Last month, the American Freedom Defense Initiative placed advertisements in New York City subways that read,
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”
Photo credit: United Methodist Women
In response Rabbis for Human Rights, Sojourners, led by Christian social advocate Jim Wallis, and United Methodist Women presented ads yesterday:
“In the choice between love and hate, choose love. Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors.”
and
“Love your Muslim neighbors”
and
“Hate speech is not civilized. Support peace in word and deed.” From New York Times.
The ads war in the NYC subways make me think of the failure of the American melting pot. We still don’t know how to have kind, respectful spiritual conversation. We all want to clamber on to of the moral high ground and preach.
Preach.
Preach.
In the ad war I think both sides are missing something: love for each other. They’re calling names (“hate speech”, “savage”, “bigotry”) I think my favorite ad is Sojourners “Love your Muslim neighbor.” And yet, does the tit-for-tat advertisment make for more love?
I think people’s MO is to choose a side and dig trenches or we just hold our tongue. We don’t have spiritual conversations.
A week from tomorrow I’ll be speaking on “The Man Behind the Curtain: Good News Without Tricks” to Biola’s Torrey Conference. The question at this Christian university is like that at many others: how do I share good news in this changing world?
How do we bring up Jesus as if he weren’t an f-bomb, muttered or spoken too loud and then glancing around to see who heard.
Last weekend I ran into a woman whose story I began to tell in Coffee Shop Conversations. She was pregnant the same time I was so we had plenty to share.
I ran into her at our grocery story on Sunday and caught up a bit. I opened the conversation with “How have things been with your son and boyfriend?
“Husband,” she corrected, “But we split up. He was cheating on me.”
“I’m so sorry, that’s super annoying.” We talk and even laugh a bit. She tells me some more details and then I think of what I really want to ask.
“How has the split changed your feelings about marriage and love?” She launches into a long story of how she never thought she’d find love, but her ex gave her hope. Now, she’s just certain nothing will last. Nothing. I listen, I ask her if she’s more hopeless now.
“Not hopeless, realistic,” she says steely-eyed.
“How has this experience changed your feelings about God?”
“Not changed much really.” She explains how she used to go to church, how she prayed as a five year old that God would protect her from things that “should never happen to anyone.” And how God didn’t come, how God let her down. She tells me how “Bible-thumpers” will stop her and preach to her. How she’ll listen and sometimes even go to church with them (just to be polite). I plunge in with this,
“Do you remember from the times you went to church what Jesus says when he’s hanging on the cross?” She shakes her head, “God, why have you forsaken me?” She looks curious for second. “That reminds me of what you said” I tell her.
“Yea,” she responds, “But people tell me that if a rapist says he’s sorry God forgives him and lets him into heaven. I tell them, if that’s where the rapist is, I want to be in hell.”
My heart jumped with understanding. I got what she meant. I told her so. We talked a little about my son who was asking for a second sugar packet. We said goodbye.
So, I ask you, what is Jesus’ good news for her?
Evangelism is more about good news than it is about tricks or convincing one-liners.
Sometimes people ask me how I end up in these conversations. While I can’t underestimate the differences between extrovert and introvert (I’m the former), I’ve seen my introverted husband have deep spiritual conversations, too. We both practice two things:
1- relentless curiosity (which is neither loving or good to fake)
2- bold questions (for instance: “How have things been since _____”, “Are you married?” “What does that tattoo mean to you?” “How has your divorce changed the way you see love and marriage?” ”How has your divorce affected your journey with God?” ”Do you believe God has abandoned you?”)
If you practice both of these I promise you’ll have a chance to answer equally personal and meaningful questions.
By the way, these aren’t just questions I whip out on the unsuspecting “unbelievers” (can we lose that word?!). These are questions I ask anyone I care about. They’re questions I want to be asked by someone who wants to know me better.
Do you have any questions you love to ask others?
I want to ask the ad war people if we are to love jihad, the random killing of innocents (because we cry foul when a drone strike kills innocents too!). And ask them why they trivialize a real issue to the point that no one is allowed to talk about it, making everyone polarized, confused, stunted… and these qualities are less loving and less civilized.
This won’t change anybody and will not resolve any real problems (both sides see the real problems, don’t they?).
Thankfully (!) there is another way. Thanks for demonstrating that, Jonalyn, and for being willing to live in that tension between a God who loves and the feelings of the abandoned without jumping into preacher mode or insisting they get over it.
Jesus spoke a lot. And he rarely offered the final word for all decisions to be laid bare before God and man. Many of his talks, sermons, parables, are to open us up to consider, massaging the human soul to stop the tribalism and to start getting serious about life and what matters before God and all things meaningful and permanent. Love and justice must be bedfellows, faith and faithfulness too.
Dale,
I love it when you comment on my posts. You bring up a great point with how confusing and stunted we get when we see that no one is allowed to say “Hey, that idea is wrong.” People assume that calling someone wrong is the SAME as saying “I hate you.”
Both sides do see real problems and taking sides certainly doesn’t help us get into each other’s shoes better. I want to understand better what makes Muslims despise Western things like Hollywood so much. I also want to understand why some Christian groups like Sojourners are reticent to throw their lot in with Messianic Jews in Israel.
Of course, many Muslims would say jihad isn’t always the random killing of innocent people. But it certainly is for some Muslims. I wonder, however, if there is much good to be done in putting up our position with advertisements. It feels like a distancing move in the first place from sitting down face to face with someone with whom we deeply disagree.
Stop the tribalism, loved that line.
Love and justice, faith and faithfulness will one day rise up and kiss one another. There is a Psalm about that, I believe.
If someone had asked me a few months ago, while it was happening, how my divorce was changing my views on God… I might not feel the way I do about the church. At least I’d feel less so. Thanks for writing this and giving me some hope that real, loving Christians who live out their faith still exist.
This encourages me a lot, Laurie. I’d love to talk more if you have a moment to email me. Jonalyn at soulation dot org
Having been the “victim” (wink, wink) of your curiosity I can say first-hand that it is appreciated. When curious questions like this are asked I believe people continue to ponder long after they provide an answer. I know I did, and I still am. It brings things to the surface for deeper consideration, and hopefully surrender so God can grow us.
The time you took to relate with her in the grocery store will have deeper impact on her soul then one-liners or pop-Christian sound-bites and platitudes. Your curious questions allowed her to own her feelings without being rushed to get over them, or defend them. She was in a safe place to be human, but also to grow.
Grateful for this, Lori. It’s made my heart less anxious for a “follow-up” conversation. Glad you encouraged me!
How do you find yourself challenged at work, with friends, to ask them curious questions. What questions do you like to ask?
Beautiful post. I find that curious questions are some of the most loving gifts we can give to every person we interact with. I talk about this with kids all the time and say “Let’s love them by asking them good questions about who they are.”
I think of Jesus’ prayer one I hope to live the answer of with you:
John 17:21 “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.”
Laurie, I’m so sorry for your loss and divorce. I can only imagine how painful it must be to be in your shoes right now. I’m also so sorry that the church has not come near to love you. If the church is people and not a building, and this is what I believe, then I come alongside of these other friends and say I’m so sorry. I pray comfort will come to you. This is how I’ve experienced God’s love most, he doesn’t always keep me from the wounds of this world, but His presence with me in these times is a sweet companion.
“Of course, many Muslims would say jihad isn’t always the random killing of innocent people. But it certainly is for some Muslims.”
This is a deeply important point with which to deal. If we really want an open, respectful, inter-faith conversation, I think it’s very important to reject the shackling of the word “jihad” to terrorists acts. I think it can convey a lack of attention to the nuances of the word and its uses in the Muslim community if we merely accept the one to one relationship jihad=murder/killing.
I appreciate the grace with which you’ve approached the question of these ad campaigns. But I wonder–how else is one to express dislike for a soundbite in a scenario that only has space for a soundbite? While the rebuttal ads are, I agree, simplistic, the situation itself seems to create no room for anything else. I suppose I should put in the disclaimer here that, to me, broad-brushing an entire culture and religion with the term “savages” pretty much earns the return “hate speech.” I will agree that does end up being inflammatory, though, especially considering that you are rebutting a group of people who think referring to anyone dissenting from Israel (strongly implying Muslims and Palestinians in particular) a “savage” is okay. But what do we do instead there? It isn’t a forum for a conversation, sadly; it’s a placard. Are there ways to rebut in short form that are gracious yet still express disfavor with the inflammatory speech that started it? That’s not meant to be a hidden challenge. It’s a question I’ve honestly been wondering since the original ads came up.
ReneeD,
“Shackling” — good word. I agree with you that we must let our conversation partners show us what they mean by the key words they use. Without defining these explosive words the spiritual conversation will not fly.
Lovely questions you’ve asked. It’s a placard a sound-bite and therefore shuts out listening or meaningful conversation. The medium here is the message, isn’t it?!
I think the Sojourners placard is the better option of the three, however, I think the insistence that a ad must be met with an ad is to fight fire with fire. Sounds great for a movie script or for arms acceleration or a Cold War, but not very, ummmm, Christian.
Reminds me of the OT idea of an eye for an eye. It doesn’t forward the true goals of being a follower of Jesus when we have forgiveness as modelled by a man on a cross. A response, however, does seem appropriate.
What if the Sojourners had hosted a roundtable discussion with the leaders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative to challenge their insistence that jihad only means terrorism and to listen? What if they recorded these conversations? What if both Sojourners and AFDI shared the recording on their mutual sites so we could LISTEN to the UNEDITED defense of these groups?
I’m just throwing ideas out here. I’d love to hear others.
Renee (this reply isn’t only for you, but your comment prompted it), I keep thinking of your comment and thinking how in the context of the poster, everyone knows what “jihad” means by the self-proclaimed jihadists. The NYT just ran a piece about our arms going into “jihadists” hands (and the NYT would be far sensitive to pro-muslim efforts than other news outlets. article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html).
I don’t think calling anyone a savage helps in the least. And it is no case that someone more civilized should be protected more than one who is a savage. It’s a false dichotomy, like saying Dentists deserve more protection than Ditch-diggers.
There are many definitions of jihad floating around. But the one on the popular consciousness as well as on the lips of those who are killing innocents in the name of their god, “jihad” is the word they use… and so becomes a placeholder to mean “islamists who kill for their law because they think their god told them to do it in this way against these people… ‘innocent’ or not.” Israel is under daily threat and attack by people using the word “jihad”.
The AFDI approached their ad campaign badly, no doubt. Yet if we at least pay attention to what they are concerned about, it would go much further in dialog than merely attacking their choice of words or telling them to “love their neighbors” (as rebuttal ad campaigns did). You can love your neighbor who is attacking you, as we know from David’s story, and still toss a smooth stone at the forehead. So even evoking the “love” reply does nothing for the real issue, just as “civilization vs savages” does nothing for the real issue. In both cases, it masks things, allow evil to happen while people who presume to care argue semantics.
I think my biggest problem with AFDI, and it stems from more than just this ad campaign but is exemplified by it, is how they paint with such a broad brush. Yes, that is the definition most present in popular consciousness, and that’s exactly why they chose to use the word “jihad” rather than simply denouncing “terrorism” or “acts of terror.” It was a very pointed word choice that ends up attacking and defaming all Muslims, and I submit they knew that when they chose to phrase their poster that way. I don’t think they are looking for a discussion. I think you are correct to point out that the response wasn’t really one to raise discussion, either, since it doesn’t really address the attack. Both campaigns leave much to be desired.
Yes, arguing semantics can be an issue of distraction, but it can also be very pivotal. If we want to open a discussion, though; if we want to pin-point the real issues; if we want to, to steal a phrase, “win hearts and minds;” I feel that semantics can be a key tool in that. After all, look at the continuing struggle over racial expressions and semantics in our own country. How much more triggering will words be in a much more deeply rooted and zealous struggle? If we, as non-Muslims, approach the discussion broad-brushing acts of terror as “jihad,” I fear we lose the ears of those we want to listen. Of course, I am a Language teacher, so I may be biased.
I like the roundtable idea. I will admit to being the type of person who struggles with fighting the overpowering need to answer everything. I’m not always good at discerning which battles aren’t worth fighting, and among the ones worth fighting, which might be better drawn into a different type of battleground. As I’ve let that idea sink in, I wonder if this isn’t a great way to integrate technology as well. Answer the placard with a placard, but the rebuttal being a weblink or a QR code. Placards really aren’t the best fora for discussion–I think your idea to move the discussion into a broader field may be the key to answering ideas and speech that ought to be answered.
Thank you for this discussion. I always find your posts and your response in comment discussions to be thoughtful and gracious. I always appreciate that, and this is no exceptions. It isn’t always easy to be thoughtful and gracious when discussing such provocative topics.
Hm. That was meant to be in a threaded reply. Ah well.
Thank you, ReneeD.
What do you think of this suggestion: specifically ask God for that discernment you lack to see which battles are not worth fighting. I believe He would want to give you that.
Also, how does this rule of loving discourse (taken from Coffee Shop Conversations) “Allow others to remain unconvinced” sit on you?
Allowing others to remain unconvinced is almost always a rankling idea to me. On the other hand, it is certainly an approach of love. I think it is definitely an area where I should be seeking more discernment. *adds to prayer list* I certainly need the help when it comes to this area.
“Can we lose that word?”
I’ve been reflecting this week on a similar question with Paul’s use of those “outside” in Colossians 4:5. Who does he have in mind? Those “outside” the circle of faith in Jesus, I’d guess.
But “walking in wisdom toward them” means that we first love them as neighbors — approaching them with sincerity and openness. We all can stand being built up in faith it seems.
Can we lose that term, “unbeliever”? Perhaps not. But in what context and use is it proper?
Jim,
Great challenge. In what context and use is the word “unbeliever” proper?
I just used it above, so I think I tend to be okay with using it as long as the context is all believers in the same thing.
So even on here it may not be wise as there are many non-believers in Jesus’ divinity and atonement (for instance), but believers in other things (Allah, the Vedas, the Goddess, the self).
To say “believer” without referencing what it is that’s being believed in still feels imperial to me, as if our creeds are the default creeds.
What ways would you find “unbeliever” to be used appropriately?
Jonalyn,
Thanks for expanding on your thought. It sounds like you are saying that people who do not follow Jesus hear the word “unbeliever” in the same way that I might hear the word “infidel” from the mouth of a muslim.
Agreed, we need to make the object of belief or unbelief is clear, since everyone is a believer in something, and an unbeliever in respect to other things.
Agreed, the term is more useful for intra-faith talk than for inter-faith conversation. For example, as a believer in Jesus, I might reference the persecutors of other believers in Jesus as “unbelievers” in talking to those suffering persecution. My point might be that though you are suffering for your faith now, Jesus will glorify you later, and deal justly with the “unbelievers” who trouble you. That at least seems to me to be one way that scripture uses the concept.
It is one thing to reference those who reject Jesus as “unbelievers” to those being oppressed, and another thing to do so to those wielding power–perhaps, that is where your concern about being imperial comes in to play.
Clarifying my last paragraph. When an oppressed follower of Jesus screams “unbeliever” it is different than when someone in a place of authority does so.
Jim,
I liked these distinctions: intra-faith verses inter-faith conversations
and
your own position of being persecuted or persecuting.
Which makes me wonder, do you think Christians in America are suffering more from persecuting or being persecuted?
Jonalyn,
I almost wrote that I hope you have the chance for a follow up conversation – and I do! Not sure why, but I feel more free to ask curious questions in business but not so much in personal conversations.
Mabye because in a personal converation I risk revealing too much of myself and/or offending someone who may mistake me for being nosey. Also, coming from a background where confrontational evangelism was the norm, maybe I hold back because I’m afraid I can’t keep myself from being confrontational! But there is so much more lasting value in relating to people in the way you describe, and you and Dale are teaching me much on this subject.
I have been practicing this with my daugther – How does that make you feel? Why do you think this or that means such and so? What does that mean to you? Can you explain why this bothers you or how you came to this conclusion? And I wait for answers, and I give her the time to form her answers with no rushing, no judgement, no demand to get right with God and straighten up. I validate her answers with my waiting, with my silence as she speaks, and with a kind response that is not based on agreement.
In my weekly small group meetings I have started asking people similar questions when they express concern, confusion, or righteous indignation over some moral issue. I ask what brought them to this point, where they heard the information, do they see this in God’s character, where is it found in the Bible, and so on. I desperately want to go deeper in discussion of ideas. Not to challenge, not to argue. But to lay it all out in the open, shine the light on it and grow. Sometimes we need to defend our faith against wrong or superficial ideas fellow believers get as a result of the latest best-selling, pop-Christian trend. If I am wrong in a theological position, I want my brothers and sisters in Christ to help me, not by condemnation, but by asking questions that lead to deeper thought, reflection, growth. We need to start the discussion and curious questions can pave the way.
Lori,
Personal conversations are always more risky. But while there is more to lose there is also more to gain. By and large I’m amazed at how rarely people take me for being nosey.
And the ones who do, I sense that they usually are speaking out of fear of being known than anger or annoyance at me.
I’m loving the examples you gave of using questions to help your friends (believers and not believers) and yourself find Light. Really cool!
When talking with Christians about God and/or religion, the first thing I ask is: “Do you believe I deserve Hell?”
Scott Z.,
What a provocative question! And what do they say?