29 October 2015

Evangelism or proselytism -- a PS

"We would like to know more about the people who are helping us."

These words were part of a letter I received from a grassroots-level development group in Honduras, back when I was the coordinator of the Right Sharing of World Resources program. I replied with a simple, low-key description of the worldwide Quaker family and mentioned that there were Friends in Honduras. I hoped that I was correctly navigating the line between unnecessary diffidence (not to mention respect for a legitimate question!) on the one hand, and a sales approach that could be interpreted as exploitative, on the other. In other words, I was trying to be transparent about our identity and motives without crossing the line into proselytism.

For convenience, last week's post about evangelism and proselytism made a clean distinction between the two. In the real world, as several people have reminded me, things aren't that clean. So here are some thoughts about the grey zone in between.

Ethical evangelists take into account any sort of power differential between evangelist and audience. No matter how careful you are in theory about not trying to lure people out of a satisfactory spiritual home (from the audience's point of view) to sample the goodies on offer in your own affiliation, if people are hungry or vulnerable and perceive practical value in a conversion, you're in danger of crossing the line into proselytism.

This is the reason that Christian relief and development agencies often have a no-proselytism policy. World Vision's policy can be read here. However, the issue is not as simple as it sounds, as Martin Marty's summary of approaches to "disaster evangelism" indicates. My first encounter with the Right Sharing program, years before I became its staffer, took place at a Friends World Committee triennial meeting in Hamilton, Ontario. As part of a panel on Right Sharing, Everett Cattell of Evangelical Friends Church Eastern Region (and a former missionary in India) raised the concern of the "right sharing of the riches we have in Jesus Christ." Clearly, as Martin Marty points out, if you believe that people face eternal doom without these riches, you are going to assume that no other religious affiliation is truly "satisfactory" and that any inhibitions over proselytism are therefore inappropriate.

Maybe the best we can do is to frame the issue in terms of relationship and honesty.

First of all, when we engage in service, we should try not to monetize or bureaucratize relationships. In my time, Right Sharing had no money for field staff, but we always required some personal link between our committee and the community we were hoping to help. Sometimes the link was a local Friend, sometimes a Quaker member of a larger development agency, or a Quaker in the U.S. Peace Corps. It wasn't a perfect setup, but it was a start. The point is, before anything else, we're human beings simply trying to form worthy relationships.

Second, we should never require any knowledge of our doctrines before, during, or after our partnership, and we should take care that we don't make it seem like such knowledge would be an advantage. Nor should we hint that the other partners' affiliations could become a block for us.

However, we shouldn't pretend that values don't matter. We don't want to fund violence, addiction, elitism, racism ... but how would we know that our partners share these convictions (on some more durable basis than the time it takes to hook the funder) without honest exchanges on identity and motivation? Furthermore, many cultures don't privatize religion the way Western societies tend to do, so the subject of our faith is bound to come up.

And it should! We don't want to be so over-careful about proselytism that we give off an equally unfortunate message in the other direction ... that the partner community members are just "beneficiaries," the objects of our enlightened service, and not people we would want to sit next to while worshipping God! It was Bob Dockhorn of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting who, speaking at a conference maybe twenty years ago, stated this principle vividly when he contrasted the ministry of Chicago Fellowship of Friends, where worship and service were fully integrated, with the arms-length attitude of some well-meaning "outreach" programs.

We should try to build channels of communication that are sufficient to give a full accounting of our faith, when required, as an important element of our identity and motivation -- while also explaining that this same faith requires us not to proselytize. Evangelism with integrity requires avoiding unethical incentives, but it should not prevent "right sharing of the riches we have in Jesus Christ."

[Note: after thirty years of evangelism, service, and prophetic ministry rooted in Chicago's Cabrini-Green neighborhood, the Chicago Fellowship of Friends recognized that its ministry had been completed and the meeting was laid down in 2005.]



A practical way for you to participate in the New Humanities Institute's program...

The Dialogue of Languages and Cultures in Today's World

... a call for papers.

Are you a teacher of a second language or a facilitator of cross-cultural communication? What have you learned about the relationship between language and culture? How have you made language instruction or cross-cultural learning more fun, interesting, effective? What about art and design as a "language" for cross-cultural communication?

Write about three or four pages for our New Humanities Institute's annual Dialogue of Languages and Cultures conference book. 

The conference description is in Russian here, but your paper doesn't need to be in Russian. You can write in English, French, or German, too. You can send your paper directly to the conference address, or if you like, send it to me in any popular word-processing format and I'll help reformat it, if necessary, for the conference.

The New Humanities Institute celebrates its 20th anniversary as a higher education institution next month. Before 1995, it had already existed for several years as a language school -- the first private school of its kind in the Moscow region. I've been an annual guest lecturer since 1994, and I've been a full member of the faculty since 2008. I've written several papers for these conferences over the years. You can sample them here.

Thank you for helping make our conference book truly international. Deadline for submissions: November 30. 



Vista ("communicating research and innovation on mission in Europe") dedicates its latest issue to the timely theme of nationalist extremism in Europe.

The perils and powers of charity, and the counterintuitive insights of China Scherz in Uganda.
It is on the basis of this dual critique of both politically oriented action and of regnant ideas about sustainable development that Scherz seeks to redeem the status of "small present-oriented acts of care."
College apologizes to [Quaker] professor labeled a communist and fired in 1962.

A case study in documenting the history of women in higher education: the "Seven Sisters" and the role of religion.

Reclusive Russian family's last survivor: the amazing story of Old Believer Agafia Lykova.



Imelda May, "Proud and Humble" ... "You know I'm only human, you created me...."

22 October 2015

Evangelism or proselytism?

"Russia's biggest circus" comes to Elektrostal.
A Friends educator I hadn't seen in years was visiting our Northwest Yearly Meeting sessions a couple of summers ago. He told me there that he sometimes quotes me as saying "Quakers don't proselytize."

Did I really say that? To my best recollection, when I first said "Quakers don't proselytize," I was probably quoting Jack Kirk, a Friends United Meeting leader who was one of my first encouragers just as I was beginning to realize that I was being called into a public role among Friends. Jack in turn was quoting the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting conventional wisdom of his own youth -- quoting, but not necessarily agreeing.

I had mixed feelings about hearing that I was being quoted this way. By my own definition of proselytism, I actually believe the statement is correct but incomplete. I interpret proselytism to mean any attempt to change someone else's religious affiliation (however satisfactory it might be to them) in favor of one's own affiliation. In other words, "stealing sheep."

By any objective statistical account, we Friends in fact either don't believe in proselytism, or we are highly ineffective in practicing it. Philadelphia is one of the historic centers of Friends, but there are three times as many Catholics in the Philadelphia archdiocese as Quakers in the whole world. Rather than admitting to sheer communal incompetence, I prefer to believe that we actually resist trying to lure people away from their settled spiritual home into ours.

However, Quakers do evangelize.  Or, that is, we ought to. Anywhere there is spiritual seeking, spiritual questioning, or spiritual oppression, people ought to have access to the Friends message: "Christ is here to teach his people himself." Evangelism is not an attempt to hook people who already have a good relationship with their Creator in their present spiritual home. It is simply a winsome expression of our Christian testimony, coupled with an invitation to experience the community formed by that testimony. It utterly depends on honesty, accessibility, and hospitality.

My definition of "testimony" is pretty wide. The word encompasses what we have learned about God's power in our personal lives and our life together as a centuries-old community of believers. Together we have learned that God's power pulls down strongholds of violence, greed, social distinctions, and all the various ways that we mistreat and minimize each other. Those old bondages are replaced by the voluntary bonds of commitment to each other, and our willingness to open our arms to others who judge that we are a trustworthy place to find a spiritual home. Together we learn to live with God at the center of our lives, with Jesus as our all-sufficient prophet, priest, and king, and with the Holy Spirit as the foundation of our worship and church government.

Not that we always agree on what these things mean! We have never entrusted the preservation of our Quaker identity to any single list of doctrines or any central office. As much as we cherish the Bible, we don't have a standard school of biblical interpretation. (We in Northwest Yearly Meeting are right now learning the hard way about how important it is to open up to each other more tenderly and honestly about our conflicts in this area.)

We also don't always agree on what it means to see God's power pulling down strongholds. Some of us refuse to pay taxes for military spending and counsel our children to be conscientious objectors. Others avoid contact with political controversies of any kind in favor of cultivating lives of devotion and prayer. Women serve in pastoral ministry and denominational leadership, but not every local Friends church is in unity with our teaching on equality. A minority of Friends congregations have no pastor at all while others have full-time pastors with large staffs, and there is every possible variation in between. Our worship is equally varied, ranging from an hour or more of waiting on God (with no planned programming or sermon at all), to an order of worship that often resembles other Protestants to some degree.

Although in a weak moment I might prefer to have everyone see things exactly my way, I'm not actually embarrassed by all this variety. If we are going to be honest, the person who is getting to know Friends might as well see the whole messy picture. Friends will never win the commitment of new people through slick and uniform presentation (although can't we be a bit more creative?!). Nor will we ever claim that we are the only believers who have a clue about God. Instead, I would love to see new Friends attracted by one form or another of this important connection: their own hope finds a resonance, a partnership with our experience.

For this to happen, we must make our experience of life in God -- and its ethical consequences -- known, accessible, verifiable. That's what I mean by evangelism.

October 29: PS.



Some earlier reflections on evangelism:

Meditations on sectarianism
The Golden Age of evangelism
"We will never see another non-Christian"
Who owns the Quaker brand?
Evangelism and the Quaker Testimonies Google Group/archive



Netanyahu's "fairy tale about Hitler" and why it's damaging.

"That letter again" ... namely the letter from British Anglican bishops concerning refugees. (Thanks to Fulcrum Anglican for the link.)

American evangelicals are "officially divided" on the death penalty.

Economist: Some Middle Eastern Christians are speaking up against "holy war" in Syria. (And is there a "just war" doctrine in Orthodox Christianity? Stanley Harakas says no. And for Russian readers, Quaker Tatiana Pavlova's book The Long Path of Russian Pacifism, with summary of contents in English.)

Depression: the struggle none of us want to talk about.



Terry Evans and Hans Theessink:

15 October 2015

Impatience

I've just left one of the several Friends committees I have been serving on. The last straw for me was when the committee made a decision over my explicit objection. I was not in fact opposed to the proposed decision -- to publish a peace book by a respected Quaker author -- but had requested that we receive some statistics and marketing plans before committing our finances. In the midst of all this, Russian bombs joined the American bombs falling on Syria, and our little group decided that (in my jaundiced interpretation!) what the world suddenly needed was yet another Quaker book on peace.

In my story, there is no villain. The abrupt decision probably reflected the majority view on the committee. I give you no guarantee that I've told this story in a fair and neutral way, but even with my one-sided recounting, maybe you can understand why Micah Bales's recent blog post, "'God' Is No Substitute for Strategy," felt like a healing message.

This is one of Micah's central points, reflecting much of my experience as well:
I’ve gained so much of value from the Quaker community, but one aspect of Friends culture that I have found crippling is our general inability to do long-range planning. I would encourage Friends – and anyone who comes from a faith background that is skeptical of our ability to plan for the future – to consider the possibility that God wants us to co-create the future with [God].
(To be honest, I have also been frustrated when we Friends seem to be too timid to let the Holy Spirit take over. But even when we seem reluctant to allow spontaneity and the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit, it's not to make room for prayer-driven long-range planning, but instead we let some leader or celebrity or script do our thinking for us. Is it unfair to ascribe some of this passivity to spiritual laziness? But that's another blog post!)

Again, I don't find it hard to understand some of the emotions swirling around the decision I objected to. Let's just think for a moment about the last few weeks: another mass shooting in the USA, a monumental refugee crisis shaking the foundations of the Middle East and western Europe, the USA's bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, Russia's entry into open combat in Syria, the slaughter of peace activists in Ankara, Turkey, and today's slice of unreality: the USA is not leaving Afghanistan after all. (Andrew Bacevich on why it's unreal.) To respond to all this violence, it seems that Friends are not in a position to "shock and awe" the world, so let's ... let's ... let's publish another book. Now!



A few years ago, in a Quaker Life editorial, I called impatience the "American sin":
Last December [1998], during a visit to Nebraska, I found myself dealing with three crises simultaneously. The U.S. House of Representatives impeached their country's President. The same country sent a rain of missiles and bombs on Iraq. And Nebraska was getting ready to execute the adopted son of Nebraska Yearly Meeting Friends Don and Barbara Reeves.

Was there any connection between these crises? I think so. First of all, they all reflect human sin. Clinton would not be in trouble if he had not misbehaved and lied. Congress's response, in turn, was a festival of sanctimony. In Iraq, the U.S. and Britain, who in an earlier era had helped arm the Iraqi leader, now found it necessary to kill his pawns in order not to lose "credibility," that psychic commodity which is more precious than life itself (as long as it is someone else's life). And an intoxicated Randy Reeves himself started the chain of events leading to possible execution, on the day he murdered two women in the Friends Meetinghouse in Lincoln. Since then, the state's "obsession" with the death penalty (the word used by Kenneth Mesner, father of one of the victims) has been reflected in inadequate jury instructions, a flawed sentencing process, and a stony refusal by state officials even to consider clemency. (Less than 45 hours before the execution time on January 14, a reprieve was granted by the Nebraska Supreme Court to consider new constitutional issues.)

To me, there is a peculiarly American twist to the ways these sad stories are unfolding: our national weakness for satisfyingly quick results. President Clinton's misbehavior is an example of instant gratification made available by the tempting conveniences of power. Clinton seemed unable to assess these gratifications against the claims of morality, or even against the danger to his reputation and that of his office. The danger was made acute by the fact that (and Clinton certainly knew this) he was being watched closely by a whole industry of conservative Clinton-haters, equipped with high finances and media technology. Their intense dislike of the President certainly fueled the unseemly rush to publicize, at taxpayers' expense, every sleazy detail of the President's foolishness. This campaign to expose, embarrass, punish at all costs, seems another example of unreflective impatience, instant gratification, overwhelming any sense of proportion.

In the Reeves case, eighteen-plus years of court process to decide the fate of the defendant hardly seems "instant." However, it is the insistence of the state on blood vengeance (a quick-fix gratification which seems unrelated to officials' stated desire to "protect" Nebraskans) which triggers this drawn-out process. A prison term would have protected Nebraskans without involving them in corporate killing and without costing taxpayers millions of dollars in appeal expenses.

As for Iraq, nothing is more outrageously "quick-fix" than to starve and blast a country whose renegade leader has succeeded in embarrassing his impatient enemies over and over. Pride and adrenaline are always a lethal mixture -- leading to a sort of national "high" which can hide the reality of total ineffectiveness. But who cares for effectiveness when we can feel powerful and the corpses are thousands of miles away? A different sort of calculation is needed: Americans must stop shielding Iraq's neighbors from their own responsibilities to deal with their regional troublemaker, and consider our own relations with the Arab world on a scale of decades and generations, not just the time it takes a carrier task force to get to the Mediterranean; and Christians and Muslims must seek to outdo one another in words and deeds of compassion rather than violence.

W. H. Auden said, "Perhaps there is only one cardinal sin: impatience. Because of impatience we were driven out of Paradise, because of impatience we cannot return." But maybe if we were not so impatient to send others to hell, God might grant us the grace to look heavenwards again.
(Originally published March 1999. And of course, by the logic of retribution, the story of that "renegade leader" had an appropriate ending.)



Forum 18 update on known prosecutions for religious literature in the last four months in Russia.

I thought I was the only crazy person who thought borders should be abolished completely. But I'm not.

How an 18th century philosopher helped Alison Gopnik solve her midlife crisis. (This is the Russian-language version that told me about her article, under the publisher's "Weekend Reading" rubric.)

The Guardian alerted me that one of my favorite writers, Marilynne Robinson, had been interviewed by Barack Obama.



I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I'd never heard of Ron Thompson before this summer's Waterfront Blues Festival. What energy! There aren't many videos of him online; I chose this one for the audio, not the picture quality:



08 October 2015

Redeeming Germany?

Merkel receiving her honorary doctorate. Source.
One reason I have such a visceral dislike of racism and anti-Semitism is that I grew up with that poison. My German mother believed that she was born into the master race, and that others' inferiority was obvious.

(Her special brand of racism had an unusual asterisk: having been born and raised in Japan, she freely admitted that the Japanese were, if anything, perhaps slightly superior to Germans.)

When my mother left Germany to live and study in Chicago, she did not leave behind this master-race mentality. I can tell you first-hand what it was like to grow up in this family micro-culture, in which any neighbor who didn't match her Teutonic ideal was dismissed. In this way I experienced some attenuated version of the mentality that seduced a whole modern nation into total war and premeditated mass murder on an industrial scale.

Maybe this explains why I'm so moved by German chancellor Angela Merkel's persistent and intelligent defense of her refugee policy, even as some pundits point out the political risks involved. Today the BBC quoted her telling an interviewer, "I'm proud that we are receiving refugees in a friendly and open manner. I don't want to compete to be the country which does best at scaring off refugees." I can't help wondering what my mother would say to that.


A first taste of winter
Yesterday's snow. Bulat Okudzhava monument, Arbat, Moscow.
Photo by Vladimir Filonov, The Moscow Times. Source.

What's even more remarkable to me, especially in view of the too-frequent American correlation of conservative Christianity with anti-immigrant views, is (as the BBC article points out) her associating generous refugee policies with Christian faith. In defending her policies, for example, "she claims she's simply exemplifying the Christian values of the CDU" -- referring to the political party she leads, the Christian Democratic Union.

Although her party has no religious restrictions on membership, its intellectual DNA has strong connections with both Catholic and Protestant social ethics, some of whose proponents were in the anti-Nazi resistance or in prison during Hitler's reign. Merkel herself grew up in a Christian family in a politically hostile context, communist-run and USSR-dominated East Germany, where her father was a pastor.

Almost all prominent politicians in Europe are far more reticent to emphasize faith in their public behavior than their American counterparts, and Merkel is usually no different. But refugee and immigration controversies seem to have struck a nerve with her. I found her comments at her European Parliament caucus, as reported by Politico, fascinating and inspiring ... and even redemptive. Quoting the article,
In the party meeting, Merkel was especially tough on European countries that have portrayed the acceptance of refugees as a threat to religion. "When someone says: 'This is not my Europe, I won't accept Muslims...' Then I have to say, this is not negotiable."

European leaders, she said, would lose their credibility if they distinguished between Muslim and Christian refugees. "Who are we to defend Christians around the world if we say we won't accept a Muslim or a mosque in our country. That won't do."
Given my own childhood memories, maybe you can understand the healing effect of hearing such sentiments in a German accent.



Another instance of Merkel's linkage of immigration and faith happened about a month ago in Switzerland, where she received an honorary doctorate from the University of Bern. Her comments on the refugee crisis were widely reported in the English-language press (example). According to McClatchy's Matthew Schofield, "During a news conference Thursday in Bern, Switzerland, Merkel said it was both an honour and a moral obligation for Germany to take in 'die Fluechtlinge,' the refugees."

However, most English-language reporters seem to have ignored her comments on Muslim immigration and Europe's Christian heritage. I found several references in Russian-language news sites. Drawing in part on a Polish source, the newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Novosibirsk headed an article on Merkel's news conference in Bern by quoting her: "You don't want the Islamization of Europe? Go to church!"

She went on to explain, "I would like to see more people who dare to say 'I am a Christian,' who are brave enough to enter into dialogue," noting that she also supports the guarantee of religious liberty in Germany.

I find it refreshing (in the American context as well) to hear Christians challenged to go deeper into their own faith, and prepare for honest dialogue, rather than be corrupted by fear, identity politics, and searches for enemies. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of Merkel's words; I hope, but can't be sure, that this was the motivation for publishing her words here in Russia, where Islamophobia is also a sad reality.



Merkel, "Faith in God makes many political decisions easier."

Grevel Lindop (author of Charles Williams: The Third Inkling) describes Williams as a teacher ... and his impact on the Oxford University students who were fortunate enough to hear him lecture.

Charles King on the dangerous decline of international studies.
Given that no one can know where the next crisis will erupt, having a broadly competent reserve of experts is the price of global engagement. Yesterday’s apparent irrelevancies—the demographics of eastern Ukraine, for example, or popular attitudes toward public health in West Africa—can suddenly become matters of consequence. Acquiring competence in these sorts of topics forms the mental disposition that J. William Fulbright called "seeing the world as others see it"—an understanding that people could reasonably view their identities, interests, politics, and leaders in ways that might at first seem bizarre or wrong-headed. It also provides the essential context for distinguishing smart policy-specific questions from misguided ones.
How one evangelical activist (with Abigail Disney's help) changed his mind on gun violence.

By giving religion short shrift, video games ignore part of what makes us human.



Sow Good Seeds - Joël Fafard


Sow Good Seeds - Joël Fafard from joel fafard on Vimeo.

01 October 2015

Brown-bag update

  • Umpqua Community College in Oregon: perhaps 10 people are dead in today's mass shooting; as many may be injured.
  • Terrified residents of Kunduz, Afghanistan, are reportedly in hiding as Afghan and U.S. troops battle for control of the city.
  • Signe Wilkinson, Source.
  • In Syria, an evolving alliance of government forces, fighters from Iran and Lebanon, and Russian air support, faces at least two distinct enemy groupings ... one of which is supported by the U.S. See chart at right for instant analysis.
As I try to make heads or tails out of this chaos, I'm at least comforted by the fact that Moscow Meeting's clerk has come back safely from his fact-finding visit to the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine and will be talking to us about this at our next meeting.

I suppose that the possible discovery of water on Mars ought to be at least a diversion, if not a comfort. But as my way of confessing a total lack of wisdom on any of these topics at the moment, let me provide a brief update on my new laptop -- the one I bought a couple of months ago from Dell with a factory installation of Linux instead of Windows.

I'm disappointed to report that it didn't take me long to break the operating system, or at least render it frustratingly clumsy. When I updated Ubuntu to the newest version, it booted up into a "kernel panic" -- the unresponsive computer's caps-lock light was blinking but no login screen appeared. Rebooting took me to a recovery screen that allowed choosing an earlier kernel, which then loaded fine. But this long and clunky two-step process, which other users were also reporting after updating Ubuntu, was intensely frustrating. I can't imagine how someone even less familiar than I am with debugging Linux installations was supposed to cope with this sort of complication. After having praised Dell and Ubuntu for a consumer-friendly Linux laptop, I was not pleased.

To be totally fair to Ubuntu, I really didn't need to update. The installed version was a LTS (long term support) version, for which five years of security and maintenance updates were guaranteed, and it was working fine. For me, it's just temperamentally difficult to know there's a newer version out there that I don't have!

After doing some research online, I decided that the crashes probably weren't caused by a fatal hardware flaw, so I didn't send back the Dell laptop. Instead, as I anticipated when I wrote the earlier "brown bag" post, I replaced the hard disk drive with a new Toshiba 256 GB solid state drive (SSD) for about $100. With the new drive installed and tested, I replaced the original operating system with Linux Mint 17.2 Cinnamon edition, using a bootable USB flash drive I had prepared in advance. (Search online for "creating a bootable USB drive" and just follow the most intelligible set of instructions you find.) I'd already backed up the relatively few new files I'd put on my new laptop.

After six weeks of strenuous use, the Dell laptop with Linux Mint is working fine. I use it as a portable laptop in my classes, and -- with an external monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers -- as an office computer. I'm not sure what will happen eventually when Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu) is updated -- will those kernel panics happen again or will things have been sorted out upstream by the programmers by then? In any case, in the meantime I'm enjoying three of the benefits that solid state drives claim: faster performance (including much faster boot times: 15 seconds to the login screen, about 15 more to full operation), a quieter laptop (less heat, so the fan is rarely on, and the SSD is completely silent), and longer battery life between recharges.

Now, thanks to a smoothly running laptop and good Internet access, I have to face the real world again.



All Nadia Bolz-Weber could do was "cry for all my inconsistencies."

Why white churches are hard for black people.

Sean Palmer: Your pastor is not as edgy and provocative as your favorite blogger or writer, and that’s a good thing.

Quaker Vs. Goliath: A leading political periodical profiles Kate Gould of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Tom Engelhardt: It's safe to be paranoid in the U.S. (Latest link in my "perpetual war watch.")
If you were to isolate the single most striking, if little discussed, aspect of American foreign policy in the first 15 years of this century, it might be that Washington’s inability to apply its power successfully just about anywhere confirms that very power; in other words, failure is a marker of success. Let me explain.


Hans Theessink and the Valentinos, performing a song I'll always associate with the immortal Junior Wells.