War Or Words: Interreligious Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace
BOOK/MOVIE REVIEWS
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed." Francis Bacon
War Or Words – Interreligious Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace By Donald W. Musser and D. Dixon Sutherland, eds. Reviewed by John A. Wood, The Pilgrim Press, 2005. $28.
Reviewed by John A. Wood,
Professor Emer. of Religion, Baylor University
It is virtually inevitable when I read a collection of essays that I find a few are excellent essays, others are mediocre, and possibly a few should have been omitted. But this is decidedly NOT the case with this volume. After I finished a chapter I would say to myself, "This was a very good essay. Can the book sustain this quality throughout?" The answer is Yes.
Furthermore, the editors took their work seriously. They introduced each chapter with a concise summary of what was to come while also pointing out some of that chapter`s connections with other chapters in the book. In addition, they made sure that the chapter in some way or other addressed the central theme of the book, i.e., interreligious dialogue as an instrument of peace. This tight editing process was no small feat, since the essays grew out of a yearlong series of lectures from a very diverse group of American religious scholars. The lectures were held at Stetson University where the editors serve as faculty members and where the lecture series was initiated as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Part I describes in five chapters the issues that emerge in the dialogue between religions. The editors wisely place an essay by Hans Kung, an internationally respected Roman Catholic theologian, at the beginning of the book. Kung lays the foundation for the following essays with his basic thesis: "No world peace without peace between the religions. No peace between the religions without dialogue between the religions." Kung calls for a new paradigm that presupposes a social consensus founded on particular basic values, basic rights, and basic responsibilities. Kung reminds us that all the great traditions accept the principles of reverence for life, truthful actions, honest and fair dealings and respect and love for one another. These are the bases of a global ethic without which the globe will not survive.
Martin Cook provides a thoughtful analysis of how the just war tradition applies to the current struggle against terrorism, noting that St. Augustine, while keenly aware of the serious moral defects of the Roman Empire, recognized that the barbarian invasion threatened the very collapse of civilization. Cook, like Kung, calls on the U.S. to lead the way to a cooperative (not unilateral) global consensus that will defend the common civilization against the new barbarians.
John Kelsey, a Christian theologian who specializes in Islam, observes that Islam is struggling with its own version of the fundamentalists/moderate debate. The fundamentalist believe that justice requires that a state be governed by divine laws revealed in the Qur`an and other Islamic sources and can move rather quickly to the notion that armed force might be justified, whereas moderates believe that justice can be derived from a more diverse set of sources and focus on shaping public opinion and fostering diplomacy. Internal debate in Islam regarding al Qaeda`s violent tactics are focusing more and more on a basic principle: there are limits on what one can do, even when one is fighting for justice. Qur`an 2:190 is a key passage: "Fight against those who are fighting you but do not violate the limits. God does not approve those who violate the limits."
Jewish professor Steven Jacobs lays out the huge obstacles standing in the way of genuine Jewish-Christian dialogue (e.g., anti-Semitism in the N.T., Christian belief that Christ redeems the whole world, the mission of the church to convert Jews, the good and bad historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and, lastly, how the Holocaust impacts any effort at dialogue). Interestingly, he says that the place to start is with a careful study of N.T. passages, which deal directly and indirectly with Jews and Judaism.
The editors, along with graduate student Daniel Puchalla, describe what they view as "dangerous faith" in the present Bush administration. They are especially fearful of the dispensational theology that characterizes some, though not all, of the Religious Right, which has overwhelmingly supported Bush in both elections. The authors believe that some of Bush`s advisors hold to a dispensational theology which demands full and uncritical support of the modern state of Israel, and which possesses a strong tendency to demonize Islam as an inherently violent and evil religion. Dispensationalists like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham believe that efforts to improve the world are doomed to failure and, furthermore, tend to distrust Islam and Muslim people and instead associate them with an evil, which must be obliterated. In addition, America is viewed as representing God`s interest for Good in the world. The authors conclude that to the extent that Bush is influenced by this theology (and they believe the influence is greater than most people think), authentic dialogue is impossible and peace is impossible.
Part II addresses the obstacles to religious dialogue. Charles Kimball focuses on the warning signs of corrupted religion, which he addressed in his popular book When Religion Becomes Evil. He believes that absolute truth claims are the result of selective proof-texting by extremists who ignore centuries of interpretation within their religious traditions. Literalistic and absolutist readings by both Muslims and Christians go against the truth that all humans are limited and that absolute truth rests with God and not with humans. Kimball says that his years of study of other religious traditions have not threatened his faith but has rather broadened and deepened his Christian faith. "Being a Christian pluralist means daring to encounter people of different faith traditions and defining my faith not by its borders but by its roots."
Although feminist theologian Valerie Ziegler rejects the essentialist view that women are inherently more pacifistic than men, she chronicles how women in America have been leaders in nonviolent conflict resolution from the nation`s inception until the present. She fears, however, that female political empowerment has been moving women more in the direction of increased participation in war making efforts and in support of these efforts rather than in the effort to "wage peace."
Daniel Bell, Jr., a liberation theology specialist, disputes the commonly held view that liberation theologians are "apologists for terrorism." He also rejects efforts by many to privatize religion and remove religious values from the political/public sphere. The issue for Bell is not violence or terrorism, but the challenge that the liberationists present to the reigning political order, especially challenging the double standard that leads to cries of outrage in the face of armed insurrection and relative silence in the face of repressive regimes whose violence takes institutional forms such as covert and paramilitary action. Liberation theology deplores a "wild and savage capitalism" without a human face that has kept Third World countries from economic development. Thus, the "terrorism of the marketplace" and "capitalistic fundamentalism" is the kind of structural violence exposed by liberation theology. Liberation theology presents the God of the Bible as One who stands with the poor and who calls people to an unarmed resistance to injustice. Bell provides in his essay a powerful biblical and theological basis for liberation theology.
John Mohawk, a historian from a Native American heritage, examines "revitalization movements" that may be sustained and motivated by religious traditions but are not necessarily confined to religion. Revitalization movements, such as the Crusades, Nazism, and Marxism tend to pursue a utopian ideal and, unfortunately, tend to resort to violence since any means necessary to secure the Ideal is justifiable. (Even bin Laden`s movement is seen as a mini-revitalization movement). Mohawk sees America`s pursuit of the Ideal as very likely to produce a great ecological disaster as the U.S. attempts to globalize the world`s economies. Mohawk rather gloomily predicts that future revitalization movements will represent a great danger to the future of humanity and to our planet.
Part III seeks to give directions on how to move toward dialogue. Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz views the concept of reconciliation, both religious and civil, as an intrinsic element of peace and justice. Healing the rifts that divide people is of the essence of what it means to be a responsible human being. Reconciliation rejects revenge and retribution, which focus on the past, but instead embraces a new future built on forgiveness.
New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan concludes the volume with a powerful essay on the notion of distributive justice as illustrated both in the Old and New Testaments. Fair distribution of the earth and its food is the essence of biblical justice, he maintains. The events of 9/11 set forth two options for us: victory for peace or justice for peace. The Roman Empire modeled the first option and the biblical tradition models the second option. "Peace without love easily turns into brutality, while love without justice often results in banality. In order for the religions of the world to benefit from any dialogue, or contribute to any efforts for global peace, we must opt for the second option."
The editors insert provocative questions at the beginning of each chapter, which helps make the book an excellent text for group study. Church groups would benefit greatly with a careful study and discussion of these fine essays. Stetsonv University, the editors and the publisher are to be commended for undertaking this project. It deserves a wide audience.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
