Middle East Work Group

“Are We Listening?” – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations

As some of you know, I have been sorting through my files to determine which would be valuable to retain in the archives of a university. Believe me it has not been easy to sort through 30 years of files. To date I have read through close to the equivalent of sixty reams of paper!

Many good friends have resurfaced and reminded me of the struggles we experienced together in the 1980’s and 1990’s to promote understanding, reconciliation and peace in the context of our Middle East neighborhood. I hold them in highest esteem and respect.

In the process I have discovered something about faith: It has little relevance except in the context of community. I ran across the report of a trip I made in 1992 (my youngest grandchildren think that was in the Neanderthal Age) when I traveled through ten states visiting family and speaking about reconciliation and peace.

In my conversations with participants, I learned that they were looking for something dramatic to happen so they could follow it or worship it, and feel that they alone had had a private experience. Some believed that the more private and personal the experience, the more validity they gave to it. I was shocked by how many people thought of faith as having no relevance for the larger community.

The Gospel, as event, is not private, it is the “opening” event of all life and, as some believe, of all time. It is not to be kept but to be shared. This was made clear in the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus that took place on the top of a mountain.

According to the Gospel of Luke (chapter 9), the story of the Transfiguration of Jesus challenged the concept of the three disciples who were with Jesus at the time. They wanted to do three things: 1) They wanted to stay on the mountain 2) build booths (tents), and 3) they wanted to bask, as it were, in his glory. They liked having this privileged, private, personal experience of his new integrity and changed countenance, and in their minds believed that they now really knew who Jesus was (…the disciples kept quiet about all this and told no one… 9:36) But they were in for a surprise. The next day Jesus took them back down the mountain and continued his ministry of healing.

What they learned was that transfiguration has meaning only as it opens our lives to others and brings them and us new life in community. During their experience on the mountain a voice said, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen—listen to him.” Only by listening can we be open, always learning. Some one once said that learning is not only a life-long process, but also a long life process. And so it is.

This new, and healthy, life is not just for the wealthy, privileged or successful, but ultimately for all of God’s people. It is not just for a particular place on the globe, but for all of God’s creation. It is not prosperity for a particular nation, but for all the nations. The story of the Transfiguration tells us something about God and how God relates to God’s people. May we listen with open minds and open hearts.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“A Kairos Time?”

A perfect theological storm is what a kairos time means. It is the coming together of all the possible theological conditions that can open up an opportunity for God to act in a surprising and new way. A number of religious leaders believe now is that time.

What are some of the things that have happened recently that lead one to this conclusion?

First, there was the election of an African American as president of the United States, a country that has long been ruled for the most part by the heritage brought to these shores by European immigrants. Second, societies are no longer experiencing change from within their own cultures alone, but rather from a global culture characterized by interactive social, religious, economic and political conditions, that have no boundaries. Third, a modern technology that truly respects no boundaries—just witness the recent civil protests in Iran. Fourth, all the traditional walls of race, economics, religion, and politics are beginning to break down also. What this means in the field of theology is that we are beginning to see that NO particular theological view of creation and the universe, can adequately explain where we came from and where we are going. The result– we need to listen to ALL views. The editor of Presbyterian Outlook, John Haberer, recently said, “…we believe that the best hedge against corruption is to make ethical decisions in community, where voices of varying viewpoints can share the insights their fields of study and varying ideologies offer” (April 13, 2009 issue). The important words are “in community.”

Karen Armstrong pointed out in her study of the history of Jerusalem, that the city knew peace when everyone within its environs played an active role in its leadership, but when only one ethnic group made all the decisions constant conflict reigned (Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths, Ballantine Books, 1996).

A kairos time is a time of hope. For Christians, hope always has its roots beyond political and social realities. Our hope is rooted in a conviction of faith that believes in the intentions of God for the world, in spite of the evidence that we see. And we act on the basis of faith, and then expect that the evidence will change.

That was always the story of the prophets. They saw clearly the political, economic, and social realities that so angered God. They could also see through and beyond them, with a hope rooted in God’s power to make things new. This is what Jesus proclaimed as the Kingdom of God.

Jesus is calling us to live in God’s presence, empowered by God’s Spirit, and acting according to what God willed for the world. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done…”

In this present time of social and political change, may we see ourselves as participants in this activity of God’s Kingdom.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS  - William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“The Christian Exodus”

My first awareness of a Christian exodus from the Holy Land was in 1953 while teaching in one of our Presbyterian mission schools in Sidon, Lebanon. The faculty was international and interfaith, including Americans like me, and gained a reputation for being able to prepare students for matriculation at the best colleges in Lebanon, Europe and America.

My classes in Science, Math and Bible included students from around the Middle East, sons of ambassadors and businessmen, and prominent families from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Most of them were Muslim. Other than the few Christians from Lebanon, the other Christians came from the Palestinian refugee camp some ten miles from the school (created by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 1948).

Life in the refugee camp was crowded, a home being simply a 20×25 foot cinder block space where all activities of a normal family were conducted, including a place for a student from my classes to study. It was not unusual for a family of 6-7 to be crammed into this space.

What made me rethink these experiences was the recent article in the National Geographic magazine, entitled The Christian Exodus from the Holy Land, June, 2009 issue. The author, Don Belt, concentrated on the Christian exodus, because that has now become a major concern of anyone serious about peace in that region: What role can a rejuvenated Christian community play in a peaceful Middle East, assuming there will still be a viable indigenous Christian presence after the ink has dried on any peace agreement?

Christians have been in the Middle East (the origin of most of the world’s religions) for some 2,000 years but now are threatened with total extinction. As a new peace process begins, it is of the utmost urgency that the problem of why Christians are being made to feel that they have to leave, be discussed by all participants. Arab Christians, who preceded Islam by some 700 years, are uniquely qualified to teach the skills necessary to get along creatively with people of other faiths.

In our time, scholars and religious leaders have come to see the value of each person’s experiences, especially those of other faiths, and while we in this country see important interfaith activities taking place, we must not forget that it all started in the Middle East many centuries ago.

If for some reason the Middle East should become emptied of Christians, it will be a great loss for everyone, a travesty of justice. We need each other if for no other reason than that justice is the foundation of faith, not only for Judaism and Christianity, but equally in Islam. “Further, it is foundational for every religion because just relationships between people are the fruit of one’s faith in God” (Ateek, 2008).

Christians read Isaiah 9 as a prophecy of one (Jesus) whose “authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace…He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forever more” (emphasis added).

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“The Challenge Before Us”

On Monday, March 30th, I was invited to attend a Prayer Breakfast at the Islamic Center of America on Ford Road. It was an occasion for the “Interfaith Community” to welcome the new Archbishop of Detroit, The Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron.

I was glad to have been invited, as a previous responsibility prevented my being present at an earlier such event. This one was well-attended. I saw many friends and quite a few representatives of the growing religious pluralism that now characterizes Detroit, not to mention our nation as a whole. It was a time, for those who had not heard him before, to hear The Archbishop’s views on what it means to think, create and develop relationships, “interreligiously.”

Of course, the Catholic Church, as all other religions in the area, will continue their traditional practices. No one would expect that to change (or would we?). And the Archbishop implied that such practices are a consequence of established beliefs about the Bible, Jesus and God. But that raises the fundamental challenge: How can we, then, talk, work and worship together without insinuating particular dogmatic claims about God?

We are challenged by the 21st Century where people of literally all religions (and cultures) “rub shoulders” in offices, schools, hospitals, athletic activities, on the production line and, yes, even in marriage. We are being confronted, literally every day of our lives, to find a way, or ways, to correlate our differences in faith, so that they do not become little “religious triumphalisms” that can lead to conflict, eventual destruction and certain death.

For the Christian community alone, as it approaches the moment of Pentecost, we must take seriously the fact that God has been experienced in many languages. The Spirit of God has descended upon all flesh (Acts 2:1-13). Although it happened at one particular place, it was a universal revelation (pluralistic) that transcended the particularity of time and place.

Our striving, therefore, cannot be one of superiority over others, but of humility with others. Among the many religions and many religious people in the world, no single faith community has a uniformly good or bad record in human affairs. Each religion offers a “mixed bag” when measured in terms of how well people are enabled to live more justly, humanely, and trustingly before God.

I am convinced that the poison of militant extremism (and this can be of both the verbal as well as the physical kind) can be neutralized. My experience leads me to the conviction that the practice of love, (as I believe Jesus taught), not the defense of doctrine, is the primary challenge for Christians in today’s world.

Let us hope that the coming of Archbishop Allen Vigneron will be the harbinger of a new vision that also has to do with God’s ongoing relationship with others beyond Israel and the church.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“A Bit of Presbyterian History”For the history buffs among us, let me recount a bit of early interfaith activity, a la Presbyterian. What follows is taken from a statement by the Presbytery of Detroit as it participated in the “Detroit 300″ celebration some five years ago.

The Presbyterian Church might not have come into being had it not been for the proclivity of the only resident priest to use French in his religious services and for the insight of a General in the United States Army.

The French priest, Father Gabriel Richard, gave occasional talks in the French language, something a disparate Protestant community could not fully appreciate. In 1813 then General Lewis S. Cass was appointed Governor of Michigan. One of his first concerns was to find Protestant leadership for the non- French speaking inhabitants arriving from England.

It was a request from Governor Cass to Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey in May, 1816, that eventually led to the appointment of John Monteith to pastor what would become the beginnings of Presbyterianism in Michigan. The story tells it that it was Father Richard who first met Monteith when he arrived at the dock.

The two men developed a long standing friendship which benefited the territory, most notably in their appointment to the leadership of the first successful state university in America, the University of Michigan. The name John Monteith will go down in history as the first President of the University of Michigan.

But, in Presbyterian history John Monteith is remembered for organizing the first successful Protestant Church, called the First Protestant Society, in Detroit, composed of both Congregationalists and Presbyterians. The first Protestant Society of Detroit became the First Presbyterian Church on Woodward Ave., in 1826. By 1833 there were a total of seventeen churches in the newly formed Presbytery of Detroit, a growth remarkable for the fact that in those times people did not take religion seriously. Monteith is quoted as saying that, “he had never even imagined such depravity anywhere.”

Presbyterians exerted a rather strong influence in educational affairs in Michigan, in the early years, especially at the University of Michigan. In time the Presbytery of Detroit, needing more ministerial candidates for pastoral leadership, founded Alma College in the city of its namesake, especially for this purpose. This took place in 1887. The college has since broadened its scope and provides matriculation in most of the traditional fields and is recognized as one of the leading private schools in Michigan.

The Reformed Churches tradition, of which Presbyterianism is a member, traces its ancestry back to John Knox, a Scotsman who studied under John Calvin in Geneva. As a member of this tradition, Presbyterians are open to learn and to share the wisdom and insight given to traditions other than its own. The Historic Principles of Presbyterianism have “sought to establish balance between the private judgment of the individual and the freedom of the church to order its affairs” (The 194th General Assembly, 1982).

Also, the Presbyterian Church is guided in its relationships with people of other religions by Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith cooperation recommended from time to time by its General Assembly. The 1999 General Assembly stated:

“We are called to work with others in our pluralistic societies for the well-being of our world and for justice, peace, and the sustainability of creation.”

This bit of history, I believe, demonstrates how open-hearted and open-minded people can change the direction of history, for the well-being of all.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“Who is Right and Who is Wrong?”

A recently published book, You Don’t Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right, by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, struggles with the issue of relationships in the context of desiring friendship with those who may disagree. Just how we might be able to do this is the basic theme of his writing. It is a timely topic both for an America that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and for those who have strongly held beliefs, implying that those who hold different views are wrong.

I call his efforts, and others like him, the need to “think inclusively when addressing common societal issues in contemporary society.” The encounter of a pluralistic society is not premised on achieving agreement, but achieving relationship. E Pluribus Unum – Out of many One – does not mean uniformity.

Professor Diana L. Eck reminds us that “Dialogue does not mean we will like what everyone at the table says. The process of public discussion will inevitably reveal much that various participants do not like. But it is a commitment to being at the table – with one’s commitments” (“Challenge of Pluralism,” Nieman Reports God in the Newsroom: Issue, Vol. XLVII, No.2, Summer 1993).

Rabbi Hirschfield summarizes it as two sets of needs all of us have: “the need to assert ourselves and the need to find connection with others,” or what may be called the need for relationship.

Relationships imply a common pilgrimage. All of us are on a pilgrimage in life, of one kind or another. Some pilgrimages may appear in conflict with others, since it is ideas and beliefs that inform those pilgrimages. When we allow ideas and beliefs to substitute for people, we have lost our way and our vision has become blurred. For, as Rabbi Hirschfield said, “However important ideas and beliefs may be, people are more important” (emphasis added).

Jesus often demonstrated this importance of people over ideas (religious or political ideologies) during his ministry. He dared to speak to a foreign woman at a well. He invited taxpayers to a banquet. He healed lepers who were the untouchables of his time. He healed the daughter of an official who only needed to express the faith that it could happen. He often challenged peoples’ lack of faith that things could change – that new life can come forth from death, that sacred space is only what we make it to be and not confined (you will worship neither in this place nor on the mountain, for God is a Spirit and whoever worships must worship God in Spirit and in Truth).

When we reach the point where our relationship with others is more important than any particular ideas we might hold, the barriers to conversation have been broken and we can be open to the fact that we both had things to learn from each other.

For Jesus, the purpose of relationships was not to convince others of the correctness of our own ideas but for the larger purpose of forgiveness, reconciliation and finally redemption, that ushers in the kingdom of God.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“Image Is Everything”

We now live in an age of “imaging.” We no longer take X-rays, we do imaging to determine what is “going on inside.”

In many hospitals, the X-ray room is now called the “magnetic resolution imaging” (MRI) section! And digital Cameras are catalogued according to their “imaging” ability, meaning their ability to take sharper and more inclusive pictures of the world “outside.”

The Bible, also, is constantly presenting us with images that often escape our understanding. Jesus said, “(one) who has eyes to see, let (them) see,” meaning that you may have physically seen one thing, but did not catch the deeper spiritual meaning, or image.

In Mark 12, there is the story of the silver coin. When asked by several religious leaders this question, “Give us your ruling on this: Are or are we not permitted to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor,” Jesus said, “Show me a silver coin.” When one was produced for him he asked them: “Whose image (that word again!) is on this coin, and who’s inscription?”

The man who had challenged him answered, “Caesar’s!” Jesus replied, “So give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The answer made them more perplexed, depending on what they thought they saw. But for two thousand years, Christians have argued over what the answer meant.

What is Caesar’s and what is God’s? Are there two different spheres of life, one ruled by Caesar and one by God? Should we submit to Caesar’s authority in the “material” world, while adhering to God’s in the “spiritual” world? How do we discern the boundary?

As they surely would have known, since all humans are created equal in the “image of God,” the image on the coin was that of God’s. In this interpretation, the claim of the Divine Ruler (God) to rule over an emperor includes the political realm. Because God rules over all rulers, and because God calls forth from every human being a unique face of God, therefore each human being must follow God – not Caesar.

When we suggest that our particular image (language, culture, food, clothing, etc.) should be uniform for all, we are rejecting cultures that are unique, diverse, precisely because they carry God’s infinite image. This is what Jesus was trying to say. Later, at Pentecost, we learn that every spiritual revelation is unique (Acts 2) and we should listen far more closely to each other’s wisdom. Each is the face, image, of God that is different and diverse.

On the positive side, every interfaith gathering, to the extent of its inclusiveness, is a reflection of the diversity of God. And on the negative side, for example, if we torture the image of God, do we make ourselves into images of Caesar?

Image, in the last analysis, just might be everything!

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“We Have Much to Learn”

Involvement in interfaith and multicultural activities has many benefits. An example of this is the discovery of relationships of old we thought to be of our own making.

A recent article (The Christian Century, November 4, 2008, Long-Lost Christians by Philip Jenkins) reveals that our myth of a Christian world that existed mostly west of the Levant in medieval Europe is easily dispelled. My seminary requirements included courses on the growth and expansion of the church. The vast material presented to us was about Western Europe. Little was said about the growth of Christian communities in the Eastern world that centered in Constantinople.

According to the above- mentioned article, the leader of that expansion was Bishop Timothy I. “At every stage, Timothy’s career violates everything we think we knew about the history of Christianity—about its geographical spread, its relationship with political state power, its cultural breadth and its interaction with other religions (italics mine).” The eighth- century patriarch of the Nestorian Church of the East was probably looked upon by one-fourth of the world’s Christians as both spiritual and political head.

For example, Mesopotamia, or Iraq, reflected a powerful Christian culture at least through the 13th century. Well into the Middle Ages, the established Christian communities of the Middle East included such Iraqi cities as Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, Tikrit—hometown of Saddam Hussein—was a thriving Christian center “several centuries after the coming of Islam.”

These centers hosted quite well- advanced scholarship in classical learning and were located throughout the Eastern world. Bishop Timothy had even created a center in Yemen. Monks carried the faith even into China.

According to one scholar, who has translated the Bible into the Eastern languages, most people would be surprised to learn that the oldest known translation of a portion of the Bible into the Persian language was discovered in China and dates from the sixth century. Recent publications in Iran itself have made some other older translations available to the general public.

It perhaps was just as well that the Christian communities of those times never aligned themselves with state power (as happened during Charlemagne’s reign) for they survived by developing skills necessary for effective interfaith relationships. The lesson to be learned? –Eastern Christians looked to Jesus himself rather than some earthly potentate of power. The Eastern minority churches had little choice but to dialog with the religions of their time –Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. In this process each was affected and in turn reshaped by them.

Might it be that such a search of our religious roots will save us from destroying one another? The Apostle Paul said, “Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Romans 13:9b-10).

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“Imam W. Deen Muhammed”

I first heard Warith Deen Muhammed speak several years ago at Cobo Hall. He was born in 1933 in Hamtramck, son of Nation of Islam founder, Elijah Muhammed. Imam W. Deen Muhammed is most remembered for having moved thousands of black American people into mainstream Islam from his father’s organization.

He died September 9, 2008 at his suburban Chicago home. His funeral was held at Villa Park, Ill. where hundreds gathered to pay last respects.

Except for his occasional Quranic references in his speech, if I were listening to him on the radio, I would have thought him to be Christian. He called upon his followers to take responsibility for their own lives, to develop businesses that would keep them off welfare, and to “follow Jesus Christ,” as one of the respected prophets alluded to in the teachings of Islam.

Anyone who has spent time in interfaith activities over the past twenty- five years, or more, has experienced the evolving diversity of this country. They would have learned that every religion has its variety of interpretations. Just as there is an Iraqi or Egyptian understanding of Christianity, so is there a Saudi or Pakistani understanding of Islam. There are basic beliefs, but particular interpretations beyond that often reflect local cultural settings.

Imam Muhammed was special in that he represented the effort to give Islam an American particularity.

Of all the Islamic leaders in the United States, on February 6, 1992, he was selected to offer the invocation on the floor of the U.S. Senate in Washington. This was the first time in history that the Senate was opened with an invocation by a Muslim, showing the respect members of Congress had for this religious leader.

The event was sponsored by three U.S. Senators, Allen Dixon (D-IL), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Paul Simon (D-IL). Later that day a large reception was held at the Hart Senate Office Building, attended by hundreds of Muslims, many friends of Muslims from other religious communities, and representatives from over forty Muslim countries with diplomatic missions in Washington (as reported in the Newsletter for Christian- Muslim Concerns, Interfaith Relations, March, 1992)

The Mayor of Washington, DC, read a proclamation declaring February 6, 1992 as Imam W. Deen Muhammed Day in the Capital City. The Muslim prayer in the Senate is an encouraging sign of the awareness that the United States is a truly multi-religious society.

Just recently (2008) a current lectionary reading called each of us to avoid passing judgment “on our brothers and sisters for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Romans 14:1- 12).

W. Deen Muhammed’s life is a positive example of how we can learn to live together. May we be so inspired.

INTERFAITH RELATIONS – William G. Gepford, American-Arab Relations
“What is an Evangelical?”

A recent “Evangelical Manifesto” has attempted to define the Evangelical identity (“Evangelical Manifesto,” May 7, 2008, Washington, D.C.). To its credit it has emphasized its religious origins.

The term evangelical is not new. It has been around since at least the time of Christ. The term comes from the Greek word for good news or gospel, which suggests a radically new view of human life. To define in this way what is meant by Evangelical, is not to say that we don’t appreciate other major traditions, or that other traditions do not have something of substance to contribute, or that we are not open to working with them on many ethical and social issues of common concern. Rather, it is to distinguish its particular contributions from those of other faiths.

The Evangelical tradition is distinct as it holds to truths to be found in the Bible, which the Protestant Reformation recovered, beliefs that are true to the Good News of Jesus.

Evangelicals should not be defined politically, socially or culturally, but theologically. Evangelicals may be found in most political parties, cultures and societies.

Among other things, Evangelicals believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every sphere of life, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well as in words, always reaching out to the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the oppressed. It also means being faithful stewards of all creation.

As a non-hierarchical community, Evangelicalism provides a unity that holds together a wide range of diversity.

During a term of service in Lebanon (with the Presbyterian branch of the Evangelical community) the church with whom we worked was identified as the “Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon,” the term Evangelical intending to distinguish this religious group from those who identified themselves as Catholics or Orthodox.

This identity, calling its adherents to faithfulness to Jesus, not to a political, secular or social system, made it possible to work with the vast religious variety that also was a part of the larger religious “family of God.” It was from them that I first learned how to be true to our unity in Jesus that underlies all lesser differences and to practice the “reconciliation in the church that is so needed in the world.”

In this time of renewing our government leadership, it is important that our witness be one to seek freedom, justice, peace, and well being for all peoples that are at the heart of the kingdom of God.

This means that Evangelicals must invite Muslims, Sikhs, and others to join with them to embody and be the good news to our world and to our generation.

With God’s help, and a common witness we can meet the challenges of our time for a “greater human flourishing.”