On Monday before Thanksgiving I returned with 24 other pastors and rabbis from 8 fabulous days in Israel. We met with a scholars, politicians, clerics, and others to learn as much as we could about the dilemmas that face Israel and the Palestinians. We visited as well a number of holy sites and archeological sites. To get some flavor of the group and our musings, you can check out the trip blog at http://www.icjs.org/mciblog/ .
In short order, three of my primary take-aways are...
* The politics in Israel are so incredibly complex, it is hard to imagine how anything gets done, much less a peace agreement with the Palestinians. And we did not have the opportunity to explore the intricacies on the Palestinian side.
A number of corollaries flow. Any notions of how to resolve the conflict must come from the two parties. That implies, as Rabbi Ron Shulman observed at a public presentation on Dec. 2, we who do not live there should learn to hold our own opinions lightly.
* A key part of the issue is the differing narratives, Palestinian and Israeli, both of which seem to me to trade in being seen as victims. As soon as any hard questions get asked of either side, the reflexive response is too often to retreat to "my narrative." This reality means that jumping to endorse the narrative of one side is going to make it that much more difficult to have meaningful dialogue with the other side. See Rabbi Shulman above. The challenge for both parties is to begin to listen to the other side, to hear their poetry, as one speaker said.
* Dr. Shlomo Avineri and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the last two people we met, were in some ways the least encouraging, but at the same time were the most hopeful. Now that I think about it, Rabbi Michael Melchior, the very first person we met, said some similar things. I heard them saying in effect that no grand deal where everyone sits down and signs off on a deal, and says, "That's that," is likely at this stage.
What is possible are incremental changes, and decisions to change behaviors, and in some cases perhaps even to change particular policies. So, for example, PM Fayyad talked about his efforts to create a government of accountability, transparency, and consistency (so, e.g., foreign aid actually gets to its intended target, banks make loans openly and fairly, courts function according to law), and a credible and trained security force which is clear about its mission--to protect the population.
From Fayyad and from others (maybe it was Col. Marom (ret.), former commander of the Lebanese border region) we heard that cooperation between the Israeli army and Palestinian army/police is better now than it has been in years.
It was perhaps a minor point, but we all laughed about having our bus escorted to the meeting wtih Mr. Fayyad by two Palestinian police in a vehicle with siren blaring and blue lights flashing. First time any of us had ever been on the giving end of blocking traffic. But consider the irony: a group including Jews were protected by Palestinian police. It's hard to imagine that happening during the first or second intifadas.
Well, that's it for now. Read the blog http://www.icjs.org/mciblog/.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
A Thanksgiving for Independence Day
A Thanksgiving for Independence Day
by the Rev. James W. Dale
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That sentence is the heart of the argument Mr. Jefferson lays out in the founding document of this country, the Declaration of Independence. It is this document whose ratification we celebrate this Sunday.
Now whether Mr. Jefferson was Christian in any orthodox sense is highly debatable. Most historians at my alma mater, the university he founded in Virginia, describe him as a deist. That is, he believed in a God who created the universe, set it in motion, and then sat back, letting things work out as they would. He had a profound problem with the notion that Jesus was God’s Son, or that God intervened in human history in any meaningful way.
So on one hand it is not surprising that he locates his notion of rights in creation, with no hint of redemption. The Creator in his view puts our “unalienable rights” into place, and then leaves humans to work out what they mean in practical terms.
On the other hand it is surprising that he locates his notion of rights in creation. It leaves open the very real possibility that people who were and are more orthodox in their Christian beliefs would understand these rights as a matter of Christian faith, gifts of the Creator we know in Christ.
That is to say, Christians locate our rights not simply in creation, but in God’s revelation through the giving of the law at Sinai, through the history of God’s acts with Israel, through the prophets, and through Jesus Christ, God’s Son.
What that does, in brief, is connect the freedom from sin and death in Jesus Christ, with the political freedom Mr. Jefferson envisions in this document.
Paul in his letter to the Galatians does not connect freedom from the law (5:1) explicitly with political or social "freedom" as such. But he does in 3: 28 understand the thrust of grace to be in the direction of equality for those from different religious and cultural backgrounds, for those with different social and economic situations, and between men and women. It's not a huge leap to see that "freedom in Christ" can carry political freight as well.
So, if you want a church free from politics, you have to deny any connection between the Mr. Jefferson’s Creator and the God of the Bible.
You may already have guessed: I affirm the connection, and thank God for it, as I thank God for the awesome privilege of living in this grand experiment in the equality of all people, made concrete in their “unalienable rights,” which experiment we call the United States of America.
*people
by the Rev. James W. Dale
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That sentence is the heart of the argument Mr. Jefferson lays out in the founding document of this country, the Declaration of Independence. It is this document whose ratification we celebrate this Sunday.
Now whether Mr. Jefferson was Christian in any orthodox sense is highly debatable. Most historians at my alma mater, the university he founded in Virginia, describe him as a deist. That is, he believed in a God who created the universe, set it in motion, and then sat back, letting things work out as they would. He had a profound problem with the notion that Jesus was God’s Son, or that God intervened in human history in any meaningful way.
So on one hand it is not surprising that he locates his notion of rights in creation, with no hint of redemption. The Creator in his view puts our “unalienable rights” into place, and then leaves humans to work out what they mean in practical terms.
On the other hand it is surprising that he locates his notion of rights in creation. It leaves open the very real possibility that people who were and are more orthodox in their Christian beliefs would understand these rights as a matter of Christian faith, gifts of the Creator we know in Christ.
That is to say, Christians locate our rights not simply in creation, but in God’s revelation through the giving of the law at Sinai, through the history of God’s acts with Israel, through the prophets, and through Jesus Christ, God’s Son.
What that does, in brief, is connect the freedom from sin and death in Jesus Christ, with the political freedom Mr. Jefferson envisions in this document.
Paul in his letter to the Galatians does not connect freedom from the law (5:1) explicitly with political or social "freedom" as such. But he does in 3: 28 understand the thrust of grace to be in the direction of equality for those from different religious and cultural backgrounds, for those with different social and economic situations, and between men and women. It's not a huge leap to see that "freedom in Christ" can carry political freight as well.
So, if you want a church free from politics, you have to deny any connection between the Mr. Jefferson’s Creator and the God of the Bible.
You may already have guessed: I affirm the connection, and thank God for it, as I thank God for the awesome privilege of living in this grand experiment in the equality of all people, made concrete in their “unalienable rights,” which experiment we call the United States of America.
*people
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Below is an email exchange between jamie Dale and Susan Saunders. I suspect her sense of shakiness is felt by some of you, too. Does her idea make sense to you?
To join the discussion, go to the bottom and click on the link that says "Post a Comment."
Thanks, Jamie
+++++++++++++++++++
From: Susan Saunders [mailto:susansaundersaji@covad.net] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 10:44 AMTo: 'Jamie Dale'Subject: RE: Yes
Hi Jamie,
Share away!
S.
From: Jamie Dale [mailto:jdale@bmwpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:22 AMTo: 'Susan Saunders'; 'Bob Gist'Subject: RE: Yes
That’s an interesting proposal. I’ll have to think about it a bit.
Things may feel shaky in part because the budget we’re using at present was written for the old structure. One thing teams will have to do by about October is redesign their budget areas to fit what they’re up to. It may be that having the treasurer and perhaps session do a first run at that would make sense.
I’m thinking Session should see your ideas, Susan. What about all the teams?
Thanks. Jamie
From: Susan Saunders [mailto:susansaundersaji@covad.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:30 AMTo: Bob GistCc: Jamie DaleSubject: Yes
Hi Bob and Jamie,
We were away for the weekend. I tried to call Bob but got no answer or answering machine. Yes, I want the youth to be able to use the money in the CE budget for the trip. What I am writing in the next paragraph does not change that.
I wonder how the line items all disappeared. It seems to me that we have a very shaky way of deciding to spend money. I haven’t found a way to express my confusion or the right people to share it with---but we used to have staff people who had some fiduciary responsibility as the folks who had the final sign-off rights on spending as well as responsibility for keeping track of where we were in our spending with an eye to the entire year’s worth of needs. Now it feels very lose and like we are not even sure the money we want to spend is there---or how to track it once it is spent. Does it seem to you we are in a budget muddle? Jamie sent an e-mail some time ago asking for people in each group (I forget what we are calling them) to sign off on expenses. I didn’t answer that request because I wasn’t sure what to say. I think the signer-offers need to be staff and only staff---not that others are untrustworthy---just that someone needs to have the entire picture of the budget for each team (ah that’s the word) and keep track of how the picture develops.
S.
To join the discussion, go to the bottom and click on the link that says "Post a Comment."
Thanks, Jamie
+++++++++++++++++++
From: Susan Saunders [mailto:susansaundersaji@covad.net] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 10:44 AMTo: 'Jamie Dale'Subject: RE: Yes
Hi Jamie,
Share away!
S.
From: Jamie Dale [mailto:jdale@bmwpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:22 AMTo: 'Susan Saunders'; 'Bob Gist'Subject: RE: Yes
That’s an interesting proposal. I’ll have to think about it a bit.
Things may feel shaky in part because the budget we’re using at present was written for the old structure. One thing teams will have to do by about October is redesign their budget areas to fit what they’re up to. It may be that having the treasurer and perhaps session do a first run at that would make sense.
I’m thinking Session should see your ideas, Susan. What about all the teams?
Thanks. Jamie
From: Susan Saunders [mailto:susansaundersaji@covad.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:30 AMTo: Bob GistCc: Jamie DaleSubject: Yes
Hi Bob and Jamie,
We were away for the weekend. I tried to call Bob but got no answer or answering machine. Yes, I want the youth to be able to use the money in the CE budget for the trip. What I am writing in the next paragraph does not change that.
I wonder how the line items all disappeared. It seems to me that we have a very shaky way of deciding to spend money. I haven’t found a way to express my confusion or the right people to share it with---but we used to have staff people who had some fiduciary responsibility as the folks who had the final sign-off rights on spending as well as responsibility for keeping track of where we were in our spending with an eye to the entire year’s worth of needs. Now it feels very lose and like we are not even sure the money we want to spend is there---or how to track it once it is spent. Does it seem to you we are in a budget muddle? Jamie sent an e-mail some time ago asking for people in each group (I forget what we are calling them) to sign off on expenses. I didn’t answer that request because I wasn’t sure what to say. I think the signer-offers need to be staff and only staff---not that others are untrustworthy---just that someone needs to have the entire picture of the budget for each team (ah that’s the word) and keep track of how the picture develops.
S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)