Evangelism will change the world
When we are confronted with an alternative political or religious community our tendency is to discuss what we think is valid about its view of the world and where we think they fall short. Yet such a conversation so easily eclipses the truly vital role of alternative political and religious visions. Truly great movements, the ones that continue to change, develop and persevere (even if only as an idea), can not so easily be judged and sifted. They often remain for the simple reason that, at their core, they offer a way of seeing the world that offers profound insight. Something that is too often missed in discussions concerning what we like and don’t like about the particular movement under discussion.
Instead, Žižek and others offer a different way of approaching alternative movements, even ones that are rightly judged to be dangerious. Žižek asks us to resist judging them for a moment and allow them to judge us. In other words, he invites us to see our world through their eyes.
Let us take a religious example. A movement in the Western world that continues to exist in a different way to the dominant values of society is the Amish community. Instead of looking at that community and either romanticising them or ridiculing them an interesting experiment would be to ask a different question. Namely, what do those within the Amish community see when they look at the society around them. In short, what do they think when they look at us?
When we ask this question we may, for instance, begin to discern a shadow side to aspects of our society that we previously assumed to be good. We may begin to perceive problems with our increasing attachment to social media, or our abstraction from an organic sense of time (the passing of seasons etc.), or with how we treat our elders once they are too old to have independence (putting them in institutions) etc. etc.
What we may have assumed to be good aspects of our society (or simply ‘the way things are’) may be revealed as oppressive and in need of reform.
This approach is not relativistic in that it does not claim that all worlds are equal. Yet neither does it fall into the all too safe and easy position of judging a movement from the outside. Rather it allows the other to critique our own position and improve our own society. In other words, they enable us to engage more effectively in immanent critique (which, I would want to argue, is the most effective type of critique).
This goes equally for groups that are popularly conceived of as the ‘enemy’. For instance, what would we see if we attempted to view the Western world through the eyes of someone in the Taliban? What would they make of our magazines that are full of unrealistic images of the ‘ideal’ woman, images that sit alongside adverts for plastic surgery and diet pills? Or how would they feel about the way news channels frame conflicts (almost always in non-political ways that emphasise subjective street violence over the objective violence of economic issues that feed the conflicts)? Would they see the former as oppressive in much the same way as many see woman wearing a Hijab as oppressive? And would they see the later as largely an outpouring of propaganda that fails to educate people about the effects of global politics, foreign policy decisions and economic issues?
To invite a world that we would wish to critique and dismiss to be a mirror into our own world is a difficult thing to do. It requires both bravery and humility.
In ikon we run an experimental group called ‘The Evangelism Project’ that was formed out of this idea around six years ago. ‘The Evangelism Project’ is a group of people who visit different political and religious groups, not to evangelise, but to be evangelised. Not to reform the other but to invite the other to reform us. In the project we have found that, as we see our world through the others eyes, we come to see some of things we believe and do in a different light. Here the other offers us a profound gift that enables us to transform our own community in positive ways that we would otherwise have been blind to.
‘The Evangelism Project’ is not an interfaith dialogue as we are not there to share what we have in common (and thus avoid what we don’t). Indeed there is no real dialogue at all. We are there to learn, to see our world through the others eyes in order to begin to locate (and then deal with) the shadow side of our own position. Interestingly however, time and again we have found that by allowing ourselves to be evangelised it encourages others to want to recipricate.
As Kester Brewin pointed out in a provocative post recently, we can even do this with racist groups like the BNP. Here the point is not to strengthen their position but to weaken it by working out why many people (rather than just a lunatic fringe) are drawn to the movement and then addressing the issues properly.
So I still very much believe that evangelism can change the world, and hope to help show that Christian faith communities can demonstrate this by continually inviting people to evangelise us…
November 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Pete,
Thank you for this solid and courageous step into acknowledging the blessing of the other. I am thinking and writing about God as Stranger, who shows up as outsider. Strangers can see what we cannot and can utter what we cannot. Love for stranger is not a matter of virtue, niceness, for their sake. Stranger is a heavenly consultant and chaplain to us, like Melchizedek and Wise Men from the East. You and Zizek are onto something so life-giving. Thank you.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
This is absolutely brilliant. I’m so frustrated by a self-affirming insistence that we validate our own beliefs in comparison to the other. I have so many self-contradictions (some of which I believe are necessary, others are dis-harmonizing), and I want to focus my efforts on continually becoming rather than proclaiming a current state of being that doesn’t truly exist!
November 5th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Good stuff. The BNP post you link to is one example; I’ve explored the connection with this and Levinas’ vs Zizek’s ideas of empathy in a series of 3 posts here too.
Levinas wants us to see the good in the other; Zizek goes beyond that – what good is the other seeing in us? This, I’d argue, is the grounds for real empathetic action.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Thanks Pete, I enjoyed this very much.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Pete, at risk of going round in circles, it seems to me that if we as church take that approach, if we turn evangelism inside out, and invite the other to critique or evangelize or judge us, we – or at least those of us with an ironic enough outlook to do so – become the other to the church as a whole, we alienate ourselves from a body that instinctively sees itself as right. But isn’t there something self-defeating in that? I absolutely agree that we must learn to see ourselves in the mirrors of groups, cultures, etc., that we don’t understand or even find distasteful, and I would happily invite outsiders in to speak about how they see the church. But I guess my concern is that if this somehow becomes a defining characteristic, it simply spins off alternative groups to the margins and beyond that can never then speak to the church – because they have become the other to which we don’t listen, because they subvert traditional notions of evangelism, and so on. Empathy may be virtuous, but it is also a good way to get yourself sidelined.
The challenge then is, as I see it, is to make that sort of self-awareness and humility integral to the life of the non-ironic, ’self-affirming’, mainstream so that the church as a whole can be a critical and prophetic other to society.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Pete,
I understand what you’re trying to do here, and I agree that attempting to understand another’s belief or culture from within and allowing that knowledge to illuminate the blind spots and failings of our own beliefs is worthwhile and important.
That said, I have to take issue with your use of the Taliban as an example. I do think that it is important to understand the social and political conditions that lead people to embrace the Taliban’s warped vision of justice and righteousness (and by people, I really mean “men”), and as Kester said, discover the “dangerous fraction of truth within their rhetoric.” However, to suggest that at the heart of the Taliban’s systematic degradation, abuse, and torture of women (http://www.rawa.org/wom-view.htm) lies some sort of reasonable critique of the Western cult of beauty is absurd and kind of offensive. That’s not to say that there’s not a legitimate critique of Western values underpinning the decision that many devout Muslim women make to take the veil. I would add that I believe that critique is only valid when it is, indeed, the woman’s decision and not something that is being forced on her. The Taliban’s behavior, however, is predicated upon a deep-seated hatred and fear of women, and to imply otherwise seems rather thoughtless.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
The Taliban example is a difficult one, but this is why I choose. There is much about the Taliban which is without question to be condemned. However the question is why do they often gain popular support in areas. The reasons are more complex that what we find in the US media. For instance the Taliban attack against ancient feudal rule in Pakistan was a vast improvement for the majority of peasants. We are given a one-sided and shallow analysis of the current ‘enemy’ in exactly the same was as we have done it to the enemies of the past… KGB, IRA etc. (former IRA members are now in Government etc.). My point is not to say that what they are doing is right and I am sorry if the post seems to claim this. What I am saying is that by understanding the world through their eyes we can understand why they gain popular support and what we need to change. In doing this we then weaken their support and/or change their structure fundamentally.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
My objection is not with the use of the Taliban as an example, per se, but with the specific example of their attitude toward women. By conflating the critiques of western society made by relatively well-educated, economically secure Muslim women with the behavior of the Taliban, you are marginalizing the evil of their actions.
I do think your characterization of the US media is also a bit off, unless by “US media” you mean “news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch.” While much of the US public may have a limited understanding of the the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban, that has more to do with general cultural/political illiteracy. I do believe there are reporters and news outlets in the US that attempt to paint a more comprehensive picture and provide deeper analysis, even if it isn’t read by the majority of Americans. You aren’t making any points about the Taliban that haven’t been made by many others.
By all means, challenge us to question our assumptions and seek to understand, whether it be in regards to the Taliban, the BNP, or the Kardashians. All I am asking is that your argument accurately characterize the views of those you are claiming to have insight into and that you not whitewash rape, torture, and misogyny.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Peter – sounds like you are being evangelised by Rebekkah. Stern stuff being thrown around. I wish you wisdom, humility, courage and grace. Am enjoying reading your thought provoking book: The fidelity of Betrayal.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Any exercise that encourages us to step outside of our “cultural cocoon” is valuable. We carry around all this excess cultural baggage — posing as “spiritual.” Zizek’s exercise seems like a reasonable way of stripping layers of corporate identity down to its spiritual essentials, becoming more authentic to ourselves and others in the process.
The non-negotiables, the essentials (love, peace, joy, hope, empathy, charity, compassion..) will only be strengthened by allowing critical exposure of our shadow baggage. The psychological term for this is “counter-transference.” But as Rebekah and Andrew imply, there can be an unhealthy side to counter-transference. Be aware.
Enviro-shaman John Milton says of planning for a spiritual encounter, “the less you pack, the more awaits you.”
November 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Great post, thought-provoking stuff. This cuts so contrary to how I have been taught to understand the world around me. Slowly, I have found the incredible blessing and potential in listening to others instead of incessantly talking. I appreciate how this challenges me and marvel at the potential hope it offers the world. I believe this subversive philosophical approach actually is more consistent with the way of Christ (and many other great religious leaders) than the way of their followers. I still worry, as the above post states, about an almost naivete of sitting across the table from someone who believes you are so wrong that you should be killed . However, that seems to me, as a Christian, to very much being the way of the cross. Thanks, Pete.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
In the West we so rarely ask ourselves the question, “Why do they hate us?” True, they do trample on human rights and kill innocent people. But we also consume a pretty unequal portion of the world’s resources, and that doesn’t exactly make us very popular.
I think if struggling nations got more acquainted with Gandhi and MLK; especially the ideas of negative peace and nonviolent resistance, they would succeed much more and make their case much stronger. But they really hurt their own case by terrorism. You won’t gain anything but more violence and oppression when you strap bombs to yourself and blow up innocent people.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I am wary of using the term “relativistic” as a synonym for “all worlds being equal.” That may be postmodernist and social constructionist, but it is a value judgment. Relativistic can also be used more descriptively to name the situation in the modern world and to OBSERVE THAT socially constructed worlds are relative to one another, without ultimately saying whether any single world may be more than that in relation to truth.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Rebekah’s post I guess is the practical side of the paradigm that PR expostulates on. I have struggled with how to / why to issues : is there anything the ‘enemy’ has to say that is worth hearing or not been told yet. When you have gone thro’ trauma listening to the other is last on your mind. And yet with passing time , as we try to make sense out of meaningless acts , Zibek’s way seems to be pne of the very few options out. What if a raped woman turns around to her aggressor , listens to him and asks him what he really wants ? what if the man thinks who has really gained and who has really lost ? I guess listening to your aggressor is the biblical form of ‘being justice’ – mishnah / mizpah : instead of the usual ‘eye for eye’ forms….easier said than done though people !
November 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I guess I don’t quite see the conflict between Peter and Rebekah–it almost seems as if they are reinforcing each other’s arguments.
Rebekah seems to be saying that the Taliban is brutal to women (I agree). Peter seems to be saying that the Taliban is powerful (again, I agree).
Rebekah seems to argue that the Taliban is so horrible to women that they should not be made to seem like a legitimate corrective to Western views of women. I agree fully with that statement. However, I think that the passion in Rebekah’s argument may be exactly Peter’s point?? That is, that groups that give us such an intense reaction–a reaction that I would say is just–are the ones to investigate more fully.
I agree that the Taliban is not about some kind of honorable expression of the Muslim faith, especially regarding women. And, I cannot yet say whether I agree with Peter’s implication here, that the Taliban has something to teach us about the treatment of women. But the initial point seems to stand: if you want to have any influence on groups that seem irrational, completely unjustified, even violent, then you must do the opposite of what seems natural; you must truly seek out the rationality, the justification, the peace (!), that keeps these organizations alive. And that would include, in this case, taking a hard look at the Taliban’s views of women.
Again, I’m not sure yet whether I fully agree with either Peter’s or Rebekah’s approach. But they do not, in my view, seem to be in conflict with each other.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with one aspect of this post: there is the general principle of listening to the other, seeking to understand others before we condemn, and learning from those outside of our culture – whatever that is. God knows we Americans could stand to make a little more effort (or a lot more) to understand the rest of the world.
However – and this may be part of what Rebekah was getting at -It’s one thing for a white guy to try to understand where the BNP is coming from – it is quite another for one of the immigrants they hate to do the same. Power – who has it, who doesn’t – always enters into these sorts of discussions.
Should we try to figure out how the Taliban see the world and why men join them? Sure – that’s just smart foreign policy. Am I interested in their critique of how the West views and treats women? Not so much. (The great thing about being a Western woman is that I can critique my own damn culture’s treatment of women – seeing as how I’m allowed to read, drive, vote, have a job, leave the house alone, choose what I want to wear, not get married off at age 12, and not have to worry about those pesky honor killings.) I’ve had all the misogyny I need, thanks.
To put it another way – there’s a big difference between listening to a Buddhist or an Amish person and listening to a rapist. To do as Andrew suggested and invite an outsider into your church to critique you is one thing – they are still the outsider and on your turf. For me to sit down and have a chat with either of my rapists and “ask him what he really wants”, as Herbert mentioned, is quite another – I assure you. I already know far more about their mindset than they do about mine.
I believe in restorative justice and empathy – I really do – but, if you are coming from a place of privilege and power, let’s be careful about keeping the power dynamics in mind and how that affects our experience of “being evangelized.”
November 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Yeah, I want to freely admit that this post is only a small fragment of my thoughts on the subject. As a leftist I am not saying that we need to hear the story of populist fundamentalist movements (indeed I often delete fundamentalist comments on this site). Rather that we must understand that they gain their power through a misdirected understanding of where the real problem lies. It is not in hearing their story (which is a false) but rather in understanding the central antagonisms that generate them. And then educating people as to the real issues. Sorry I can’t say more at the moment but Zizek’s latest book is great on this.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I’m interested to read that you often delete fundamentalist comments. I don’t get the sort of traffic you do, and only get the occasional idiot commenting, but I feel that unless what they are saying is heavy personal abuse or filth it’s important to let their comments stand – and hope that both readers I get will work things out for themselves.
It’s an editorial question we all need to face online. Is a blog a place for free public debate, or a more controlled space where editing of comments is important to keep the focus on the right issues.
Either way, it’s going to be interesting seeing how it works out trying to get to the heart of understanding the central antagonisms that generate the sort of Christianity that you’re now very much among… You got plans for some evangelism in Greenwich?
November 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
If, as I understand as an American, the BNP has about 2% support why does Britain spend so much time worrying about them? The chances are greater that the earth will be destroyed by a meteor than that the BNP will ever get a majority in parliament or elect a prime minister. Brown, Cameron, and Sarkozy are the Europeans with power and I think their positions and decisions regarding global issues are far more relevant than the BNP.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
[...] http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=697 [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Sorry for the length of this comment, but now that I’ve had some time to reflect, I felt the need to clarify my position.
Let me start by saying I completely agree with the main thesis of this post. I think attempting to see the world through another’s eyes, even when it is difficult for us (as in the case of the Taliban), and allowing our blind spots to be revealed is not only good advice for getting along in the world, it’s a necessary mode of operation for those who want to reside in the kingdom of heaven. And while Peter’s not the first one to say it, it’s something we all need to be continually reminded of, in fresh ways that shock us out of our complacency and bring the truth home to us.
But…I think the example given of the Taliban’s attitude toward women was a bad example and actually undermined the point he was trying to make. First, because I believe it took the attitudes of one group of Muslims and applied it to the Taliban. In doing so, that statement treated Islam as a monolithic religion and relied on the sort of generalization that is so destructive to much of our discourse. Secondly, it seemed, regardless of his intent, to create a sort of moral equivalence between western cultural exploitation of women on the one hand, and the Taliban’s oppression on the other hand.
I cannot begin to understand the suffering that the women in Afghanistan experienced first under the Taliban and continue to experience under the tribal warlords in power, and in that I am incredibly fortunate. That said, as Julie Clawson highlighted in a blog post earlier this week, there is still a tremendous amount of sexism and misogyny in our culture, especially within the church. Having grown up being subjected to the twisted logic that tries to spin Christian sexism as respect for women, Peter’s (mis)characterization of fundamentalist Islam seemed to echo that theology in a way that cut awfully close to the bone.
In my second comment, I was frustrated by what I felt was an inadequate response from Peter that included a gross caricature of Americans as being uninformed. I realize now that my words (especially the “whitewash rape, torture, and misogyny” part) were probably overheated in a way that obfuscated, rather than clarified my point, and may have sounded like an attack on Peter. For that I apologize.
I think Christy made a really good point about the power dynamics involved, and Andrew made a good point earlier about the risk of losing our prophetic witness. I can’t help but be reminded of the recent brouhaha over Roman Polanski, and the fact that some people identified and empathized with him to the point of losing all perspective on the actual crime he committed. The conservative stereotype of liberals as spineless “moral relativists” exists for a reason.
I think much of what Peter says is really important, and I hope people outside the small emergent subculture, especially Christians, begin to listen. I would hate for them to find easy reasons to dismiss him out of hand.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I loved this post pete. However I think Rebekah has offered some good “pushback”. I know that you are certainly open to that! I would also agree with her and say that I concur with your main thesis. Even so I think its important to remember that sometimes there are people who are not open to seeing through the eyes of the other. These people are not willing to dialogue. You can try to have them “evangelize you” and they will put a gun to your head and blow your brains out. It can be religious fundamentalism run wild or secular humanism gone hopeless. Either way, these people dont want to sit down and have a chat. They want to rape, torture, and do all sorts of evil. I appreciate how Zizek doesnt stray away from the intensity of the world but rather embraces it and believes we should “assume the mistake and go to the end”. I agree with Pete in his assesment of our often wrong understanding of miracle. It WAS miraculous when those airmen decided to kill off the nazis. Pete said that if thousands of angels had descended on the nazis and struck them down that would be physical because we could see it, hear it, etc. However the real miracle lies in the change of heart that the fighter pilots had… and that caused them to drop bombs on the enemy… and that was a miracle… But dont think we can use this example and not support just war theory because it falls apart. Maybe sometimes we need to be evangelized by the other. Maybe sometimes we need to whoop some ass. Just a thought.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Thanks for all the thoughts so far on this.
I would hate to sound too ‘lets all just get along’ here. I have written against that before. When Becky says, ‘you state your views, I state mine and after some respectful yet rigorous debate, let’s go have a beer together and continue the conversation in the spirit of friendship’. This sounds great but I am against it. This basically says that if your views are homophobic, sexist etc. well we can still sit and hang out together as mates. Contrary to how I may sound above I am against this. I know that if I met Hitler I would likely think he was a nice guy (vegan, loved animals, gave cup cakes to children, charismatic, charming to his staff). But I would refuse his friendship because his acts are what I must stand against and thus I don’t want to sit and have a beer with him. What he thinks and how he acts is more important than friendship. The battle will bring a sword to divide familes against each other. I am for the sword here!
If I were to deepen what I said above, which I need to, I would say that when I write about, ‘Truly great movements, the ones that continue to change, develop and persevere (even if only as an idea)’. I mean something very specific. I do not wish to include fundamentalism as a great movement. Why? Because I see it as a symptom of liberalism. I.e. it is parasitic. To defeat it one must transform that which generates it (I like Chantel Mouffe on this).
I totally accept the comments regarding the Taliban and think that I could be wrong in my use of them as an example. I just think that there are certain political facts that have not made it into the mainstream media that need to be heard.
And I promise I don’t think that ‘America’ is misinformed or dull to World politics. However I do think there are certain factors at work here that mean a smaller percentage may be aware than elsewhere. I have been watching your news programs and have some small concerns.
So anyway thanks for the pushback, despite what I have written here I hear what you are saying and need to think seriously about my use of examples.
P
November 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hey, man, thanks for this response. I do agree with your criticism of television news, which is basically designed to be facile as it panders to the lowest common denominator in pursuit of ratings. I miss getting the BBC America channel, as I usually found their newscast to be much more informative (sadly, it costs extra $$$).
I don’t know if you’ve caught it yet, but your hero Zizek has a thought-provoking op-ed in today’s NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09zizek.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp
November 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Pete, you said: “his sounds great but I am against it. This basically says that if your views are homophobic, sexist etc. well we can still sit and hang out together as mates. Contrary to how I may sound above I am against this. I know that if I met Hitler I would likely think he was a nice guy (vegan, loved animals, gave cup cakes to children, charismatic, charming to his staff). But I would refuse his friendship because his acts are what I must stand against and thus I don’t want to sit and have a beer with him. What he thinks and how he acts is more important than friendship. The battle will bring a sword to divide familes against each other. I am for the sword here!”
I have an impulse to agree with you but then I wonder what that says about grace and Christian community (that’s ‘community’ not ‘affinity’)?
That said maybe I am too much on the let’s-all-get-along side when it comes to sexist/homophobic/colonialist people, and need to make more of a stand against Christians who exhibit these values. Still, I wonder what it means to take a stand against someone’s stance and yet remain graceful towards them.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I don’t think the Hitler comparison is apt because he himself wouldn’t want to be around you if he knew you affirmed Jews. Whereas I have conservative Christian friends who know that I affirm full GLBT participation in the church; but we remain friends because we accept the legitimacy of each other’s views. And it should also be mentioned that there are a number of Christians who cannot affirm gay relationships and gay sex; but nonetheless would never commit an act of violence against a gay person or say something derogatory towards them. You don’t see these people, because it’s the angry evangelicals who always get on tv.
That being said, there are other Christians who will have nothing to do with me and who call me heretic. And there are Christians on my left who think I’m too close to the evangelicals because I like N.T. Wright. But basically, folks are just folks, and if someone is respectful of human rights and human decency, i’ll affirm them no matter our theological differences.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Becky-
I would quibble with your lumping of print media in with TV. There are good reporters covering the middle east- WaPo’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran (even though the editorial board of that paper has taken a turn to the right) and NYT’s David Rodhe come to mind. Now that I think of it, Michael Ware is really good, even though he’s on CNN. Of course, with the decline in print revenues, papers are having to cut their foreign bureaus, and good investigative reporting may fall by the wayside.
To use another example, in health policy (my fav subject) three of the best writers out there are Ezra Klein of the WaPo, Atul Gawande of the New Yorker, and Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic- all mainstream media publications. But you make a good point that a lot of debate is taking place on blogs and so-called alternative publications, and increasingly the balance of power is shifting to the new media.
I’ve been a fan of KtB for some time now, and a fan of Jeff Sharlet’s even longer. Sadly, the Revealer now seems to be defunct. What’s your full name? I will have to look up some of your stuff.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I get quite concerned about projection in the psychological sense, where one attributes to the other an aspect of character one is refusing to face up to in oneself. For this reason I am often rather loathe to talk about where I stand on issues (especially those which are closest to my heart) preferring instead to be active and trying to be an example of what I am hesitant to talk about.
A frustration with this type of evangelism (if I may refer to it as such) is the frequent lack of feedback. For instance, I often wonder if the fact that I almost always ride my bicycle or walk has any impact on the perspective of the person I live with as there is no evidence of this – she drives everywhere. (In this case, I hasten to add, I have made the reasons for my transportation choices clear in verbal terms too). Beliefs can be so entrenched and perceived challenge to them so frightening. Faced with this it feels like both words and action are impotent especially when either dialogue or interaction is refused.
By making this comment I don’t intend to be at all dismissive about the original post. Instead I wish to remark that, in my experience, the human propensity to be evasive can be enormous.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Five years ago my website “Eyes of the World,” was suddenly, mysteriously shut down. In this website, I along with my compatriot, Bryan McFarlin explored the role of US Foreign Policy and the forwarding of the Manifest Destiny document put forth by Paul Wolfowitz since the early 1970s . During the years that ensued we become privy to things that eventually sent me into silence. I then went on to be a delegate at the UN representing, Gather the Women, a group that seeks to end violence against women and aide the progress of women in leadership positions and policy making world wide.
Below is some information that may illuminate the issue that ignited between Peter and Rebekah. In essence, it outlines the mindset of the Taliban toward America, including their view of how hypocritical we are in our treatment of women. What I appreciate about this concept of “Evangelism,” is that it is an active attitude, that isn’t just about acceptance and getting along, but invites us to something more rigorous; to ‘become another’ and relish or writhe, whatever it may be.
__________________________________________
The organization of the Taliban has its roots in the Jehadi group which consisted of Pashtun Madrasa students from Afghanistan’s southwest who fought with distinction against the soviets, largely enlisted by the USA. After the war, the students re-mobilized through a combination of frustration with Extortionist Party commanders and foreign financing. It is reported that the arming of the Taliban with brand new weapons, “still in their grease,” led to a suspicion in many quarters that the “new” Taliban had formed with the active support of the GOP.
___________________________________________________
A Letter to America, by Osama bin Laden
“And you ask why are we fighting you? Because you attack us and continue to attack us. You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya; the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir;and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon. Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of these countries attack us on a daily basis…..You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military power. Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands; and you besiege our sanctities to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
And most importantly, you are a nation that permits Usury, that has been forbidden by all religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guides, your media is controlled making you all servants by achieving their aims at your expense, precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against. You are a nation that practices hypocrisy; permitting drugs, but forbidding the trade of them, permitting gambling in all forms resulting in the investors becoming active and the criminals becoming rich. You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools. You use women to serve passengers, visitors and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.”
“What happened to America on September 11 is something natural, an expected event for a country that uses terror, arrogant policy, and suppression against the nations and the peoples, and imposes a method, thought, and way of life, as if the people of the entire world are clerks in its government offices and employed by its commercial companies and institutions.”
—Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, (Taliban Leader) June 12, 2002
The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, or Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun. Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established, as they always have been, by pen and gun, by word and bullet, and by tongue and teeth. -Al Qaeda Training Manual
Bless you all!
November 11th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Hi Pete, this is really fascinating, and sounds like a very sound philosophical exercise, but I’m an anthropologist so I would say that! I did want to chime in with a comment made by Matt W above.
‘Relativism’ is a word that I hear misused a lot. It’s an important methodological principle of my discipline so I am concerned when people assume that the person saying ‘all truth is relative to those who believe it’ is the same as saying ‘all truth is equally true in an ontological sense’. I know a lot of people who would subscribe to the former belief and none who would affirm the latter.
Relativism is *not* a position that it is impossible to judge anyone else’s truth, it is simply saying that truth varies. The argument about ‘relativism’ therefore actually appears to be an argument about how we should react to the fact of relativism (ie should we try to understand other truths on their own terms or present a blanket dismissal of anything that doesn’t immediately resemble our way of thinking), rather than one about whether it is an accurate description of the world or not.
Sorry for the rant, it does bother me and most Christian blogs don’t have comments so I seized the opportunity!
If anyone would like to engage with the anthropological understanding of relativism then I’d recommend Clifford Geertz’s essay ‘Anti-Anti-Relativism’ which can be found through google.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Thanks Anna
Yeah, I have noticed that Anthology employ the principle of relativity methodologically. The cross over between disciplines can initially cause a little confusion as the term is generally used ontologically in philosophy and so has a bad rap. In philosophy the term that best suits what Anthropologists mean by relativism is perspectivism.
Sometimes the different language games can clash a little! Thanks for your contribution. I have dabbled in Anthropology and love it as a discipline. I was very saddened to hear that one of the titans of your discipline died recently. I have read some Levi-Strauss and he was a truly great academic.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:31 am
I work in medicine and can give 2 example of your principle here:
(1) I wrote a post on the value of Vaccine Resistors in orthodox medicine. Such a view is not popular among orthodox medical practitioners, but I think it is valuable.
(2) Several papers over the years have looked at “What the Chiropractors got right” — and benefited in the ways you delineate.
I think Atheists can benefit from talking with Theists in the same way — something I encourage but which irritates many atheists.
Thank you for this post, it was inspiring, corrective and encouraging — it is why I keep coming back.
– Sabio
November 13th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Re: “…sometimes their fear and loneliness lifted a bit and they could see their situation in a slightly more rational framework….” (Becky)
“The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, or Aristotelian diplomacy.” (Al Qaeda Training Manual)
The nuances of this overall dialogue are fascinating, but my experience with Christian fundamentalists is that they have more in common with the Al Qaeda Training Manual than with Becky’s desire to help them envision their lives in a rational framework. I don’t think “fear and loneliness” is an accurate characterization of fundamentalists. My family members are absolutely certain of their eternal correctness. My fundamentalist family members are “happy,” and their desire is to share their certitude and “happiness” with the world. Being right is more important to them than being rational. For them, rationality is dirty because it is part of our corrupted human nature. They believe that human reason is fallen and invalid, even though their theology is highly intellectual in certain ways. I have one brother who would use violence to assert his views, if he felt it would work. He organizes tea-baggers. Objectively, yes, he’s probably fearful and lonely. But that’s not how he sees himself. Chris Hedges’ book American Fascists describes my family.
I do believe in dialogue, but violent irrationality is a problem. If this blog is receiving violent posts I think Peter has a right to delete them. Violence ends the conversation. If the posts are not violent, let’s engage.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Thank you Becky for the movie lead and the big, beautiful smile!
Anna says…, Relativism is *not* a position that it is impossible to judge anyone else’s truth, it is simply saying that truth varies.
Anna et. al, YES, it does seem that what one “holds as true,” varies almost infinitely. I see this in my work with people daily. It is what drives behavior, lifestyle and choice, and is often incredibly complicated and polarized.
What has been fascinating for me in these many years, is the interface between what we “hold as true,” and “the truth that sets us free.” For example, that moment when what one ‘holds as true,’ gives way to another reality (or truth) that opens, liberates and creates change.
….Jaffe says, but my experience with Christian fundamentalists is that they have more in common with the Al Qaeda Training Manual
Jaffe, I truly understand the people you speak of. The only thing that I would add is that it may be possible for Becky’s comment to also be “true,” in that the levels of inflation/arrogance that can be built upon deprivation and divorce from one’s self can be staggering.
So that those with great certitude about what they ‘hold as true,’ can be deeply void, and ultimately diminished in their human capacities, even if they do not see themselves that way.
and finally, back to Evangelism: my original comment in citing the way we are viewed by the Taliban is to illustrate that much of the conduct they reflect concerning the US government is true and documented as such. So this may be the place we are “evangelized.”
However, just a bit further down the entry, we see that their “fatwa” in violence as the path, is what brings into question all that we know, and hence, here we are.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] Rollins talks about evangelizing Christians in a post sure to be provocative to the institutional [...]
December 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hey Pete!!
I agree. I think Evangelism can change the world. I believe evangelism when used wrongly can send people spiraling down into this mythical place called hell. But when used in its proper context (what would you say is the proper context?) can light fires, move mountains and change lives. Unfortunately, I think the Church has had a history of using evangelism wrongly. Even in context, the word was politically charged and provocatively unsettling. I think of this when I think of Evangelism as it was meant to be, that is why I like this post a lot because it deals and enters into the potential of Evangelism. Sometimes though, I wonder if what Jesus meant and what we think he meant are worlds apart. I am currently working on a book that seeks to go through typical scriptures that tend to be raped of their context and violently replaced with consumer idealism. What are your thoughts on all this??? Would love to connect sometime. By the way, viva la Insurrection!
December 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
George, I would be interested to know what you think biblical evangelism is i.e. how Jesus, Paul ,Peter and all the rest did it.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:38 am
[...] Peter Rollins: see his post. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
January 7th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
[...] “Evangelism will change the world” by Peter Rollins [...]