Religion and Society” at the University of Oslo. He is writing his thesis on a modern esoteric movement, the followers of “perennialist” thinking, a universialistic religious philosophy. He has a bachelor’s degree in Christian Theology and he recently was the chairperson of the Norwegian SCM. Torbjørn can be reached at askevold@gmail.com.

Anand, I am going to look at the story and teaching of a Pasthun leader, Badshah Khan and his nonviolent struggle for social reform and independence from Britain.

Just war To investigate the tradition of Islamic non-violence, I will use terms and ideas from the political and philosophical thinking of Just War as it has been developed throughout the history of Western thought. According to John Howard Yoder (When War Is Unjust. Being Honest in Just-War Thinking, 1996), there has been a tradition of thinking morally about war since the dawn of Christianity, starting with Ambrose (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).i Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) wove the concept into a larger moral system and Francisco de Vitoria (d. 1546) and Francisco Suarez (d. 1617) later established it as an independent concept of legal/moral thinking. This concept has in history been agreed upon by most Christian churches and is today a large field within fields - ethics, social sciences and political philosophy. The main thrust in the just-war tradition is not that war is morally acceptable per se; war is and should always be considered evil and as a great disaster to humankind. Even though war is to be avoided by any cost, there are certain circumstances where it can be argued that war is morally defensible. These situations are thoroughly defined and widely debated among churches and scholars. There is no consensus on all of the specific criteria needed to speak of a war as just, but there are some common main concepts that are usually agreed upon. The central issue of just war thinking is the question of what are the necessary conditions for claiming that a war is just. These criteria are usually grouped in two categories. The first group of criteria defines which conditions make it permissible to wage a war, jus ad bellum (the right to fight). The second category deals with how the war should be fought, jus in bello (fighting right).1 To further elaborate the Western tradition of just war, I will refer to two chapters from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, second edition of 1997, the present exposition of their official teachings (see side box). Here we can see how the Roman Catholic Church understands the necessary criteria for making use of and carrying out force. The damage inflicted should be lasting, grave and certain, all other means have to be tried, and the outcome must promise better conditions. These are all jus ad bellum-criteria. Further does it say that the use of arms have to be of a lesser evil than the situation which is to be changed. This refers to the use of force in itself, making it fit within the category of jus in bello. This decree is by no means agreed upon by all churches and, as

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:  the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;  all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;  there must be serious prospects of success;  the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. (...) 2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

with the whole tradition of just war thinking, it is being deeply questioned by many contemporary theologians and scholars (i.e. Yoder’s article).

Islamic non-violence

To look at the concept of Islamic non-violence, we first have to understand Qu’ranic teachings of the value of human life and the concept of just war. The Qu’ran and the Hadiths are the foundation for the teachings on all Muslim ethics and morals. The Qu’ran is by the Muslim community understood as God’s word revealed to mankind and therefore the main source for authority on how life and religion should be practised. Furthermore, the account of Prophet Muhammad’s life, gathered in several collections of hadiths, elaborates Islamic teaching and shows how the Qu’ran should be interpreted. As the receiver of God’s revelation and the leader of the early Muslim community, Muhammad’s life is given a central role in explaining and interpreting the Qu’ran. How does the Qu’ran understand the dignity and value of human life? According to Satha-Anand, the Qu’ran tells us that every human being, no matter race, religion or society, has an innate and holy value.2 Given that all mankind is created by God, all have share in the same sacredness which essentially makes all humans a part of the same entity, God’s holy creation. The Qu’ran tells us that God created men and women from the earth and breathed His Spirit into them, giving them life (Verse 15:29). This breath of spirit is the source of all living things and must be understood as the ground premise for how we should regard each other, friend or foe. With this in mind, what are the necessary conditions for accepting the use of force according to Islamic teaching? Murder is considered to be one of the four major sins in Islam.ii How does tradition come to terms with the taking of a life, thinking of Islamic anthropology? Contemporary debates on Islam and violence evolve much around the concept of jihad, the Arabic term for striving.ii This concept is with a superficial approach understood as the Muslim’s

Holy War. Jihad is depicted in tabloid debates as a demand to all Muslims to fight the infidel with force until they submit to Muslim rule and accept the Islamic religion. This image of Islam is confirmed further by Muslim terrorists using religious rhetoric in their cause. This understanding is, according to Chaiwat Satha-Anand, far from the original concept. The use of force in Islam is, according to traditional teaching, strictly governed by a defined set of rules and requirements. Aggression itself is prohibited and transgression is not approved. Self-defence and the fight against injustice are the only situations where it is allowable for Muslims to make use of sheer force. In his presentation of Islam’s traditions, SathaAnand makes use of many Qu’ranic references. With verse 2:190, he shows Islam’s prohibitions on using force other than for self-Badshahce: Fight in the cause of Allah Those who fight you But do not transgress limits; For Allah loveth not transgressors. Further, he shows how the concept of jihad and Islam’s stance towards injustice is closely knit. Satha-Anand refers to classical Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiya and his threefold definition of jihad, the struggle of the heart, the tongue and the hand.ii The greatest struggle is to strive with your own ego, to abolish selfcenteredness and egoism, which is spoken of as the Greater Jihad. A hadith accords the Prophet saying: “The greatest jihad is the fight against one’s own evil passions” The Lesser Jihad is the struggle for a just and lawful community. The jihad of the tongue and the hand has, according to Ibn Taymiya, to be guided with two cardinal rules: understanding and patience. This makes the overall idea of jihad into a concept of constant self-re-examination, to always question your personal character and the living conditions of your community. According to Satha-Anand: “The purpose of jihad, ultimately, is to put an end to structural violence”.ii In situations demanding use of force, the implementation always has to be within the criteria of jus in bello. The lives of all non-combatants are to be held holy, crops and cattle have to be spared in respect of people’s livelihood. As we have seen, there are clear similarities between the Western and the Islamic tradition on the core principles of just war. Since

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Torbjørn Askevold: Resource for Peace - Islamic pacifism

the basis for ethical and political reasoning is different between the Christian and the Muslim tradition, they differ in the way they reason on the subject. As a political leader, Prophet Muhammad had to deal with ethics concerning war, and thus made it a part of his own teaching and also addressed it as a topic in his revelations. The Christian tradition of just war does not relate to the story of Jesus in a parallel manner, but developed alongside Christianity as it became an official state religion. As a contemporary propagator of Islamic non-violence, Chaiwat Satha-Anand fully acknowledges the Islamic tradition of just war. His reasoning for interpreting Islam as a message of pacifism is based on the conditions of modern society and modern warfare. The new technological weapons of war, especially weapons of mass destruction, make it more and more impossible to distinguish between combatants and civilians. â€œAs a result it is virtually impossible for innocents to remain safe in an age when the sophistication of modern technology of destruction is coupled with the growing disregard of human life.â€?ii His argument is thus roughly the following: Islam does deal with the use of force. The conditions for using force are strictly governed. Today we are not able to live up to the Islamic rules of just war. Nonetheless, Islam demands fighting against social injustice, and therefore we can only make this happen by engaging in nonviolent struggle.

Badshah Khan During Indiaâ€™s struggle for independence from the British Empire, Badshah Khan was often spoken of as the Frontier Ghandi. The Frontier area is the northwestern part of India, the land of the Pashtuns, as referred to by the British.3 Today the area is mainly within Pakistani borders and some parts are on Afghan land. The Badshah was the son of a local khan governing a small village in the Frontier. His given name was Ghaffar Khan, son of Behram Khan, members of the Mohammedzai tribe. This tribe was said to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad himself. Ghaffar grew up in a home with a hospitable and devout father. Their village was relatively prosperous and they were known among the Pashtuns for their humble and peaceful ways. Ghaffar Khan was unlike most Pashtuns fortunate enough to be sent to school by his family. He attended Christian mission schools and completed Islamic studies. While he was young, a Muslim social movement was established in his region by a mullah named Haji Abdul Wahid Saheb of Tarangzai. They eventually became associates and Khan worked with him to establish schools and organise different projects to raise living standards among the Pasthuns. The British rulers struck down this movement and Mullah Haji had to flee the region.iii Ghaffar Khan continued this work alone. He lived a simple and devout life, dedicated to serving his own people. He always made use of Islamic teaching and rhetoric in his campaigns. He got into many debates and quarrels with local Muslims leaders, who regarded his social reform movement as a threat to their customs and authority. The Pashtun people lived under harsh conditions and brutal traditions of blood-revenge and warring among the different tribes.

They eventually became associates and Khan worked with him to establish schools and organise different projects to raise living standards among the Pasthuns.

31 31

Ghaffar had from his own upbringing been given faith in

spend time with children and the poor people. He was also

the importance of forgiveness and strongly disregarded the violent ways of the Pashtuns.

concerned with the situation of women in his society and he addressed the patriarchal tradition with Islamic rhetoric

Alongside Ghaffar Khan’s growing popularity as a social reformer, tension was growing towards the British occupiers.

and promoted women’s leadership and participation in society. His sisters had central positions in the movement.

Ghandi was gaining popularity in sub-continental India and the principles of non-violence (ahimsa) and patient

Badshah Khan’s followers were organized in an army-like structure. They had to swear an oath of social involvement

struggle (satayaghara) were starting to spread.iii Parallel with the tendencies in the south, Ghaffar saw the same

and nonviolent struggle to join the community. Khan emphasized this oath throughout his campaign, especially

need for liberation and moral reform in his own area. He was deeply inspired by Ghandi’s teachings and found them

during encounters with British soldiers, since the Pashtun mentality gave great reverence to the tradition of swearing

perfectly compatible with his own spiritual understanding of Islam. After attending a meeting where Ghandi spoke

loyalty. Their uniform was a simple red coloured dress which they always wore, marching from village to

in New Dehli, Ghaffar Khan was inspired to start a new movement amongst his own people.

village while singing religious marching chants. They never carried weapons; their only utensils were walking

Rooted in Ghandi’s principles and Islamic teaching, Ghaffar founded the movement “Servants of God” - Khudai

sticks. They were treated violently by British soldiers and experienced several encounters where they were directly

Khidmatgar (see side). He opened a newspaper teaching hygiene, social reform and Islamic Law. His organization

shot and killed, beaten and harassed in all thinkable ways. The British put tough restrictions on the entire Frontier,

began as a social reform movement but quickly transformed into a force of liberation with freedom from British rule as its goal. Ghaffar Khan was given the honorary title Badshah Khan, “King of Kings”, by his followers. His style of leadership was simple and humble. He walked on his feet from village to village, giving speeches and holding lectures in each town he visited. He appeared much in the same fashion as Ghandi, simply clothed and only bringing a walking stick. In the villages he always made sure to

villages were burnt and looted, people were kept from harvesting and thus forced to starve. Every means was tried to make the Khudai Khidmatgar break their nonviolent oath and react back with violence. All of their leaders were put in jail on several occasions, and Badshah Khan himself sat nearly 10 years in prison. In this way, the British figured they would be able to instigate violence and then would be able tighten their grip on the area in response to it. At the end of their fight for liberation, Khan had

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Torbjørn Askevold: Resource for Peace - Islamic pacifism

nearly 100 000 followers. The only lives lost in the fight were their own, never having raised a weapon other than their own pride and faith.

As a movement founded on religious principles, Badshah Khans always referred to the teachings of Islam to encourage and define their way of action. With the Islamic tradition of just war in mind, how did Khan make use of the religion in promoting his campaign? Is unconditional non-violence compatible with an Islamic approach to conflict? How did they understand their right to self defence and how could they accept being continuously harassed, beaten and shot at?

What ideas and traditions within Islam did Ghaffar Khan make use of? According to Khan, “There is nothing surprising in a Muslim or a Pathan like me subscribing to the creed of nonviolence. It is not a new creed. It was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he was in Mecca, and it has since been followed by all those who wanted to throw off an oppressor’s yoke. But we had so far forgotten it that when Gandhiji placed it before us, we thought he was sponsoring a novel creed”. iii Sabr is considered a central virtue in Islam. iii Khan spoke of nonviolence as the “weapon of the Prophet”. By this he understood sabr as the patience and endurance Prophet Muhammad and his followers suffered while still in

Ghaffar Khan was a man of deep spiritual commitment. He lived his

Mecca, as reflected in his revelations, teachings and early stories from this

life in simple manners, gave away his property (his village, becoming landless,

period. This concept can be easily compared to Ghandi’s term Satyagraha,

something that was regarded as shameful by the Pashtuns) and spent a lot of

which is compiled by the two words, satya, “truth” in Sanskrit, and agraha,

time on prayers and meditation. His spirituality had a universal direction and

meaning “to hold on to”. In the same way the Prophet and his companions

he emphasized the innate value of every human person, being born and cared for by God. He did not like being spoken of as a Badshah or as the second Ghandi, and ended up, against his will, being regarded as a saint by his commoners while still alive.

had to firmly hold on to their faith in God while under suppression in Mecca,

The teaching of Khudai Khidmatgar

Badshah Khan encouraged his followers to hold on to their faith and love for God and mankind, while enduring suffering without answering back with violence.

The Army’s oath:

I am a Khudai Khidmatgar; and as God needs no service, but serving his creation is serving him, I promise to serve humanity in the name of God. I promise to refrain from violence and from taking revenge. I promise to forgive those who oppress me or treat me with cruelty. I promise to refrain from taking part in feuds and quarrels and from creating enmity. I promise to treat every Pathan as my brother and my friend. I promise to refrain from antisocial custom and practices. I promise to live a simple life, to practice virtue and refrain from evil. I promise to practice good manners and good behaviour and not to lead a life of idleness. I promise to devote at least two hours a day to social work.

33 33

Discussion Looking at these two cases of Islamic pacifism, it is clear that I have investigated two wholly different histories and contexts. The theological reasoning of Chaiwat Satha-Anand has been presented in an environment of peaceactivism among Islamic scholars in Thailand and internationally. His theses are systematically built, at first taking account of Islam’s different approaches to the concept of just war through history, then applying these principles to the contemporary context. His project seems to be a thorough attempt to reinterpret Islamic teaching so that the new perspective could effectively contribute to healing a world troubled with growing disregard of human life and advanced weapons which severely damage without separating combatants from civilians. Badshah Khan was a local tribe-leader; he was lifted up by his fellow people when preaching the message of pacifism. He did not use the same theological academic reasoning as Satha-Anand does in his manifesto. Badshah Khan was a devout believer leading a movement of 100 000 people in a struggle for independence. His rhetoric was simple and in plain manners. He emphasized the importance of forgiveness and the love for God and his people. To him, nonviolence was the only possible path for Pashtuns to escape their

miserable situation. The violent oppression of the British and the local customs of violent blood-feuds could not be conquered by shedding more blood. Khan saw Ghandi’s message as the only feasible way out. His use of Prophet Muhammad’s example of a suffering in sabr from Mecca would surely be counter argued by Muslim scholars, sceptical and unfamiliar with this specific situation. Would not it be wrong to only emphasize one part of the Prophet’s history? Would not Khan leave out most important sanctions when it comes to fighting oppression and being able to defend your own life if under attack? Khan was surely aware of this thoroughly developed way of reasoning. His own conviction on the contrary, seems to be based on a simple faith deeply rooted in his spiritual practice and the virtues he had been brought up with, hospitality and forgiveness – all of which to him formed the true and original meaning of Islam. I find both approaches to be good and valid perspectives on the Islamic stance towards conflict. In fact, they enrich each other. Satha-Anand has shown how one can argue with theological reasoning for pacifism, while Badshah Khan has shown how it is performed, both the technical way of pacifistic engagement as well as the spirituality and philosophy behind it.

(Endnotes) 1 Yoder, J. H.: When War is Unjust. Being Honest in JustWar Thinking, 1996. Orbis Book, Maryknoll, N.Y. p. 3.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

2 Satha-Anand, Chaiwat (Qader Muheideen). The Nonviolent Crescent:Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions. Article in Islam and Nonviolence Edited by Glenn D. Paige, Chaiwat Satha-Anand

(Qader Muheideen), and Sara Gilliatt, 1989. Center for Global Nonviolence, Honolulu. p. 15, 8, 10. 3

Easwaran, Eknath: Nonviolent Soldier of Islam, Badshah Khan, A Man to Match His Mountains, 1999. Nilgri press, Tomales, CaliforniaAppendix 1. p. 67, 80, 103, 235, 247.

Resources for Peace – Torbjørn Askevold: Resource for Peace - Islamic pacifism

Study War No More: Military Involvement in UK Universities Martha Beale and Tim Street In December 2007 an innovative report, Study War No More, was published examining military involvement at 26 universities in the United Kingdom in order to highlight the impact military funding has on university departments. Aiming to support students and academics concerned about the impact their institutions have on international peace and conflict, the report encourages debate regarding the democratic deficit within academic institutions and the ends and ethics of research and research funding.

Introduction

Tim Street is the Universities Network Coordinator for Campaign Against Arms Trade. Martha Beale works as the Education and Campaigns Officer for the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Together, both wrote “Study War No More,” a report on military involvement in UK universities published in Nov 2007.

As a starting place, it is important to put the report into the context of current military and military research and development (R&D) spending. In 2006, global military expenditure exceeded $1.2 trillion,1 nearly half of which was spent by the United States.2 The UK military budget is now the second highest in the world with recent spending of £30 billion in 2005/06. In 2006, the UK was also the third largest arms exporter globally,3 and is home to several military corporations in the Top 100 companies (according to military revenue) in the world, including BAE Systems (3rd), Rolls Royce (16th) and QinetiQ (36th).4 Approximately 30%5 of the total public funds for UK R&D are spent by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), making the United Kingdom the world’s second highest funder of military R&D after the US. In 2005/06 approximately £2.4 billion was spent by the MoD on UK R&D,5 of which an estimated £2.15 billion6 was spent on “extramural R&D” work which is mostly contracted out to military industry. The rest of the MoD’s annual R&D budget (£300£400 million) is spent on research undertaken in its own research establishments which spend “approximately £20 million per year on research with academia.”7 Twenty of the universities8 were chosen as members of the Russell Group, an association of research intensive universities which boasts of securing “65% (£1.8 billion) of UK Universities’ research grant and contract income”.9 The remaining six10 were included to provide a geographical spread across the United Kingdom and, in the cases of Cranfield University and Loughborough University, to include institutions known to have strong connections to the military sector. The report does not cover all military projects at all UK universities, but rather, due to constraints of time and resources, seeks to examine many of those universities most likely to have conducted the greatest number of projects.

35 35

Study War No More

The Study War No More report found that between 2001 and 2006, more than 1,900 military projects, worth a minimum of £725 million, were conducted in the 26 universities covered by the report. This research funding was dominated by three multinational companies: Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and QinetiQ, as the sponsors/ partners of over two-thirds of identified military projects. The UK government’s military research establishment was found to be involved in a quarter of all military projects at the 26 UK universities, and over half of the military projects were conducted in university engineering departments, with the rest spread over other science and technology departments. External funding is an issue which academics and students alike are becoming increasingly concerned about. The report found that military organisations’ relationships with universities can be broken down into two main elements: firstly, direct funding of research conducted by university departments in partnership with, or on behalf of, a military organisation (this form made up the majority of cases); secondly, militaryrelated projects such as student and staff sponsorship, donations and the funding of events. The Study War No More report considers how much influence military organisations have over research priorities and to what extent public money is supporting the development of military technology and the profits of arms companies. Study War No More is one of the first studies to use extensively the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act passed by British Government in 2000, allowing much greater accessibility of information in British public institutions. Utilising the Freedom of Information Act was an important part of the data collection for the report, and the authors found a huge disparity in the amount and quality of data in the FoI replies received from universities responding to the same original request. Much of the data proved incomplete due to

limitations on the amount of information universities were prepared to provide free of charge; while other times requested data proved to be inaccessible due to system updates, institutional takeovers and storage of information. In addition to genuine problems with data-retrieval and the sheer volume of data received, universities had very different attitudes to the provision of information. Many universities were unfamiliar with and had inadequate provisions for FoI. Some omitted funding later revealed by other sources (such as the university’s own website) or led us to believe they had provided all relevant information when data was later found proving that this wasn’t the case. While legislative requirements created a lengthy process for FoI requests, this was exacerbated by a small number of universities which, on occasion, appeared to abuse FoI regulations. Unfortunately this small number appeared to take the FoI requests as personal criticisms rather than legitimate appeals for information and transparency. Some universities responded by applying exemptions which allowed them to not provide information due to military secrecy and commercial confidentiality.

Funding

Study War No More sought to uncover as much information as possible on the external funding provided by the military sector. However, its authors recognise its limitations as an incomplete record of university-military research. By seeing the report as a foundation document, the authors’ hope is that the report will motivate others to continue researching this area and that it will act as a basis on which people can create, develop and sustain a campaign. The recommendations of the report are concerned with building greater transparency, accountability and democracy within UK universities. The recommendations encourage students and academics to research and publicise the military funding received by their university to start discussions, using

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Martha Beale and Tim Street: Military Involvement in UK Universities

this information as a basis to lobby for democratic change within them. The report includes potential campaign goals for groups who are interested in working on the issue: • Creating a central register (including data provided by the government) of all university ties with military and/or industrial funders to include funding sources and any other industrial connections. Funding sources and business links should be declared, where relevant, in academic and departmental publications. • Requiring academics, on their departmental web pages for example, to state the funding they have taken from external organisations, what this funding was for and who provided it. Ideally, this information should be presented unambiguously and with thought given to readers unfamiliar with technical jargon and the sponsors/ partners involved, so that it is clear what the project in question involves. Academics should also highlight any other professional connections that they have with public bodies and companies such as advisory roles or secondments. • The establishment of an ethics committee whose members could include university managers e.g. the Vice-Chancellor, academics, students and representatives from industry, to review research with military applications. • Setting up links with other universities (whether at a student, academic, union or institutional basis) in order to lobby universities for the above changes and government for a reprioritisation of public support away from military projects and towards civil and socially useful projects at UK universities.

37 37

• Academics rejecting funding from projects with military sponsors and/or with likely military applications and seeking alternative work which provides civil benefits to society, for example, by helping to address social and/or environmental problems. As Chris Langley, author of Soldiers in the Laboratory: Military Involvement in Science and Technology – and some alternatives, in the foreword of the report says: “This report is a must-read for all those contemplating a career in science, technology or engineering and for those of us who believe that social justice, a healthy environment and a sustainable economy, rather than highly expensive and complex military technologies, are the basis of a safe and secure world.” Fellowship of Reconciliation initiated the project in winter 2005, as a way to engage young people, and provide them with an opportunity to link their lives with the wider peace and conflict issues in the world. Other projects FoR is currently involved in include running an annual peace conference for

The UK military budget is now the second highest in the world with recent spending of £30 billion in 2005/06.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

18 to 30 (ish) year olds, providing talks, workshops and trainings in schools, colleges and universities, and linking with its international partners. FoR, England is part of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation which has approximately 70 branches, groups and affiliates in 40 different countries across the world. The Study War No More report is jointly published by Fellowship of Reconciliation, England (www.for.org.uk) and Campaign Against Arms Trade (www.caat.org.uk). For further information and to download the report, visit the campaign website at http://www.studywarnomore. org.uk/.

1 Petter Stålenheim, Catalina Perdomo and Elisabeth Sköns, SIPRI Yearbook 2007, http://yearbook2007. sipri.org/chap8/. 2 SIPRI Programme on Military Expenditure and Arms Production, ‘The 15 major spender countries in 2006,’ http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/ mex_trends.html. 3 Taken from the US Congressional Research Service report, ‘Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations 1999-2006’, 26 September 2007. 4 2006 Defense News Top 100, http://defensenews. com/index.php?S=07top100. 5 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, op. cit.. 6 Ibid. 7 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, ‘SBRI Participants Performance,’ http://www. dti.gov.uk/innovation/sbri/page39902.html. 8 Research Acquisition Organisation Yearbook, op. cit.. 9�� Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College London, King’s College London, Leeds, Liverpool, London School of Economics and Political Science, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Queen’s University Belfast, Oxford, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London, Warwick. 10 “The Russell Group,” http://www.russellgroup. ac.uk/. 11�� Cranfield, Durham, Hull, Loughborough, Swansea, York.

Make Music, Not War Victoria Tevis A trumpet can be heard dancing through warm-up exercises, a timpani drum rumbles. It is time for the members of the all-Bosnian wind ensemble Winds of Change to begin rehearsing again for their next concert tour. The group, based in Sarajevo, is only in its second year of existence but has already performed all over Bosnia and in the Netherlands. This November (2008), they will make their way to the neighboring countries of Croatia and Montenegro to share their unique music and vision for the people of ex-Yugoslavia. The group was originally conceived by Dutch musician and composer Prof. Willem van Merwijk with the help of his friend Prof. Adnan Cico of Sarajevo. Willem was visiting Bosnia-Herzegovina to perform in the summer festival, Baščaršiske Noći, and realized how powerful the creation of an intercultural Bosnian ensemble could be. He explained to Adnan his vision to bring together Serb, Croat, and Bosniak music students in one group to foster unity among the three. Adnan’s wry response was, “It’s impossible. But I will help you do it.” And so they did.

Victoria Tevis is from Westminster, Maryland and currently lives in Sarajevo, BosniaHerzegovina. She is a member of the Brethren Volunteer Service and is working for Musicians without Borders BosniaHerzegovina. You are most likely to find her updating a website or studying the Bosnian language (which she is struggling to learn). Her email address is torytevis@gmail.com.

The Winds of Change has performed four tours since April 2007, all featuring a combination of contemporary western influences, European classical music, and traditional Balkan pieces. This unique blend emphasizes both the region’s connections with the rest of the world, and its own unique heritage. Maintaining the group and keeping things running smoothly has not been a simple task, with many twists and set-backs along the way. However, the growth, the friendships, and the music have all made the journey more than worthwhile. The group is composed mostly of students from the Sarajevo Music High School and Sarajevo Music Academy, but has also incorporated members of the Banja Luka

The group, based in Sarajevo, is only in its second year of existence but has already performed all over Bosnia and in the Netherlands.

Music Academy and professionals from other parts of the country. All three cultural groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina are represented among the members. Besides the international presence of Willem van Merwijk, the group boasts Spanish trombonist Jaume Gavilán Agulló. The inclusion of members from so many different cultures has given all involved the opportunity to grow and expand. This past spring Winds of Change had the opportunity to perform in Amsterdam with the famed Netherlands Blazers Ensemble (NBE). However, there was a catch – they had to travel from Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Netherlands by bus. It was a long journey, but deemed to be worth it by all involved. The time spent traveling was a great (if long) bonding experience, and the week together in the Netherlands was also excellent. If you ever need to spend some time bonding with someone, try taking a cross-continental bus-ride. It’s hard to avoid becoming close. The act of practicing and performing together is the basic glue uniting the group across their cultural divides. While the three primary groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina often choose to stick to themselves, emphasize their differences and avoid interaction with the others, playing in a mixed group makes it impossible to do so. Late night rehearsals and last minute changes to repertoire are all stressors which ultimately unite the group. For concerts, their families are also brought together to support their loved ones, despite any prior divisions. The seeds for greater understanding and peace are sown among these young musicians and continue to grow each time their music brings the people of ex-Yugoslavia together. It is now fifteen years since the country dissolved in war and genocide and many initiatives have taken place in an attempt to heal the region’s wounds. Winds of Change offers a unique example of how music and culture can be particularly powerful and effective tools for finding common ground. For more information about Winds of Change please go to www.see-mwb.org

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Resources for Peace – Victoria Tevis: Make Music, Not War

Student Migration – Many Roads and Routes Christina Ayazi Apologies to Christina that this article did not appear in Mozaik 20 on Migration. Ed. In recent years international cooperation and exchange between universities and students has become ever more important. In order to be competitive in the global market and to participate in a world society, international and intercultural know-how is crucial. Therefore, more and more importance is given to the internationalization of higher education.

Student Migration trends

According to an OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) report, the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship has grown dramatically from 0,6 million in 1975 to 2,7 million in 2004. The flow of student migrants is concentrated towards European and North American countries. Student migration from the North to the South is still an exception. The transfer of technology and know-how is in most cases still an asymmetric one from the socalled developed to the less developed countries. France, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States receive more than 50% of all foreign students worldwide. In 2005 there were about 220.000 international students at German universities, many of them coming from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The reasons why young people decide to

leave their home, family, and friends to go to a foreign country and face the difficulties of a new language, university system, and society vary. Some are driven by the adventure of a new cultural experience and some are seeking a special subject or degree which they can’t find in their home country. As Patricia from Venezuela reports: “I felt the necessity to travel to Germany to learn the language, experience a new world and its culture. I hope this opens new job opportunities for me.”

Challenges Abroad

In comparison to other migrant groups such as refugees, the student migrants make a free and conscious decision to go to a foreign country. They finance their stay through their parents’ money, scholarships, or part-time work. Therefore, at first sight, this group of migrants appear to be very privileged. However, the problems and burdens young students face in making their way through the German university forest should not be overlooked. Many have difficulties in financing their stay or finding orientation in the university system. Many are lonely since it is not easy and takes much time to make friends with German students. Many have difficulties to find rooms, get a work permits or deal with bureaucracy in general.

MOZAIK 2008 fall

WSCF Christina Ayazi:Family Student Migration FamilyininFocus Flux –– Jooa Vourinen: in change

Christina Ayazi (1974) was born in Berlin and studied social science. Since 2002, she has worked as a coordinator for international students at the Student Christian Movement of Germany (ESG).

About 100.000 students from Africa, Asia, and Latin America are enrolled in study programmes at German universities. Most of them live in Germany for many years and finance their education by themselves. After graduation they have to make decisions on whether to return to their home country, stay in Germany, or migrate to a third place. It is a hard decision since many integrated themselves into the host society, made friends and perhaps even married. The legal situation has improved, although graduates from the South are still treated as “second class” in the job market in comparison to European graduates. As Amin, an Iranian graduate of German literature, states: “Unless you are very qualified in technical science, you will not find work. There is a small elite group who will get a green card, most others don’t have a chance.” Many graduates decide or are forced to return; some stay in Germany or move to another European or North American country. Others become working migrants or political migrants because of the situation in their home countries. When he was asked on how he will decide, Amin said: “It is an economic question. If I will be able to work, then I will stay here … I have not been in Iran for three years and I am a little afraid. I want to work in an academic field. When I work as a professor I can not say everything. I have to leave out certain texts and this will not be satisfying. As long as I have the choice I don’t want to do this.”

The question of returning home or staying in the host country moves more and more into the focus of public debate. In the context of “migration and development,” scientists, politicians, and economists look at the situation of student migrants from the south. When graduates decide to stay in Europe or North America, many speak of a “brain drain” from developing countries. It is argued that those returning would have brought skills, knowledge, network and financial resources to their home The Student Christian countries which are lost once a Movement of Germany graduate decides not to go back. The (ESG) is the umbrella return of graduates from the North organization for strengthens the ability of developing approximately 150 Christian countries to integrate into global and/or ecumenical student markets. and university congregations In recent years, however, this view (ESGn, HSGn) from various has changed and people highlight the German universities, which beneficial aspects of graduates from are either autonomous or the south staying in Europe more and integrated in the regional more. Migrants also often enhance church. ESG offers national the welfare of their sending countries, and international events and thus highly skilled immigrants are not lost for their countries. They send and functions as well as remittances, invest in business in their assistance in the students’ country of origin, and build diasporas, administrative committees. keeping close ties to their home It supports the work of the student congregations as In times of expanding global markets, the need society. Highly qualified migrants are of highly skilled migrants with international and today seen as part of transnational well with seminars, training intercultural expertise is very high. European networks and as cultural, political, and services. The ESG has a and North American countries compete for the and economical ambassadors to strong international focus highly skilled migrants from Africa, Asia and their home countries. They are links organizing international between the North and the South. Latin America. Regarding the various possibilities events, supporting highly qualified international graduates have, it international students and is a hard decision. informing German students in going abroad. Suggested readings: Journal of Studies in International Education.

Global Links

Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2006; OECD Publishing. Luther Verlag. Warum wir hier sind. Ausländische Studierende aus Entwicklungsländern finden ihren Weg im deutschen Unialltag. 2006.

Internet links on International Students in Germany: www.daad.de www.his.de www.wusgermany.de

A Liturgy to Remember This is a quiet liturgy with an emphasis on personal and corporate reflection. There should be several stations around the worship space with images and items evocative of war, peace, famine, oppression, injustice and hope. In the centre of the worship space should be a low table with a large map of the world and a cross placed on the North Pole. Candles, nightlights, for each person should surround the map. Begin by gathering in a circle around the map and cross. Leader: All L: All: L: All:

We gather in the name of God, Creator, Liberator and Sanctifier. Who was, is, and is to come We gather in the shadow of all who have gone before us Liberators and oppressors We gather as the culmination of our history And the history makers for those to come

Reading from the Gospel of John 14:23-27

MOZAIK 2005 fall

WSCF in F A Liturgy to Remember

Quiet music is played and participants are given the opportunity to walk around to the different stations (see below for examples). As the music fades all gather back around the map and cross. The following is read: Reading adapted from Oscar Romeroâ€™s The Violence of Love: There is found all the Old Testament in Moses and Elijah and all the New Testament in Peter, James, and John: confronting the clever fables, the teachings of human beings, the false redemptions that humans promise, so that they can trust in him. And, says St. Peter, almost poetically: This faith, like a lamp burning in the night, will light up the darkness until the morning star arises. It is the night of our history, it is the journey of our time, it is these difficult hours, such as our land is undergoing, which seem like a night without escape - until the sun of the transfiguration brings daylight and hope to the Christian people, enlightening our way. Let us be faithful to it. Dear brothers and sisters, the church knows it is Godâ€™s lamp, light taken from the glowing face of Christ to enlighten human lives, the lives of peoples, the complications and problems that humans create in their history. The church feels obliged to speak, to enlighten like the lamp in the night. The church feels compelled to light up the darkness.

L: All: L: All:

We are the Church We are obliged to speak We are the Church We are compelled to light up the darkness

Each participant is invited to light a candle and place it on the map of the world either silently or with a short spoken prayer. L:

Eternal God, in whose perfect realm no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, and no strength known but the strength of love: so guide and inspire the work of those who seek your kingdom that all your people may find their security in that love which casts out fear and in the fellowship revealed to us in Jesus Christ our Saviour, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.1 All pray the Lord’s Prayer in their own languages

Churches live as part of society and L: And may God, in whose palm the world rests, bless us, inspire theusrecent and keep us now and always changes in All: Amen society have affected the Ideas for stations Each station should contain a picture, item, churches or collection of pictures or items that invoke thought either directly on the topic and that can be brought to God in prayer. There should be enough stations that or soindirectly. participants can visit more than one and there is no crowding. Duplicate the stations if needed with a large group. The list below contains ideas; adapt them for your own context. 1) Refugees: Suitcase/rucksack, worn/ dirty child’s toy, train ticket 2) Soldiers: Photos of soldiers from every major conflict in the 20th/21st century, including current photos and child soldiers 3) Redeeming ground: pictures of battlegrounds copied onto paper which can be made into origami flowers 4) Swords into plowshares: Play dough/ plastacine which has been moulded into guns/swords which can be remoulded into something useful.

PRETEXTS

PRETEXTES BAS

The most expensive weapons we gathered to enforce with them peace... The most developed technological systems we manned to enforce with them peace... The most cut-throat army manoeuvres we endured to enforce with them peace... The most lethal energy matter we invented to enforce with it peace... Forgive us Lord ! After all these how can we save time to deal with humankind a little bit !

Les armes les plus chers on a ramassé sous prétexte d’en imposer la paix... Les systèmes technologiques les plus évolués on a équipé sous prétexte d’en imposer la paix... Les exercises militaires les plus crevants on a souffert sous prétexte d’en imposer la paix... La matière d’énergie la plus cruelle on a inventé sous prétexte d’en imposer la paix... Aie pitié de nous, Seigneur ! Comment trouverons-nous du temps pour nous occuper un peu de l’homme !

MOZAIK 2008 fall

Anastasia Gkitsi was born in Thessaloniki, Greece, in 1977. She graduated from the faculty of Theology in 1999 (Aristotle’s University of Thessaloniki) and she started her master’s degree in the field of ecumenism. She graduated with a master’s degree in Dogmatical Studies (Chambesy – Switzerland, 2001 - 2003). Her thesis dealt with confessions of faith’s literal typology. She is writing a PhD in Theology about the relation between theology and poetry in writings of the Church Fathers, and translates articles on behalf of the “Academy of Theological Studies”. Anastasia works in secondary education (since 2005) as a teacher of Theology, History and Psychology. She is a poet and a member of the literary group “Ale Amoroza”. She has been publishing poems since 1996, in addition to theological and literary articles in journals, reviews and anthologies (such as Epi-Koinonia, Kath’Odon, Nea Poreia, Meteikasma). She has published a number of articles dealing with the Greek poet T. Livaditis. Her own poetry collection entitled : “I Know! it’s late…” was published in 2000 (ed. Paratiritis) and has been awarded with medals and prizes from many Greek and international Poetry and Literature associations (such as Griechischer Kunst und Literatur Verein, Union of European Writers, Intellectual Cultural center of Rafina, MusicHeaven, Literature Association Zalonis, Conservatory Foudoulis).