A Walk with Jeremiah 6.1

I’ve not posted for some time.  But, Jeremiah called me back again.  I needed some time for meditation.

Once I start reading Jeremiah again, I was reminded how scripture continually calls us back.  This morning, I needed to connect to human experiences much older than my own.  I’m picking up my walk with Jeremiah with chapter six (6).

Who hasn’t felt madness listening to American politics?  It doesn’t matter which party or ideology you ascribe to.  The partisan nature of our political scene and the circus that money and media have made of public opinion and national feeling can leave anyone with this sense of grief.  Jeremiah apparently felt that way, too.

To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear?  See, their ears are closed, they cannot listen.  The word of the Lord is to them an object of scorn; they take no pleasure in it.  But, I am full of the wrath of the Lord; I am weary holding it in.  (vs 10-11a)

Most of us hold to our political perspectives with the same fervency Jeremiah did to God’s word and its clarity.  There is a reason why religion and politics equally offend in today’s dominant norms of decency.  Jeremiah’s religious language gives some of us a false sense of difference.  Forget that this is the bible.  Remember that Jesus hadn’t been born yet.  Remember, prophets were mouthpieces for the covenant of God’s people with God.  That is the contract that birthed their nation.  Jeremiah is explicitly talking about his political point of view, which he sees in relief of God’s vision for reality.

For from the least to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely.  They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace…[H]ear, o nation, and know O congregation, what will happen…(vs 13-14)

It struck me that the angst and helplessness we feel for the direction and politics of our nation, even communities, is ancient.  It doesn’t matter if you see our foundation as the word of God, the Constitution, universal human rights, or Locke and Rousseau’s social contract.  Who hasn’t grieved over the injustices and corruption they see?  Who hasn’t felt the fear from signs of instability, irrational decisions, and the plight of those powerless to rise up and correct inequities?  I hear this grief from both liberal and conservative.  Each has their definition of injustice.  Each has their definition of rationality.  Each has their definition of inequity.  Each has their scapegoat and theory of inequities.

As a Christian socialist and/or social democrat, I, too, fall on this spectrum.  And, I see the folly of our partisan blame-games.

They are all stubbornly rebellious, going about with slanders…(vs 28a)

In response, Jeremiah offers a strangely prophetic counsel:

Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it an find rest for your souls.

What are those ancient ways?  What, exactly, is this crossroads?  My soul seems to know without argument or passion.  Perhaps, a still small voice might say it this way:

It’s the humble way.  Neither self-righteous nor divided, the good way is neither silent nor partisan.  It is where justice entwines you and I in a common welfare.  It is where peace is waged for the sake of the most vulnerable, among which are each others’ elderly parents and youngest children.  It is where our trust merges in the form of a covenant, in which our wealth and welfare is not in competition, but where the only win is win-win.

I’m reminded of Community of Christ’s Doctrine and Covenants 163:4a-c:

God, the Eternal Creator, weeps for the poor, displaced, mistreated, and diseased of the world because of their unnecessary suffering. Such conditions are not God’s will. Open your ears to hear the pleading of mothers and fathers in all nations who desperately seek a future of hope for their children. Do not turn away from them. For in their welfare resides your welfare.

The earth, lovingly created as an environment for life to flourish, shudders in distress because creation’s natural and living systems are becoming exhausted from carrying the burden of human greed and conflict. Humankind must awaken from its illusion of independence and unrestrained consumption without lasting consequences.

Let the educational and community development endeavors of the church equip people of all ages to carry the ethics of Christ’s peace into all arenas of life. Prepare new generations of disciples to bring fresh vision to bear on the perplexing problems of poverty, disease, war, and environmental deterioration. Their contributions will be multiplied if their hearts are focused on God’s will for creation.

A Walk with Jeremiah 5.1

In Chapter 5 of Jeremiah, the central theme moves from grief to judgment.  There is a sense Israel and Judah are on trial.  The emotions of anguish and anger that seem to drive chapters 1-4 begin to distill to negotiation and reason.  There’s a reason to be angry.  Again, theology – or making sense of God – accompanies makes sense of circumstance.  The Book of Jeremiah was likely compiled while God’s people were already in Babylonian exile, as a witness and memory for the nation.  In other words, it was compiled not in real time but after the fact.  This means, the compilers have to make a sense of the people’s fate.  Jeremiah’s prophecies, in this context, make perfect sense.  He was right. It makes sense that Israel and Judah fell and were plundered because the nation had become corrupt.  Verse 1 comes right out and says it:

“Search its squares and see if you can find one person who acts justly and seeks truth—so that I may pardon Jerusalem….How can I pardon you?  (Vs 1, 7)

The theological thinking of Jeremiah’s time doesn’t differ too much from the logic driving public opinion today.  Who would worship a god that allowed the corrupt, unjust, and willfully arrogant to prosper at the expense of the poor, the disadvantaged, and basic human fairness?  Who would vote for a politician who would do the same? Should those with willful disregard for the law, others, and basic consequences reign unchallenged?  This seems the issue.

“When I fed [your children] to the full, they committed adultery and trooped to the houses of prostitutes.  They were well-fed lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor’s wife.”  (vs 7-8)

“They have spoken falsely of the Lord and have said, “He will do nothing.  No evil will come upon us, and we shall not see sword of famine”  (vs 12)

For scoundrels are found among my people; they take over the goods of others.  Like fowlers they set a trap; they catch human beings.  Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek. They know no limits in deeds of wickedness; they do not judge with justice the cause of the orphan, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.  Shall I not punish them for these things?”  (vs 26-29a)

Apparently God is neither abusive nor vengeful at this point, at least not in the prophet’s mind.  Israel and Judah can lay their fate at the feet of God.  God has done what was justifiable.  The nation, or at least a critical mass of its people, had become deeply corrupt.  Of course, the tragedy of corruption is that it makes victims at the moment of its inception, regardless of later actions.  This is where God becomes grieved and, as a God of Salvation, must make sense of it all. This is the prophet’s job. Jeremiah testifies of a God that is Holy, even beyond reproach.  But, Israel’s God is not the kind of God to act flagrantly or take advantage of the fact.  At least politically, God’s actions are metered and reasonable.  The prophet opens us up to the logic of it all.

“Shall I not bring retribution on a nation such as this?” (vs 29b)

We don’t have to let the question sit there, as if it’s rhetorical.  We can answer it with good theology and our personal perspective.  But, if we judge God harshly, let us also judge ourselves.  Let us judge our nation, its own sense of justice, our own sense of retribution, our own limits of tolerance and intolerance, and do so with the same judgment we judge the God of Jeremiah.  Consider your position on war, the role and use of violence, and the death penalty.  Perhaps, you believe an eye-for-an-eye.  Perhaps, you believe in justice and mercy, basic fairness and compassion.  If so, do not forget its cost.  Otherwise, we risk being just romantics.

A Walk with Jeremiah, 4.1

I grew up hearing all the concern about the Old Testament’s angry and vengeful God.  This is certainly an important theological question.  Theology should be questioning the nature of God.  With all the emphasis on power and authority among many Christian preachers and believers, the nature of that power and authority is also important to consider.  Who wants to worship a God who threatens you whenever He doesn’t get what he wants?  (This kind of of God is almost always, certainly, a “He.”)

But, if one actually spends time with Old Testament scriptures, one can read the prophet’s encounter with God a different way.  This is the reading I’ve been searching for, and am finding.  Chapter 4 of Jeremiah is a good example of what I mean.

Sometimes, our wrestling with God’s anger is not about wrath or punishment.  It’s about natural or reasonable consequences.  As human beings, no one is so free, so entitled, or so endowed that they are exempt from life’s consequences – earned and unearned.  We reap what we sow.  And, often, we aren’t aware of all that we sow because we are not mindful of how deep our actions shape our world.  Verses 18-19 paint such a picture.  God says,

“Your ways and your doings have brought this upon you, this is your doom; how bitter it is!  It has reached your very heart.”

And, God speaks of himself.

“My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain!  Oh, the walls of my heart!  My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent; for I hear the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.”

Israel and Judah are recounting their conquer and invasion.  They are remembering the events that lead up to their exile from the promised land.

This is the question:  After release from Pharaoh, generations in the desert, God’s covenant with us and Solomon’s Temple, how does a nation – a people! – make sense of their own disaster and ruin?  This seems like an everpresent, relevant, and legitimate question.

There is an answer.  In the time of the prophets, the people believed what happened on earth reflected the realities of heaven.  If there was famine, God withheld the rain for a reason.  There was some divine cause.  A relationship was broken.  If there was war, those who occupied the heavens were also at war.  Faithful and more powerful God’s prevail.

What’s going on in heaven when Israel and Judah are conquered?  Prophetic theology provides an explanation.

“For my people are foolish, they do not know me; they are stupid children, they have no understanding.  They are skilled in doing evil, but do not know how to do good… Because of this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above grow black; for I have spoken, I have purposed; I have not relented nor will I turn back.”  (vs 22, 28)

If we read flatly, God is just punishing Israel and Judah.  This is natural to believe because the ancients believed God was the protagonist of history.  God propelled time’s events.  However, if we appreciate that theology makes sense of circumstance, we can appreciate a richer, more relevant and provocative interpretation for us today.  As human beings, no one ever grows so free, so entitled, so powerful, or so endowed that they are exempt from life’s consequences.  Would that be just?   Are some more entitled to grace and fortune that others?  Should we not reap what we sow?  Perhaps, something in Israel and Judah had gone off the rails.  Perhaps, there was injustice, growing inequities, and many people’s hearts were turning away from the Law which taught truth, justice, equity, and peace.

Perhaps talk about an angry God is talk that tries to make sense of all this.  Perhaps it’s an attempt to put reason to what has come to seem unreasonable.  Perhaps the role of the prophet is to find God midst God-forsakenness, social brokenness, and pain.

A Walk with Jeremiah 3.1

If I continue to look through the lens of grief between estranged lovers, Jeremiah chapter 3 reads like a grief process.  There’s anger over betrayal, as well as the bargaining associated with coming to terms with a loss.  The bitterness comes through naming Israel’s and Judah’s whoredom.  Whoredom is the main theme of the chapter.  Jeremiah begins there:

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her?  Would not such a land be greatly polluted?  You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me?” (vs 1)

Interestingly, the Tanakh adds the nuances of the Masoretic text, the authoritative text Rabbinic Judaism, “Saying, If a man divorces his wife” or “I have to say, if a man divorces his wife.”   This nuance helps remind us that the prophet, speaking for God, is thinking in metaphor.

The metaphor is riddled with patriarchal assumptions, however, and that is disturbing.  It’s not that God isn’t Holy, nor that God should be wholly understandable.  Our relationship with God is not.  The problem is that the patriarchy of the metaphor is so understandable.  Is God really ranting like a schmuck who lost his lover to another man?  Should I hold God to a patriarchal male standard, as if God’s a man’s man who always gets what he wants?  Is God the head of household who should be able to control his woman, his personal possession?  Or, is God lost in grief for the conditions of the people, with little means to express it?  Is the text grasping at ineffable, unspeakable mourning.

The reader has to critically think, listen to the text by dwelling with it, and decide.

God obviously wants reconciliation.

“I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.” (vs 15)

Maybe its a matter of God bearing more of God’s heart.  Maybe Israel’s and Judah’s infidelity to God is a matter of nurturing and ignorance, or lack of understanding.

What’s going on with us when we lose our hearts to lesser things?

No matter the reason or explanation (as if true love often has any), the grief process moves to deeper understanding.  Both God and Israel (along with Judah) are suffering in shame.  The prophet speaks the voices of both God and Israel in chapter 3.

“I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me.  Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me.” (vs 19b, 20)

The reality of the situation is also becoming apparent to Israel.

“Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us; for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our ancestors, from your youth even to this day; and we have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God.”  (vs 25)

Perhaps the parent-child metaphor is better.  Both father-child relationships and bride-bridegroom relationships are haunted by patriarchal assumptions.  But, the parent-child relationship can be more inclusive, and it explains the relentless presence of grief much better.

Having a child is like having your heart run around outside yourself.

A Walk with Jeremiah, 1.1

For the next little while, I plan to be reading Jeremiah.  I’m doing it for my own study.  My plan with this blog is simply to post simple reflections based on my reading.  At this point, I don’t plan this to be an in depth academic study, but more impressions and reflections.  At times, I may input commentary information or wonder off in a long thought about something.  But, overall I simply hope to jot down the passages, themes, metaphors, and impressions that come to the surface.  I hope, for someone, the reading is worthwhile.

Chapter 1

The first chapter covers Jeremiah’s call and commission as prophet.  Thinking about it from an experiential point of view, verses 4-5 and 17 stick out.

vs 4-5:  Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

vs 17:  But you, gird up your loins; stand up and tell them everything that I command you. Do not break down before them, or I will break you before them.

Feel the contrast.  At first, we read of God’s providence and Jeremiah’s call.  There is a sense of fate in Jeremiah’s calling.  “I’ve consecrated you”; “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”  These sentences parallel lines of Psalm 139.  Read the comforting verses of Psalm 139:13-14

¹³For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. ¹⁴I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

These passages early in Jeremiah easily leave me with a feeling that Jeremiah was destined to be God’s prophet and mouthpiece.  He will successfully speak for God to the nations.  God’s intentions give a sense of security and assurance.  But, by the way:  “Don’t break down before them, or I will break you before them.”

Like a gut punch.

Most of us, today, probably want to run to the gentle Santa Claus God we often don’t intend, but inadvertently create with our expectations.  We don’t want to feel uncomfortable when we think of God, or fear God’s presence.  We don’t know what to do with a God who threatens.

This mix of promise and warning, of assurance and terror, seems to characterize all of the prophets.  It’s, as if, a life with God is a life at stake.  Things matter with God, especially when involving the lives of people.  Maybe there’s good reason for God to feel a bit a pressure.  Maybe God’s hearing cries of anguish and suffering, the way Exodus describes.  Maybe God sees injustices that would anger anyone.  Maybe God needs Jeremiah for a reason.

All awhile, we take the line out of context – “Don’t break down before them, or I will break you before them.”  Like relentless movie critics, we turn our attention on God’s personal character and judge with our middle-class social expectations.

Instead, I remember my own reactions to what I think are injustice. I remember what I think when I feel indignation, and feel the pressure to make a difference.  Perhaps, circumstances dictate that God needs Jeremiah.  Or, the writer of Jeremiah needs God to make a difference, so s/he invests God with power.  I’m not sure we can know.

But, the mix of warning and promise is familiar.  It’s reminds me of taking life seriously.  When I watch the news today, my own thoughts move from anger to hope.  Maybe, that’s what Jeremiah is dealing with.

Christian Freedom, or Love

This longish post was written after a painful argument with a loved one.  Hurting, I went searching for what love meant in my context.  I felt the need to take care of myself, which may mean ultimately closing myself off to this person.  My soul searching came through this reflection and reminded me about what love is, and what being free to love really means.  That’s true freedom.  And, without God, for me it’d be impossible.

If you want to understand the freedom Christ offers, turn to Galatians 5.

Of course, there is more to a Christian understanding of freedom than one chapter of Paul’s writings.  Paul expounds on freedom in relation to the law much more in Romans.  More importantly, you can’t really understand freedom in Christianity without, first, spending time with the importance of freedom in Judaism.  The Exodus and the prophets’ word to the Jews in exile provide a much-needed backdrop to understand the depth of freedom as a central theme of Old Testament and New Testament theology.  But, taken in one sitting, Galatians 5 provides quite a bit on its own for what freedom in Christ means.  That’s what I write about.

Of course, for Paul, real freedom begins in Christ.  It begins in Christ’s relationship to the law.

Paul’s understanding of the law and Christ is among the most important themes in Christian theology, especially Protestant theology.  Paul first talks about this in Galatians 5.  Paul is writing to a group of early Christian converts who apparently adopted or began teaching that you need circumcision to become a disciple of Jesus Christ.  To know Paul is to know that Paul vehemently opposes this.  Moreover, his opposition to it is central to understanding Christianity for Paul.

Understanding the tension between Christ and the law is necessary to rightly interpret Paul’s opposition of flesh and spirit which follow.  From these tensions rise life in the Spirit and Christian freedom.  What makes Paul’s message so enduring and relevant today is that he knows “the flesh” can not only enslave us by consuming our heart’s desires.  The selfishness of “the flesh,” for Paul, can also consume religion.

For Paul, freedom begins in liberating us from the requirements of any outward law.  Paul’s point comes together in verses 1, 3, and 5.

For freedom Christ has set us free… I testify to every person who lets themselves be circumcised that they are obliged to obey the entire law…[but] in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.

Here is the kernel of the whole chapter.  Paul is writing to a community of the earliest Christian converts.  Unlike Paul, many early evangelists of Christ’s message taught that to accept the good news and follow Christ, one first be circumcised.  After all, Jesus was a Jew.

For Paul, circumcision entwines someone in the whole of the law and its requirements.  Circumcision is the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, from which everything follows.  This meant Gentiles had to submit to circumcision and observe the law in order to receive and follow Christ.  Paul is a Pharisee, a devout Jew.  Ironically, he sees this as completely backwards.  It’s even opposed to Christ and the good news he brings.  For Paul, Christ liberates us to something else – life in love for others and the Spirit.  This is what Paul seeks to single out and life high above all else.

Freedom in Christ does not point to ourselves, whether it’s our own justification, selfish wants, or self-righteousness.  This is where Paul’s judgment on the fruits of the law is so total and profound.  The 613 laws of the Torah were never intended to self-aggrandize the Jews or the individuals who followed them.  Quite the opposite:  The law pointed to honoring and remembering God in all things.  The Law taught to a life of disciplined devotion and humility, self-restraint and sacrifice (literally and otherwise), hospitality to the stranger and love of neighbor.  It is these fruits of following the law that Paul wants to recover.   However, the logic and purpose of the law had become something else.

What Paul could not allow was any self-justification or self-righteousness before God and neighbor.  Nothing could be more antithetical to Christ and what Christ had done.  But, this is precisely what the law had become, especially by separating the righteous and sinner.   If separation and self-righteousness had become the essence of the law, Christ had totally overcome it for Paul.   For Paul, in Christ, Love of God and neighbor became the one overarching gospel that relegated and overcame all others requirements.  This Spirit testified to it.

Verses 4 and 5 make Paul’s judgment of the law clear.  He writes,

“You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.”

Clearly, righteousness no longer comes from the law for Paul.   It comes from grace, through Christ, and by the Spirit.

Faith, therefore, points someone’s trust beyond the law, beyond any justification or self-righteousness that can be outwardly judged or self-expressed.  Faith is required because in Christ, there is freedom.  Love is the eternal law.  Paul reminds us of the original purpose of the law in verses 13 and 14.  He says,

“For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become servant to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Any selfish use of the law for justification or self-righteousness is a perversion.  Love is the whole law, its requirement and commandment.  Outward fulfillment of the law can lead to self-righteousness.  The separation of self-righteousness does not justify.

By distinguishing the law and Christ, Paul theologizes the opposition of flesh and the Spirit.  The opposition of flesh and Spirit is the next step to understanding the freedom Christ offers.  But, it is easily misunderstood and misconstrued.

The Spirit opposes the flesh in the same way Christ frees us to move beyond justification of the law.  If God’s law can become a tool of separation, self-justification and self-righteousness, then it is no better than any other selfish work or way of life.  In such a community, the love between self and neighbor is distorted and grace-less.  This is what happens with religion becomes self-righteous or a religion of separation and justification.  Only life in the Spirit frees us from this kind of life to love God, self, and neighbor.  God in Christ reveals to us what love and self and neighbor really is.  This was the intention of the law and the message of the prophets.  It is now fulfilled in Christ.

As a matter of illustration, Paul goes on to provide a list of works of the flesh.  It’s a list of rather negative stuff.  What qualifies everything on the list is not that they are all sensuous, bodily, or break some religious moral rule.   Rather, every work of the flesh Paul lists is selfish or self-indulgent.  Works of the flesh serve immediate desires, our selfish reactions, and outward judgments of ourselves and others.  Paul suggests that these are not where the Kingdom of God is at.

In contrast, Paul also provides a list of fruits of the Spirit.  They include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  What is obvious about this list is that everything on it moves us beyond our immediate wants, reactions, and outward judgments.  Moreover, these fruits are cultivated by loving ourselves and others.

What’s most profound about this list – from a religious standpoint – is these things are good beyond any law or requirement.  These fruits are good in and of themselves.  Paul is explicit:  “There’s no law against these things.”  This is life in Spirit.  We are free from any need for self-justification, religious requirement or constraint.  Life in the Spirit is possible because of God’s grace.  This is what we see in Christ.

This life is the freedom Christ offers.

Day 4 – Teaching Peace in the 21st Century: Peace Programs, Promotion, and A CofC Proposal

Today, we began with presentations by Ernesto Verdeja and Susan St. Ville.   Ernesto is the Director of the Undergraduate program in Peace Studies here at the University of Notre Dame.  Susan is Director of the MA in Peace Studies Program.  Both were helpful for navigating curricular questions and educational objectives of Peace Studies programs.

A significant difference between graduate and undergraduate programs in Peace Studies at Kroc is attention to methodology.  Peace Studies is interdisciplinary, which means that methodologies specific to a variety of disciplines – political science, social sciences, history, as well as qualitative and quantitative research methods – inform the discipline and shape the knowledge of peace studies.  In addition to its interdisciplinary nature, peace studies equally values practice.   Peace studies aims at effective practice for peace as well as is informed by practice for its theory.  Reflective practice, informed by pragmatism and developed by Donald Schon, is one important method for peace studies for practitioners at the graduate level.

In the afternoon, I spent time in a session learning more about the Catholic Peacebuilding Network (CPN).  Jerry Powers, Coordinator of CPN, led the session.
CPN is a network of academics and practitioners who seek to enhance the Catholic church’s unique role in peace building in the world.  Leading projects and coordinating conferences, CPN enables a rich network of global academic, financial, and ecclesial resources to address conflict and peacebuilding in troubled parts of the world.  The church’s unique capacity to affect peacebuilding at multiple levels – locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally – makes it an important tool for peacebuilding.  In addition to the practical, CPN also develops the church’s theology and ethics of peace.   I was very interested in a recent publication that Jerry helped edit, Peacebuilding: Catholic Theology, Ethics, and Practice, which included essays from among the finest Catholic scholars.

At the end of the day, Priscilla Eppinger presented our (Priscilla’s, Tony Chvala-Smith’s, and myself) work product from the week.   It is a working proposal for a Masters in Community, Justice, and Peace available through the Community of Christ Seminary.   The vision of the program integrates our strengths: a foundation in scripture and theology, study in theory and practice of peace studies, along with content in areas of practical peacebuilding and justice-making in an online format.  While its clear that several factors must come together to make such a degree possible, the aim of our work is response to the call to “equip people of all ages to carry the ethics of Christ’s peace into all arenas of life.”  (Doctrine & Covenants 163:4c)  This week with the scholars/practitioners at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at Notre Dame and United States Institute of Peace has been integral for providing the guidance, relationships, and expertise to craft this possibility and see it possible.  We are certainly not alone in this calling and must join those already at work in the field.

Thanks to both Graceland University and Community of Christ for making this week for Priscilla, Tony, and myself possible.

Day 3 – Teaching Peace in the 21st Century: David Cortright, Peace Studies Proposal

Today also began with important practical presentations in peace studies.  David Cortright and Hal Culbertson presented “How to Change the World,” an overview of two courses they teach in the Notre Dame Peace Studies program.  David Cortright spoke on non-violent social change;  Hal Culbertson spoke to us about NGO’s.

David Cortright is a peace scholar and activist.  His books include Gandhi and Beyond: Non-Violence in a New Political Age and Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas.  He is also Director of Policy Studies at Notre Dame; you can catch his blog at http://davidcortright.net.

One of the most interesting and noteworthy items from Cortright’s presentation came from the work of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan.   They are co-authors of the book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Non-Violent Conflict.  Research by Chenoweth and Stephan concludes that non-violent social change works and is more effective than armed conflict.  Their research argues that non-violent strategies create more stable democratic outcomes.  Their empirical research on non-violent strategies for political and social change marks a decisive development in peace studies as a academic and practical field.  You can learn more about their work in their recent article inthe most recent edition of the online journal, Foreign Affairs.

Hal Culbertson’s presentation on NGO’s was plain and helpful.  Many students with professional interests in peace studies will gravitate to NGO’s.  NGO’s seem to be the “go-to” in “making a difference” in the world.  While there are certain advantages and often overlooked disadvantages to NGO’s, Culbertson’s observations and basic outline of the components of an NGO – their theory of change, method and effectiveness of evaluation (outcomes must be measurable!), management structure, and financing – informs a basic understanding of how NGO’s work, how they differ from other public and private institutions, and where NGO’s can go wrong.  Hal Culbertson is the executive director of the Kroc Institute for International Peace studies at Notre Dame.

Our final presentation of the day was a very important session on peace studies as a profession.  Anne Hayner, who works directly with the 1,400+ alumni of the Kroc Institute, shared what career paths in practical peacemaking look like.  Below is a chart created by John Paul Lederach and Katie Mansfield.  A helpful and full explanation of the above chart can be found at http://kroc.nd.edu/strategic-peacebuilding-pathways.  If you have any interest in peace studies as a profession, or believe peace studies is not a “real profession” with manifold professional opportunities, click the link and learn more.

For the rest of the day, Priscilla Eppinger, Tony Chvala-Smith and I worked together on a proposal for an MA in Community, Justice, and Peace through the Community of Christ Seminary.  Our work is still forming, and its results are provisional.  Several factors must come together – resources, marketing, and institutional commitment – to make such a proposal possible.   But, it has begun.  It is both achievable and promising.  The lasting effects of such an MA could be long-lasting for both Community of Christ and Graceland University.   The practical resources for developing, improving, or beginning a peace studies program is a task given to every institutional participant of the Summer Institute for Faculty.    We are among excellent colleagues.  It’s been a privilege to be here and be a part.

More tomorrow.

Day 2 – Teaching Peace in the 21st Century: John Paul Lederach, How Peace? Why Peace?

Day two of the Summer Institute for Faculty has been both rewarding and personally important.  I’ll share a bit why.

The day began with a presentation by John Paul Lederach.  If you’re not familiar with Lederach, he is a among the most well known and respected scholars/practitioners in peace studies.  He’s the author of several influential books:  The Little Book of Conflict Transformation, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, and The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace.   John Paul Lederach graciously accepted the Community of Christ Peace Award in 2000 at our Peace Colloquy.

John Paul Lederach’s presentation was on not on a new topic, but one that is important to the development of peace studies as a field of research and practice.  It’s the transition of “conflict resolution” to “conflict transformation.”   He gave an overview of several conceptual and practical differences between conflict resolution and conflict transformation. What stood out the most was the critique of conflict resolution that led to this change.

John Paul Lederach shared experiences he’d had working as a mediator and conflict resolution specialist. To paraphrase, he’d been often asked, “What Is conflict resolution? Because, if you are interested in just coming to solve our problems and not changing anything, we’re not interested.”  In other words, conflict resolution without attention to the underlying desire for needed changes, changes parties aimed for or already underway, in a conflict situation is not helpful.   Resolution that “fixed” problems by aiming toward agreement or compromise by de-escalating conflict, but changes nothing is inadequate, even undesirable.  Conflicts can be, and are often, productive.  They aim at change.  The shift to conflict transformation aims at processes in which conflict is addressed and the dynamics of change are kept in focus.

John Paul Lederach identifies four areas or kinds of change in his book, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (linked above).  They are personal change, relational change, structural change, and cultural change.  Peace studies cannot loose sight of this aspect of creative potential in conflict, which is often the aim of conflict. Conflict transformation is controversial for some in peace studies because it appreciates the importance of conflict, even the need for its agitation or escalation, in processes of change.   Without resorting or allowing conflict to transform into violence, the escalation of conflict can be, and often is, a necessary part of justice and peace….or a just peace.

In my second session, I had the opportunity to listen to faculty in the Kroc Institute share the interdisciplinary aspects of peace.   E. Mark Cummings, Professor of Psychology, shared about his research in Northern Ireland on the effects of political violence on children and development.  Atalia Omer, Associate Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace Studies, shared about her research on the role of religion in shaping ethnic and national identities, and its influence on interpretations of justice and political conflict.  Scott Appleby, Professor of History, shared excellent reflections on the intersection of history and peace studies.  His work in religious fundamentalism and violence is integral work in peace studies.  Sandra Gustafson, Professor of English, shared about her work in the intersection of peace studies and literature.

The most important experience for me today, however, came from personal reflection.   The panel discussions and insightful conversations faced me with personal questions:  “Why peace?  Why peace and justice?  Why peace studies?”   I could write papers and give presentations on these broad questions from my a theological and ethical perspective.  But, why is it a personal call?    The answer may seem obvious.  Yet, when was the last time any of us stopped to ask ourselves if we are committed to peace and justice as a matter of personal conviction, and why?  When was the last time you clarified and articulated why peace is important enough to confront others with it?  Below is a list of my responses:

1. Human beings are a global family, not discrete individuals.  We belong to each other.  Materially, we are dependent on human activity and the environment.  Human life, therefore, is finally life together, not individual life.  A sustainable peace is a necessary personal and corporate commitment for developing sustainable life and a culture of life together.
2. Sustainable peace requires justice.  Justice is not simply justice for me and mine, but considers my intimate relationship – personal and impersonal – with others.  Justice begins with the most vulnerable.
3. Given the world in which we live, we no longer approach individual or corporate life, vocation, and formative education without a conviction for sustainable peace.  Without a commitment to justice and sustainable peace, norms and values devolve to a culture of individual beliefs and behavior acculturated around “me” and “mine.”
4. Conflicts are good.   They are transformational.  Conflicts are a necessary passage for becoming whole persons, growing in community, and all kinds of learning.  When we resort to violence, all of this suffers. Conflicts devolve every human endeavor to domination and survival rather than the pursuit of truth, wholeness, community, and learning.  Peace makes conflict possible.
5. Peace, for me, is faith based, faith-driven, and culminates in a life of faith. However, it is not limited to religion and faith. Peace is inclusive, invitational, and universal in scope and human concern.

Day 1 – Notre Dame: Teaching Peace in the 21st Century, Summer Institute for Faculty

Today was my first day at the Teaching Peace in the 21st Century, Summer Institute for Faculty hosted at the Hesburgh Center for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.  Our host is George A. Lopez, who is Professor of Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute and Vice President and Director of the Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, D.C.   I’m hear with Community of Christ Seminary faculty, Priscilla Eppinger and Tony Chvala-Smith.

The purpose of our visit is to learn.  President of Community of Christ, Steve Veazey, met George A. Lopez at the US Institute of Peace, who invited us to participate.  The Community of Christ is called to peace.  Its Temple in Independence is dedicated to the pursuit of peace, reconciliation, and healing of the spirit.  Our visit is exploratory, to seek opportunities for connections and learn from scholars from others Peace Studies programs, to cultivate ideas and perspective about possible peace studies curriculum for Community of Christ Seminary and Graceland.

Today was orientation and introductions.  George Lopez gave two helpful presentations introduction to Peace Studies as an interdisciplinary and changing field of study, education, and action.   After dinner, we received a presentation on the History and Changing Themes of Peace Studies.  Both presentations offered practical advise and an outline of key components for developing Peace Studies programs, from undergraduate minors to masters level.

My goal is to chronicle key insights from the day.  Below are three things that I think stuck out as both insightful and critical areas for me/us to consider.

1. In developing a Peace Studies program or curriculum, integrate both your institution’s identity and mission.  Be able to express to students, administrators, and faculty what Peace Studies is, what the program’s purpose is, and why it reflects (or is essential) to your institution’s overall mission and educational goals.   Connecting your program to your institution’s mission and community is important.

2. Identify the academic niche your program offers.  Peace Studies is a challenging, interdisciplinary, and changing field of study.  It must include research, educational, and action-oriented components.  What is unique about your programs’ approach, emphases, and/or understanding of peace studies?

3. Take advantage of your faculty’s interests and strengths.   Because peace studies is a large interdisciplinary field, it is often difficult to find a focus.  But, it also means an entire university can be deployed in research, teaching, and developing aspects of peace studies at your college/university.  How do the sciences, economics, literature, and religious studies shape or contribute to peace studies at your institution?  How can your program take advantage of your faculty’s research and teaching interests?

Throughout our exploratory session tonight, I thought consistently about two things.  First was what Community of Christ offers the global and interdisciplinary search for peace?  What does Community of Christ theology, tradition, or perspective offer the global peace movement and our approach to peace?  Second, I thought about Graceland’s values:  learning, wholeness, and community.   To me, these values have always been more than a list.  They share an interrelated perspective on Graceland’s approach to education, formation and service to others.   Learning, wholeness, and community all increase with each other.  The more we learn, the more we integrate with others and become a whole person.

I’m looking forward to tomorrow and more time spent with the Kroc Institute faculty and faculty from other peace programs across the country and world.  We have an international gathering, here.