My Tribe

I am heading off to the Philippines on Thursday. This is the 11th year that I have been at the Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute (MPI) as one of the facilitators. On 21 May, I will co-facilitate a course called Religion: Dialogue, Theories and Practice for Peacebuilding with Deng a devout Catholic and Alzad, an Islamic Scholar and university professor. This is always a challenging and rewarding course as we lead the group through both learning and practice of inter-faith conversations. We take a field trip to visit a Mosque and the Bishops/Ulama Conference office.

When discussing faith across religious boundaries, I have started to use the word “tribe” to describe the ethno, cultural aspects of my Mennonite denomination. According to the on-line Merriam-Webster dictionary, a tribe is a social group comprising numerous families, clans or generations … having common character, occupation or interest. My tribe, Mennonite, is one that has inhabited the theological outlands in Christianity. We have a nomadic ancestry both in terms of;

a. geography - seeking freedom from religious persecution

b. theology as we broke off from European Christianity 500 years ago

In understanding my religio-cultural heritage, the concept of tribe works if I accept that we do not have an absolute and exclusive corner on the truth. This acknowledgement, hand in hand with a more recent denominational cultural and national diversity, moves tribal focus away from cultural boundaries to the core values and principles of tribal theology. Embracing diversity clarifies that much of what I might be tempted to call “Gospel Truth” is actually “tribal cultural truth.” 

This understanding of my denomination as tribe works well as I reach across my cultural walls to shake hands with other "religious tribes.” It is an increasingly important thing to do as the global dust continues to settle from the failed experiment with the nation-state. Tribe is increasingly reasserting itself as the most functional way people express identity and redefine themselves.

Interfaith Dialogue

In our Religion: Peacebuilding in Multicultural Societies Course here at the Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute (MPI) we examined five different kinds of interactions or dialogues with persons of different cultures or religions.

The first is the dialogue of life where people live as neighbors, primarily concerned with daily interactions, the joys and sorrows that are the ebb and flow of life. Next is the dialogue of action or it is sometimes called the dialogue of hands. Persons of different faiths work together toward a common goal perhaps addressing some kind of social problem. Buddhists and Christians building a house together at Habitat-for-Humanity would be one example. The third interaction is the dialogue of the religious experience where adherents actually experience each others rituals, worship or celebrations. Participation in others sacred spaces bring a deep appreciation and respect for the differences. The fourth type is among experts sometimes called the dialogue of the head. In this dialogue, “experts” interact round philosophy and theology of beliefs. As the only Mennonite in our class I was considered this authority because I could represent my particular brand of faith even though I am far from being a theologian.

When persons have dialogued long enough and respect for the other gains enough ground in the heart, then the fifth type of dialogue might occur, the dialogue of friendship and/or love. It is usually between two individuals who have developed the kind of friendship in which one would lay down the life for the other.

In our class this week we experienced, in some little way, all of these dialogues. Grouping diverse persons together for class tasks, caucusing people in their respective religious groups to present their faith and attending worshiping at a mosque were all part of this task. Through working closely together designing the an co-facilitating the course Alzad, and I made progress toward the fifth dialogue.

Hands Photo by Hai Arap

Principled and Pragmatic Nonviolence

I just finished co-facilitating the Active Nonviolence (ANV) course here at Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute (MPI). ANV is a course I have helped teach here since 2005 and every year I understand the role of ANV in peacebuilding better thanks to the Mindanaoan and international participants.

This year while presenting Mahatma Gandhi’s and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of nonviolence it struck me that there have been many successful nonviolent movements that have not articulated the individual worth of each ‘opponent’ like Gandhi and King. Some of the foundational values evident in the Indian struggle for autonomy and the US civil rights movement include:

o There is divine in all beings
o Humans can’t be reduced to the evil they perpetuate (Gandhi)
o Actively loving our adversaries while identifying our own blind spots (Gandhi)
o Seeking to win friendship and understanding (King)
o Defeat of injustice not people (King)
o Chooses love instead of hate (King)

The above values were insisted upon by their leaders.

But some successful nonviolent movements have embraced a much more pragmatic approach like the simple removal of a dictator or righting an injustice. In these movements physical violence to infrastructure, sabotage to economic systems or character assassination were encouraged. While these movements would go so far as non-lethal coercion of political leaders and lampooning individuals, they rejected violence toward humans be they occupying soldiers or corrupt leaders.

My insights crystallized as I realized that Gandhi and King invoked principles that were internalized in their nonviolent followers while in more pragmatic situations external limits were what held the movement in check. In the long run I wonder which starting point, principled or pragmatic, will bring the most sustainable change.

Update; MPI 2010

I will take a break from the Schematics for Peace Series and give some updates during my time in the Philippines at the Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute (MPI). I left on the 14th of May and expect to return on the 5th of June with most of my time will be spent in Davao City, our former home for 6 years under MCC.

This is the 9th year I have had a role at MPI, co-facilitating courses such as Fundamentals of Peacebuilding, Active Nonviolence and Religion; Peacebuilding in Multi-cultural Societies. My Filipino/Filipina co-facilitators are the ones who made a trainer out of me. I didn’t intend to become a facilitator but as a result of another facilitator “no show” in our early years living in the Philippines, I was convinced by my colleagues Deng and Myla of Catholic Relief Services to try co-teaching a course.

This year I co-facilitate Active Nonviolence with Deng. The second class I co-facilitate is Religion; Peacebuilding in Multi-culture Societies with Alzad, a Muslim who is from Basilan Island. It is exciting to think of once again engaging Asian Peacebuilders with these two topics.

I love the Philippines and especially MPI. The participants often come from communities that have experienced so much violence and conflict yet have such a hopeful disposition. Out of the crucible of their pain each person, facilitator or student, comes away from MPI with hope, learning and a sense of community.

Please send prayers, warm thoughts and healing intentions our way in the coming weeks. Thanks!