We have already seen that religion has a significant role to play in conflict transformation; we have a sense of what roles it is capable of playing; and we have an idea of how to theologically approach these concepts. But what about all the complicating bits, all the negative sides of religions working for conflict transformation we don’t like to look at? In this blog I will look at five of those, and begin to propose ways to constructively engage them with them.
People who are passionate about religion will always be dangerous.
R. Scott Appleby’s concept of religious militants give us a helpful framework for confronting this objection to religion’s involvement in conflict transformation.1 Religious militants are passionate about involving their religious beliefs in their everyday lives (so I am a religious militant and quite possibly you are, too). Religious militants can be nonviolent, (and often are), but their passion does make them more susceptible to violent tendencies than people who feel less strongly about their religious beliefs. However, it should not be concluded from this that all passionate religious expression is dangerous.
Those religious militants who are violent are “inherently interactive, reactive, and oppositional;"2 they “turn back” to old hurts and pains instead of “say[ing] anew” spiritual truths that will begin to re-cultivate peace in their communities.3 They work against societal transformation. Nonviolent religious militants who speak into their societies out of a humble heart overflowing with love, sharing visions of hope for a changed future, are only dangerous to the degree that they challenge these violent religious militants and the addiction to war and violence that plagues most societies.
Religion is frequently co-opted by the State and subsequently discredited in society.
When this occurs, the religion loses its ability to speak prophetically into the surrounding society and has difficulty regaining respect and validity. The religion may even exacerbate the conflict. However, there are numerous examples of religious groups and individuals doing the exact opposite despite being complicit in the conflict: the Clonard-Fitzroy Fellowship which I briefly described in an earlier post is a particularly noteworthy example of this.
It’s difficult for religions to separate themselves from the societies in which they are situated.
It’s hard to see objectively the ills of the society in which we live, and, as mentioned in a previous blog, those ills often have a negative impact on our theology. Engaging in a robust, religion-wide debate on the place of peace within the faith can help ameliorate this negative and provincial aspect of religious interpretation, as can developing relationships with people from a different society and, if possible, spending time away from one’s home society.
Religious leaders and passionate lay people are limited in their work for reconciliation by the congregation and community of which they are a part.
It takes the working of the Spirit and wise leadership to guide people through the scary waters of reaching across established divides, and regardless many people will not be ready for it. People seeking societal transformation must be prepared for this. Engagement with conflict transformation requires moral courage and a long-suffering commitment to persevere, despite difficulties, setbacks, and the lonely, unglamorous nature of the work. But never forget that one person can have a substantial impact for good, whether or not she is supported by the broader community.
We humans all have our own ambitions, biases, agendas, and sins which negatively effect any of our efforts at reconciliation.
There’s no way we can get around this. As I pointed out in the previous blog, this demands that we approach speaking prophetically into societal transformation with sincere humility and a loving, selfless spirit.
This is just a taster of the objections to religion’s involvement in conflict resolution that people have spent centuries proposing. They are all valid, certainly; but rather than become discouraged by them, we must continue to engage with them as we out for ourselves religion’s role in conflict transformation.
_____________________
1. For a more thorough description of this concept, see R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), 6-30.
2. Gabriel Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around The World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 218.
3. Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Mission Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 308.
No comments:
Post a Comment