"Knock, Knock"

The other week I took our baptism class to a Mosque for a visit. I am secretly trying to convince the kids that they should become Muslim instead of Christian – as it is we already have too many Christians. Kidding. We went because I wanted to kids to have the exposure to other faith traditions and to compare and contrast different views of God.

I was thrilled that the people at the Mosque were willing to host us, talk with us, and share a part of their lives with a bunch of teenagers who probably have never been in a Mosque before and may have never seen a Muslim up close in real life. My thoughts were confirmed when the kids all crowded around the Imam, poking him, and trying to see if he was really real.

What surprised me was the way the way the Imam and others in that community acted towards us. It was in a way that made it very clear that they were thankful that we were there. It was almost as if we they were imposing on us by our being there.

Think about this. When we go to someone’s home we are imposing on them. Sure, they are happy to have us there (we hope), but they are doing the heavy lifting, cooking, etc. We are thankful for the invitation, hospitality, etc.

Yet in this case the tables were turned. In fact, the Imam and I got into a gratefulness-off, seeing who could bow lower, seeing who could say, “we are so thankful for…” and finally who could prove the other was inconvenienced more.

In Rhode Island there is not a large Islamic community and it is not an obvious part of the culture. In the United States Islam continues to struggle to be accepted as a faith equal to Christianity, Judaism, and those who follow the path of the Jedi. A friend of mine told me that the Islamic community in Rhode Island is constantly struggling to figure out how to be connected with the community in a positive and helpful way. When a pastor of a church calls and asks to bring his Baptism class to visit what they may be seeing is the community (or a part of it) working to be connected with them in a positive and helpful way. On one level, we were the guests visiting them. On another level, they are the new neighbors and we were “welcoming them.”

This is what I will call an “active hospitality.” A passive hospitality is one where the neighbors say to the newcomer, “stop over anytime, let me know if you need anything,” and waits for the new neighbor to take the initiative. An active hospitality says, “why don’t you come over on this day, I would love to help you with x,” and shows an active interest in the person’s life.

In this case, the onus is on the people in the “norms” of the culture to look to the people on the margins and to take the initiative. It is to put yourself (the norm folks) into a place of the unknown and vulnerable with those on the margins. It would be easy to invite folks from the Muslim community to our class in our building on our terms to talk to the students, but for us to go to their place of worship, be in their space, and witness their prayers puts the “norm” folks in a place of vulnerability. We were in a place of the unknown and that is always a risk. It is a way of saying, “I want to know about your life, values, cares, etc., on your terms.”

This is a form of hospitality that is very difficult to practice; it calls for a good deal of courage and sensitivity. It is a form of hospitality that my baptism class and I practiced unknowingly.

Now will you invite me over to your house? Or should I invite you over to mine? Or maybe I will invite myself over to your house for some apple pie. Yum.

New Podcast Episode - In the Garden of Eden...

A new podcast episode is up - we look at the story of the Garden of Eden and the myths that we take from them...

Follow the link to hear/download the episode, or find it on iTunes under 12enough

You Cannot Be Trusted!

I’m a little freaked out with the rhetoric I am hearing from politicians in Israel and here in the United States. I never knew people could get so anxious as to immediately jump to the consideration of force, all over the cost of olive oil!

Actually it is over the potential of Iran having nuclear weapons. I understand some of the arguments that people are making:

            They are crazy!

            They hate us (both Israel and the US)!

            They are crazy!

            They still hate us!

            They are crazy!

There may be more arguments and perhaps arguments that are a little more nuanced, but these are the ones that I hear the most. It isn’t just the rhetoric of doom that freaks me out but the militaristic tone and the idea that violence is a viable option that scares me. We all know that the possibility of war is in the back of everyone’s minds, but the rhetoric I have heard brings such a possibility to the front. This freaks me out.

This freaks me out for many reasons, the least bit being anti war (yup, I’m a yellow-belly, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing pacifist). One notion that sticks out in my mind is the military response to the potential of creating nuclear weapons. Some are suggesting that we attack Iran because they have the potential to create weapons grade uranium which could lead to the production of uranium weapons. The crime is in the potential of committing a crime. See, it is not good to have potential.

Putting aside that we attacked Iraq for similar reasons (they may have WMDs, so we better hit them before they hit us), this mentality is very dangerous and pessimistic.

I wonder if it is connected in part to the idea of original sin. This is an idea that states people are born sinful and thus should be condemned to hell before they even do anything, because the potential to sin is there and because they are saddled with sin. We need to assume the worst of people because sin will pull them down again and again.

I like to believe that we are born a blank slate, a tabula rasa, and that we have the potential to make right and wrong decisions. Others, the original sin folks, seem to assume that we will always make the wrong decisions.

I’m well aware that such a doctrine is not on the minds of our Israeli counterparts, but I do believe it has become such a part of common Christian thought that it is difficult to imagine someone making the right decision. We are horrible, sinful, dirty, broken, worthless, evil, messy, pathetic creatures and will never get it right. How’s your self-esteem now?

I’m not suggesting that we assume people in Iran, or elsewhere, will always make the “right” decision or that we always give people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes trust is broken. What I am suggesting is that we consider our theological anthropology, i.e. our idea of what it means to be human, and consider how such a view effects the way we consider and treat each other.

So to improve your friendships, your work relationships, your marriage, etc., eschew original sin and embrace the goodness in which we are created.

Good Mannered Christians

The World Council of Churches has come out against doctrines that were issued and have been used against Indigenous people. My first reaction was:

Wait, there is a doctrine against indigenous people?

Two examples given are the Catholic Church documents DumDiversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455), but the statement suggested that there may have been more then just those two. My second reaction was:

Wait, people actually used this doctrine?

Christopher Columbus. Need I say more? For those who aren’t clear on how such a doctrine was used, it was spiritual and moral justification for forced conversion, murder, enslavement, etc. to those non-Christian heathens. Fun stuff, right?

It goes beyond just being jerks to people who happen to be there first. The mentality behind such a doctrine suggests that Christians have a right to land that is settled by non-Christians. I am hoping that these concepts are not new to people. I hope most of you know this shadow side of Christian history.

Of course we can all comfortably say that today we do not endorse or practice this doctrine, right? We don’t go into people’s homes and say that they have to become like us and that their homes now belong to us (unless we were talking about the Jewish settlements of Palestine? Ouch!). When we send out our explorers today we tell them to be nice, courteous, take what is offered, and try not to embarrass us. Maybe when we finally get to Mars and meet all of the natives of that planet we will be more sensitive to their land. That is if they don’t suck out our brains and use our bodies as a throw rug (Hail our martian overlords!).

Then again, have we really rejected such doctrine? The doctrine came from a belief of superiority in the mind of Christians. Of course the Pope would justify the actions of Columbus, he was Christian, they were savages, and therefore Columbus was right in his slow, methodical genocide.

This attitude, that we are right and superior, is one that continues to prevail throughout Christianity today. Think about Rick Santorum. He is carrying a warped idea of religious freedom that rests on an imperialistic idea of Christianity. This approach encourages religious freedom if it supports his ideas of Christianity and screw the rest. After all, the rest (read: progressive Christians, Jews, Muslims, Jedi, etc.) are pagan, heathen people who should be converted and forced into a morality that is “right.” Santorum is not the only imperialistic Christian, there are many, many others who look to walk lock-step to the hymn Onward Christian Soldiers, neglecting the social-justice roots of the hymn, and looking to dominate the world with a particular view of morality. The doctrine may be obsolete, but the ideas behind it are still very much alive.

So bravo to the World Council of Churches for finally condemning this doctrine of superiority against indigenous people. Hopefully no real harm was done. Next we finally condemn any and all doctrines used to justify slavery.