Dialogue at Davos (by Brian McLaren)
In late January I had the great honor of being a participant in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. I was invited to participate in dialogue among Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders about "improving the state of the world." I imagine I was invited because of my previous work in interreligious understanding, and because of my new book Everything Must Change, which deals with global crises, including the intensification of religious conflict. I also had the chance to participate in a wonderful panel about the power of fiction to tell the truth. In my free time, I attended a number of sessions about sustainability – one of my main passions these days.
A moment on the last night of the gathering will stay with me as an icon of what we were about. I was speaking with a rabbi with whom I had been in several sessions. A Muslim woman from our group came up with her husband and we began saying our goodbyes. The rabbi looked at the two Muslims and said, "I see the light of God in you. You are radiant with the image of God." The Muslim woman said, "I feel I have a new brother in my family." A small gesture, you might say, fragile as a snowflake, easily extinguished by the avalanche of weapons and tsunamis of propaganda that sow distrust rather than mutual regard and affection. But I couldn't help but think of Paul's pregnant phrase: love never fails.
Another moment – when a Muslim conversation partner introduced me to a group of Muslims I hadn't met: "This is my friend, Brian." When people stop being "that Jew" or "that Christian" or "that Muslim," and instead become "my friend," followed by a real name … the state of the world improves a little bit.
And another – sitting with a Muslim scholar who explained to me, "If you want to understand our struggle, think of your own Declaration of Independence." She rehearsed the lines, known by heart: "… we hold these truths to be self-evident … created equal … endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." She asked me what these lines were intended to do, to accomplish. I replied, "To counter the pre-modern notion of the divine right of kings with a new notion – of the God-given rights of individuals." Why, she asked, was it important to bring God in? "Because God represents an authority higher than a king's authority. If God gives individuals rights, a king loses his right to abrogate them."
Then she said, "This is a primary reason why there is such a religious revival in Islam. Millions of Muslims live under dictatorships. They need to have their human rights validated theologically so they can gain freedom from dictators, just as American colonists wanted to gain freedom from the king in 1776." Sadly, she added, many of these dictators have remained in power with U.S. support, which helps explain much of the antipathy toward U.S. foreign policy. A simple thought, perhaps obvious to many, but it clicked for me as never before.
Cynics will find a lot to criticize at Davos, but if my experience is an indicator, it is a place where uncommon conversations can happen, friendships can be born, and moments of insight can occur … each of which in some small way can improve the state of the world.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair for Sojourners. He is on a tour in 11 cities this winter and spring, mobilizing people to respond to four global crises. He posted two short video blogs from Davos.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you for that. I have more hope now.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 7, 2008 12:28 PM
Payshun's post above mine reflects my sentiments, exactly. Thank you for bringing us that message of hope.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 7, 2008 1:07 PM
I will echo the first two posts.
Thanks!
D
Posted by: Don | February 7, 2008 1:21 PM
That is hopefuly commentary about people, once they get to know each other, let the distrust and hate fade away. I like the commentary about "friends".
I think the situation is a little more complicated in the Muslim world than she lets on. I can understand the desires to be free of dictators, but to say that what Muslims want to replace the U.S. supported (in some cases) dictators with is the Western concept of universal human rights endowed by God is a little niave. We're constantly being warned that if we actually allowed true democracy in places like Saudi Arabia we'd end up with something like the Taliban (not exactly strong proponents of human rights). I have no doubt Muslims who attend forums like Davos want liberal (small L) societies free of dictators, but what would these countries really look like if the dictators went away? Something like Iraq or different? Discuss...
Posted by: Eric | February 7, 2008 1:50 PM
We're constantly being warned that if we actually allowed true democracy in places like Saudi Arabia we'd end up with something like the Taliban.
It's difficult to know, Eric.
In some places, this would be true. But not everywhere. The Taliban and their ideological friends aren't very popular, for example, among Shiites and other minority Islamic sects (whom the Taliban-likes consider infidels as much as Christians and Jews are). So places like Syria (which also has a fairly large Christian population) might look a lot different if the dictators went away.
Unfortunately, we in the West, especially here in the USA, are helping to finance the spread of Taliban-like, intolerant Islamic thinking through our purchases of Saudi oil. And that isn't likely to change any time soon.
You are right, Eric, that the situation in the Islamic world is a lot more complicated than some of us might want to think. Islam is essentially in the midst of a struggle for its identity, not completely unlike what Christianity went through during the Reformation.
But building the kinds of one-on-one relationships described here are a positive first step.
Posted by: Don | February 7, 2008 2:51 PM
The problem with this article is that it is based on McLaren's liberal views as with those with him at this event. Islam, for example, does not hold that all are created equal nor does it teach tolerance (as Christianity has since its inception in Acts 2). Islam believes in conversion by the sword. Further, many want to say that Bin-Laden has taken Islam captive but in actuality, he is truly a Muslim more so than this above.
We must come to see that there is no hope of peace among world religions, nations, etc. apart from salvation through Christ alone (John 14:6). Until we see this (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7,14; 1 Timothy 1:8-10) we will not see that our greatest need is a new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-27; John 3:3-7; Eph. 2:1-10; Titus 3:5-7). Humanity is bent on sinning (Romans 1:18-30) and apart from the work of the Spirit of God in a person's heart, there can be no true peace (Romans 5:1).
Posted by: Roy | February 7, 2008 3:54 PM
Don - I agree that the result would be different depending on the countries involved. I definitely think Lebanon free from Syrian influence or Syria free from a dictator would turn out differently than Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that if the U.S. stopped buying Saudi oil they'd easily find another purchaser and the funding of radicals would continue, but in an ideal world it'd be great if we didn't purchase it from them. I just don't think that if suddenly the Middle East dictators fell that we'd get this outpouring of Jeffersonian democracy.
Posted by: Eric | February 7, 2008 4:32 PM
Roy - I agree with your basic premise that true everlasting peace will only be found through Christ. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to interact with others in peaceful ways.
I'll put it this way. I assume you believe that you and your neighbors should try to get along and treat it each other with love and respect despite the fact that sin will always exist and you might have disagreements at times. The same ideal should apply to people of different nations and religions. There will always be conflict, but that doesn't mean we can't work for peace and dialogue. We've shouldn't be naive in the process, but there's nothing wrong with engaging others in the attempt to find common ground.
Posted by: Eric | February 7, 2008 4:38 PM
Roy
You start out your argument by labeling Brian as liberal, as if God has some interest in our silly political affiliations and beliefs. We are followers of Jesus first, second, third, fourth and so on. Somewhere down the list our political beliefs come into the equation as something pathetic and trivial.
Jesus demanded that his followers pursue peace and love others as they would wish to be loved. I see Brian trying to follow the spirit of the Lord's teaching.
I would be a little careful in your zeal to label Islam by the behavior of some of its adherents. Some truly disgraceful things have done by people calling themselves Christians, often in the name of religion.
Engaging and respecting others with different beliefs is the only path to peace. Showing contempt for others of a different faith eliminates any receptivity to the teachings of Jesus. Failing to love others as you would wish to be loved is exact opposite of evangelism.
Posted by: Dave | February 7, 2008 5:03 PM
Dave: "Engaging and respecting others with different beliefs is the only path to peace."
I would also add to that, Roy, that it is often the first step toward evangelism, if that's what you're getting at.
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 5:40 PM
Perhaps the Confucians spoke volumes when they said "underneath our clothes, we are all naked."
Sounds to me like you had some refreshingly naked dialogue at Davos, Brian, and I applaud your sentiments here.
Posted by: canucklehead | February 7, 2008 8:18 PM
The truth about major religions is that each has many who take a far from peaceful approach and some who are peacemakers. This is true of both Christianity and Islam, as well as other faiths.
Jesus didn't seem to place a priority on theological purity. I think that's one reason why the parable on the Good Samaritan (some scholars think he was telling a well known story but substituting a Samaritan for a good Jew who was not a priest or rabbi or anything). What he seems very concerned about is people actually living the way of the Kingdom of God. So I don't think the friendly dialogues with those of non-Christian faiths are at all out of order for good Christians.
And Paul advises, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18) Brian really tries to live that out.
If we develop peaceful and friendly relations with all sorts of people, we will create a situation in which we can authentically share our faith and be listened to.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 7, 2008 8:20 PM
Roy,
There are still significant Christian populations in Iran and other Muslim countries. I didn't know if you knew that or not. Also Islam has respect for all "people of the book." That means Christians and Jews are respected. Bin Laden would not be seen as a true Muslim by many Muslims here. As I recall there were a few centuries where Christians also had forced conversions.
My point is that Islam is going thru some serious growing pains and considering how bloody our history is we need to be patient and wait to see what happens.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 7, 2008 10:29 PM
Roy: The use of labels like "liberal" does not revoke the clear command of our Lord, "love your enemies, do good to them that hurt you, pray for them that spitefully use you." Nor does it negate the Apostle Paul's inspired directive, "As far as it depends on you, live in peace with others." A respectful dialogue puts those commands into practice. I would call that faithfulness to put the word of God into direct action theological conservativism, whatever MacLaren's political persuasion may be.
On the other hand, Bill, I don't see how a thoughtful reader of the gospels could say that Jesus didn't value theological purity. He claimed to speak with absolute authority, continually saying "I tell you the truth" and even going so far as to call Himself "the way, the *truth* and the light." He passed judgment on the arguments of pharisees and sadducees, even telling the latter essentially that they were simply wrong, because they didn't know the scriptures or the power of God. He considered himself the ultimate authority on God (as who but God could be) and had very definite ideas of what God was like and what he does and will do. Moreover, He validated the Old Testament Scriptures as the Word of God which "cannot be broken" and promised his direct followers that the Holy spirit would lead them "in all truth."
So as far as I can see, the only way to say that Jesus was not concerned about theological accuracy is to claim that the gospel writers were misrepresenting Him. I wonder, if one does this, can one believe that He was, as He claimed to be, the unique son of God who has authority to forgive our sins and give us new life? And if one does not believe that, in what sense can one call oneself a Christian?
Posted by: Andrea Newell | February 10, 2008 1:25 AM
Having lived in a Muslim country for many years, and having many Muslim friends, I can say that those in McClaren's article are more typical than an Osama bin Laden. I feel rather troubled to also read someone say that Islam spread through the sword. This statement shows both serious bias and prejudice, and a significant ignorance of history. Both Christianity and Islam have been spread by the sword. Both have also spread through other means.
I am currently sitting in an African country, where most people are at least nominally Christian, and Christianity came here through colonial occupation. There are also Muslims in this country. For the most part Islam came here through traders.
Posted by: Mike | February 10, 2008 12:05 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?