Grant project Multi-Faith Matters Team Meets

Multi-Faith Matters Team
On Saturday, November 15, the Multi-Faith Matters team came to Salt Lake City from coast to coast. You can see our group in the picture above, from left to right, Pastor Jill Riley, Pastor Bob Roberts, Dr. David Sang Ehil-Han, Dr. Paul Louis Metzger, yours truly, and Pastor Phil Wyman. The group came together for the first meeting as part of a Collaborative Inquiry Team exploring Evangelicals and multi-faith engagement, made possible by a grant from The Louisville Institute.

This first meeting exceeded my expectations. While some of us knew each other previously, this diverse group of people quickly discovered they had wonderful chemistry, and they were very productive in their first meeting together.

After some discussion the decision was made to adopt "Multi-Faith Matters" as our group name, slogan, and Twitter hash tag. We also adopted the descriptive "subtitle" of "Learning to Love our Multi-Faith Neighbors." As team members blog and discuss things related to our project we will use "#MultifaithMatters" as a way of branding and uniting our diverse efforts until we create a website or other central place for hosting our stories and other information.

We will continue to work between meetings, and will get together again in April of next year in Texas.

We think exciting things are going to come out of this group and our project. To learn more see the press release we wrote after receiving the grant.

#MultifaithMatters

Evangelical FRD Podcast Conversation with Paul Louis Metzger and Kyogen Carlson on Christian-Buddhist Relationships

The latest podcast for the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is now available. It is a conversation with Paul Louis Metzger and Kyogen Carlson on Christian-Buddhist relationships. Metzger is Professor of Christian Theology and Theology of Culture at Multnomah University and Multnomah Biblical Seminary. Carlson is a Soto Zen priest and abbot of Dharma Rain Zen Center.

This conversation was recorded on September 17. Kyogen Carlson passed away the following day. This was his last work in multifaith engagement. We are privileged to have known him, to have had him as a friend, and to have worked with him in religious diplomacy.

Interview at PARSE: Religious Diplomacy in a Multifaith World (Part 1 & 2)

I was privileged to be interviewed by Paul Pastor at PARSE, which explores ministry and culture in connection with LEADERSHIP JOURNAL. The first installment can be read at http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2014/march/religious-diplomacy-in-multifaith-world-part-1.html.

The second installment is at http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2014/march/religious-diplomacy-in-multifaith-world-part-2.html

Please give it a read and start a conversation as I respond to questions about religious diplomacy in contrast with dialogue and interfaith.

'Loving Our Religious Neighbors' National Launch in Fall 2014

The Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy as as one of its goals the education and equipping of college and university students on interreligious engagement. Our primary resource for this is called Loving Our Religious Neighbors. This was designed by Josh Daneshforooz, who was previously on staff at Northwood Church under the leadership of Pastor Bob Roberts. Josh comes from a bi-religious family. His dad was Muslim and his mom is a Christian. As a result he's had a passion for helping Christians engage other religions in more positive ways than we have tended to in the past. Josh sits on the advisory board for our FRD chapter.

Josh wrote a book on the subject and more recently has transformed that into a study series. I was privileged to provide some feedback on revisions as the material came together, and our Evangelical FRD chapter is partnering with Josh to promote LORN as a major tool for churches and also Christian universities and colleges. Here's a link to a story on how this program helped students at Gordon College.

We are working toward a national launch for LORN in the fall of 2014. We need to find 10 churches and schools that will commit to being a part of this that will include major social media promotion.

If you're a pastor, Christian educator, or Evangelical student, please take a few moments and look at the description and sample video of LORN at the its website. And then let me know if you'd like to discuss the formation of a LORN study as part of our national launch of the program later this year.

 

Douglas Johnston at Westminster on Religion, Terror, and Error

Last night I had the pleasure of attending this lecture by Dr. Douglas Johnston, Founder of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, at Westminster College in Salt Lake City. The event was put together by the Utah Council for Citizen Diplomacy.

This presentation was a summary of his book with the same title as his lecture. The book description provides a better feel for last night's presentation:

How should the United States deal with the jihadist challenge and other religious imperatives that permeate today's geopolitical landscape? Religion, Terror, and Error: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Challenge of Spiritual Engagement argues that what's required is a longer-term strategy of cultural engagement, backed by a deeper understanding of how others view the world and what is important to them. The means by which that can be accomplished are the subject of this book.

The work realizes three important tasks. It shows how the United States can reposition itself to deal more effectively with the causal factors that underlie religious extremism; offers a successor to the rational-actor model of decision-making that has heretofore excluded "irrational" factors like religion; and suggests a new paradigm for U.S. leadership in anticipation of tomorrow's multipolar world. Describing how the United States should realign itself to deal more effectively with the factors underlying religious extremism, this innovative treatise explains how existing capabilities can be redirected to respond to the challenge and identifies additional capabilities that will be needed to complete the task.

 You can order the book through Amazon.com.

FRD Podcast 1.2 - Interview with Pastor Steve Stone of Heartsong Church

This podcast features an interview with Pastor Steve Stone of Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tennessee. He discusses his congregational relationship and extension of love for neighbor to the local Muslim community, and how this became an international media story. For additional background, see the many news stories on this, such as that in USA Today: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-07-cordova06_st_n.htm.

This is a podcast of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy (www.religious-diplomacy.org). The interviewer is John Morehead, an FRD board member and Custodian of its Evangelical Chapter.

FRD Podcast 1.1: An Interview with Dana Trent and Fred Eaker on "Saffron Cross" and interfaith marriage

The first podcast for the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is now published. It is an interview with J. Dana Trent and her husband, Fred Eaker. They are an interfaith couple. Dana is a Baptist minister, and Fred is a Hindu and a former monk. Dana is the author of Saffron Cross: The Unlikely Story of How a Christian Minister Married a Hindu Monk (Fresh Air, 2013). The volume can be purchased via the publisher at http://books.upperroom.org/fresh-air-books, via Amazon.com, and your local bookstore. Learn more at Dana's website.

CNN Addresses the "Holy Trolls"

Over the weekend John Blake posted a great story at the CNN Belief Blog addressing the "Holy Trolls," those individuals who post negative, uncivil, and abrasive comments on religious websites or in response to religious topics. This is a huge problem that not only stifles productive conversation on these topics, but also changes perceptions of the topics themselves into negative. It also steals from the virtual public square with its function as a forum for us to discuss the most pressing religious challenges that divide us. Read Blake's essay, "Holy Trollers: How to argue about religion online," and then take a look at The World Table as a tool that directly addresses the challenges raised in the CNN piece.

The World Table: Transforming our Incivility for Clarity of Thinking and Persuasion

There seems to be a growing recognition that something is not quite right about the way in which we engage each other over our differences on the Internet. In fact, some websites are changing their procedures in this area, and others are calling for a new platform that helps transform behaviors that make up this problem.

In August of this year The Huffington Post announced that it would no longer allow anonymous comments to be posted in response to their essays. A piece by Lorraine Devon Wilke explained why in "What Trolls Are Doing to Our Politics, Our Culture... Our Brains." She writes, "On a societal level, particularly since the internet opened comment features under most offerings, negative dialogue has become the norm; the loud, persistent, often vicious norm of most online interaction. In fact, the degree of irrational response exchanged online is so high, so automatic, that one expects any article, no matter how logical, fact-based, positive, or even neutral, to be immediately ripped apart by trolls who seem bent on the task." After discussing some findings in Psychology Today on the psychological effects of focusing on negativity, she continues and describes the unfortunate results of such hypercritical and negative commentary on individuals who read it. She says that "the more one sits at a computer spewing savage, hateful criticism, the more one translates life through the filter of hostility and personal attacks, the more one builds brain pathways toward greater and greater negativity. In fact, as online commenters, media pundits and politicians have grown uglier and more malicious, the more the bar seems to have moved, making 'ugly' more accepted, more accessible." For The Huffington Post the way to address this issue is to disallow the posting of anonymous comments. The hope is that if people have to take public ownership of their comments and the way they relate to others that it will contribute to more positive and civil forms of exchange.

More recently PopularScience.com included an essay that went even further in exploring the impact of uncivil exchanges on the Internet. This website is going further than HuffPo, and is removing the ability for readers to comment entirely. Suzanne LeBarre in "Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments," also discusses the impact of trolls on the shaping of perspectives of readers. Although they acknowledge that they receive lots of positive comments, the negative ones have an enormous ability to shape perceptions. LeBarre cites a study by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Broassoard about reader perceptions of a particular technology, which revealed that "even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story."  From a New York Times op-ed the following results were discovered:

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

LeBarre states that this ability of uncivil comments to negatively alter perceptions of a story is causing readers to think uncritically about accepted scientific notions. For PopularScience.com the way forward is to end the ability of readers to comment and interact with each other over ideas.

The final threads in this discussion come through a new book and another online essay. Os Guinness is the author of The Global Public Square (InterVarsity Press, 2013). In this volume he sets forward a proposal for religious freedom and freedom of conscience, as well as the need for a civil public square. He recognizes that the public square is now far more expansive than it was previously given the importance of "new technologies and social media" which are so influential and formative that the "public square has morphed again through the power of the Internet and has gone from the physical to the metaphorical to the virtual." This worldwide platform means that "...even when we are not speaking to the world, we can be heard by the world," often by way of increased incivility and "degrading rhetoric" from anonymous individuals. Guinness wonders whether we can "in the next twenty-five years forge a new understanding of what it means for global citizens to debate other global citizens in a manner that the issues deserve..."

Related to this, in February of this year Sarah Perez argued at techcrunch.com that "The Best Platform for Online Discussion Doesn't Exist Yet." While not mentioning trolls specifically, Perez does mention the problem of uncivil comments, as well as questions related to credibility. She states, "The problem, which the Internet hasn’t solved at all, and has in fact even made worse, is that opinions are not created equal and therefore shouldn’t be considered in equal measure. The Internet has put people on such an even playing field that we now have to create entirely new systems to verify who’s worth listening to. From Google rankings to Techmeme headlines to retweets and number of followers, we’re still struggling to figure out who deserves to be heard." Perez concludes her essay by writing, "We’re ready for a radical overhaul that reflects how people are communicating and sharing information today; one that shows which comments or shares have resonated and why, and one that understands who deserves to be heard."

These various elements come together to paint a picture of a tremendous challenge. Serious issues need to be discussed, but it is usually the negative and polarizing voices that are the most influential. The result is that critical, thoughtful, and civil discussion and persuasion is stifled, and opinions are unfairly shaped along the way. The Internet has become a cyber extension of the physical public square and a very important place for discussion of the pressing issues of the day, but it is presently hampered by incivility. We need a new platform, a new mechanism to transform the way in which we engage each other to empower the best of what the Internet has to offer.

But while Perez opines that the best platform for online discussion doesn't yet exist, I'd beg to differ. The Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is currently involved in beta testing for The World Table. Participants must verify their identity and allegiances, and then agree to a set of ethical guidelines called The Way of Openness. Participants are then rated on the way in which they engage others, and rate others in similar fashion. The goal is to earn the highest rating possible as a badge of honor. Drawing upon accepted principles of social psychology that resonate with many religious traditions and ideologies, The World Table promises to change behaviors by shaming the trolls and making civil conversations a highly desired virtue, thus setting a new tone for exchanges about the most serious issues that divide us, from religion to politics and beyond.

A new movement for civility in the way in which treat each other over our deepest differences is taking shape. It's happening at The World Table. Come and take your seat.

Os Guinness and 'The Global Public Square'

Os Guinness has a new book out, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity (InterVarsity, 2013). I have written a review and hope to have it published soon and will post a link. It's one of the best books I've read in a while, and it overlaps significantly with my thinking and work with the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. Here is a video from a lecture where Guinness touches on some of the main themes of his book.

Pagan Summer Solstice Celebration in Pahokee Causes Christian Uproar

Last week I received a call from Selena Fox of the Lady Liberty League who let me know about a controversy that was brewing in Pahokee, Florida. Later this month some of the local Pagan community in the town will be celebrating the Summer Solstice. This led to an uproar at the City Council meeting last week where several local pastors and members of their churches shared their concerns about the upcoming event as summarized at The Wild Hunt:

One by one they hurled their spite on the absent Pagan menace they wished their local politicians would repel. Pastor Brad Smith called the event “an abomination,” while Rev. Raul Rodriguez said that “we don’t need this in our town. Not now. Not ever.” Bishop Jared Hines warned that the festival was “not only detrimental to our city but to our county,” and Evangelist Lillian Brown claimed that “God cannot heal our land if we have witches and warlocks violating our community.” Violating, detrimental, an abomination, and that’s only a sample from the mob that vented itself.

 Selena Fox asked if I would be willing to help if needed with the Christian community as I did previously with the Fox News Pagan controversy. I told her that I would be more than happy to help dispel misunderstanding and work toward love of neighbor. To that end, I sent emails to the Pahokee Mayor, its City Council members, and the few pastors I could track down via the email from the online news item on the story. I have also offered to fly out to present a seminar to the Christian community if I can secure a sponsor to underwrite my travel costs and a venue for the presentation.

Meanwhile, the Pagan community through the Lady Liberty League continues its own efforts at trying to defuse this unfortunate situation.

Don’t Dismiss ‘The Worm:’ Dennis Rodman was Onto Something with ‘Basketball Diplomacy’

As the United States stands on the brink of nuclear war in light of escalating threats from North Korea, the most informed man on the leader of that country, Kim Jung-Un, is not our Secretary of State, John Kerry, or President Obama, but former NBA great Dennis Rodman, who goes by the sports nickname ‘The Worm.’ As a result of his visit to the country as part of shooting a documentary, and subsequent friendship with North Korea’s leader, he suggested that Obama should call North Korea’s leader and discuss basketball. He was widely scorned, but I argue he’s on to something lost in both politics and religious discourse.

Dennis Rodman recently traveled to North Korea to visit Kim Jong-Un, and returned calling him his friend and suggesting that something as simple as Obama picking up the phone and talking about their common passion of basketball might be enough to chill relations between the two nations, and possibly stop nuclear war. With very few exceptions, the media ridiculed Rodman and his suggestion, laughingly dismissed with the label “basketball diplomacy.” The Obama Administration was also quick to issue a negative response to Rodman’s efforts, with White House Spokesman Jay Carney simply restating U.S. concerns about human rights violations, and noting that lines of communication are always open between the two countries. This casual dismissal not only took place by way of discussion about Rodman, but also in front of the athlete himself, such as George Stephanopoulos’ interview on ABC’s This Week.

Granted, Rodman seemed uncomfortable and out of his depth with American political culture and its years of reflection and policy making on North Korea. But should he, can he, be taken seriously on this? One website even went so far as to state, “There’s no reason for the rest of us to take [Rodman], or his methods, seriously, though.”

After some reflection, in my view the media, conservative and progressive politicians, the Obama Administration, and much of America’s citizenry, were far too quick to assume Rodman could not be taken seriously with an idea that could really change the course of international affairs. Rodman was right, and he has articulated a simple practice of human interaction with promising possibilities in a great number of areas of life.

What was it that Rodman suggested that many found so laughable? He said that Obama should pick up the phone and call Kim Jong-Un, and talk about something that both men have in common. He’s saying, engage in personal interaction as human beings about a topic of mutual passion, and see what might happen in transforming the relations between the two countries as a result. At first consideration this may seem simplistic and naïve. But there’s good social psychology behind. The scientific and experiential data indicates that when enemies or rivals are brought together for personal encounter and conversation, over time they tend to develop more positive views of each other, and while their disagreements and tensions don’t disappear, there is a newfound ability to maintain them in peaceful and civil fashion.

This is one of the elements used by the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In our work we bring Mormons and Evangelicals, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Pagans together, religious groups usually at odds with each other. For those who make the effort and come together, even while discussing and not ignoring areas of unresolvable disagreement, a transformation occurs in heart and mind. The parties are able to come to a new understanding of each other as friends, even while disagreeing and perhaps even finding aspects of the other’s beliefs and practices distasteful. They move beyond the traditional categories of enemies and friends, to the creation of a new social category, that of trusted rival.

Some may say in response to this suggestion that it is inappropriate. A couple of years ago I was invited by FRD to be part of a small group that would speak Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with during his visit to the United Nations in New York. I wasn’t able to make the trip, although I wanted to, but I touched bases with a  fellow Evangelical who likewise had received the same invitation, but turned it down as inappropriate. He argued that Ahmadinejad was like Hitler, and it would have been wrong to meet with such a dictator in that it would grant him undue legitimacy. The same argument is used in regards to Kim Jong-Un. He is considered a dictator, a murder, and a leader who oppresses his people. Better to keep our distance, denounce the human rights abuses, and continue to rattle our military and political sabers.

But such thinking is clearly wrong-headed. I would argue that it is possible to sit down with someone like Kim Jong-Un or Ahmadinejad, and while not granting approval of their troubling actions, and in a position of strength coupled with diplomatic humility, engage such people in a face-to-face meeting. And the subject matter for such conversations need not be a continual restatement of our areas of concern and disagreement. Those should not be ignored, but they are well known, and there is a place for expanding the conversation so that a humanizing process takes place and relationships can develop. Over time such processes will result in the formation of trusted rivals, which holds far more promise than the perpetuation of confrontational engagement from afar.

What is the alternative? The U.S. went to war in Korea in the 1950s with the idea of stopping the spread of Communism, and after mass death on both sides, the result was a Korea divided into South and North (Communism still firmly in place), the ongoing placement of U.S. troops in the region, and the threat of nuclear war always on the horizon. Lately the rhetoric from North Korea has ramped up, and in response, the U.S. sent F-22 stealth fighter jets and a naval destroyer with the capacity to down surface to air missiles should there be a detected launch of a possible nuclear device. Our policy for many years has been one of detached isolationism. The idea is to keep North Korea isolated, continue to exert pressure through the use of United Nations sanctions, and issue statements of denunciation over concerns from afar. Some consideration has been given lately to moving away from isolation to one of engagement, but personal forms of interaction that shift from the rhetoric of a dictator enslaving a rogue nuclear nation have yet to be considered. Indeed, in his entire first term, President Obama did not make a single effort to reach out personally to Kim Jong-Un. This administration merely perpetuates the policies of their predecessors that have been tried and found wanting. In my view for decades we have been fulfilling the pop culture definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Perhaps it wouldn’t work. President Obama may one day pick up the phone, or get on Air Force One, and travel across the sea to sit down with North Korea’s leader. And maybe after talking about basketball, discussing their favorite NBA teams and stars, when the conversation turns to their grievances, each man remains as staunchly committed to their loggerheads as they are now. Or Kim Kong-Un may prove himself through his actions and speech in relationship and conversation to be little more than the dictator that America assumes him to be. But we won’t know if we don’t try. Relationships and conversations between rivals have a transformative effect in the area of religious conflict. I’ve seen it, and I practice it all the time. It will work in politics too, if our political leaders can find the will to resist jumping on the bandwagon of dismissal and ridicule of a simple idea simply to stave off complaints from an opposing party or bring their actions into conformity with the latest polls.

Dennis Rodman is certainly outside the bounds of “normal” society. But he’s right on the personal element, on friendships and conversations. Let’s not dismiss a possibility simply because we find the messenger flamboyant, and therefore lacking in credibility. Let’s consider taking the risk of trying basketball diplomacy so that personal relationships between trusted rivals can serve us all as a tool in preventing nuclear war.

Intersecting Convictions Conference Video Available

In a previous post I mentioned the interreligious dialogue conference at Utah Valley University on March 1 of this year. The event brought together representatives from Mormonism, Judaism, Atheism, and Evangelicalism for conversations. You can learn more about the conference here. The video for the entire conference is now online. It is worthwhile, with almost five hours of material.

UVU Conference Flyer

Interfaith and Religious Difference: A Dialogue About Dialogue

My latest essay at the Evangelical Channel of Patheos is now online. It is titled "Interfaith and Religious Difference: A Dialogue About Dialogue." The point of departure for the piece is a 2007 episode of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly on the interfaith work of Eboo Patel and his Interfaith Youth Core. In my essay I interact with his discussion of a space between the public and private dimensions of faith in his approach among students involved in interfaith. From the essay:

Third, I would argue that this is one of the weaknesses of interfaith approaches, and that an important dimension is missing that would strengthen his worthwhile interfaith activities among America's youth. There are many interfaith organizations and approaches to bringing adherents of various religious traditions together. Many come from the more progressive end of the spectrum, and they advocate a downplaying or ignoring of contradictory and competing religious truth claims. As Stephen Prothero has noted in his book God is Not One, this way of working toward the resolution of religious conflict can be a huge problem:

"The Age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century popularized the ideal of religious tolerance, and we are all doubtless better for it. But the idea of religious unity is wishful thinking nonetheless, and it has not made the world a safer place. In fact, this naive theological groupthink -- call it Godthink -- has made the world more dangerous."  

Instead of this form of interfaith I suggest religious diplomacy as the better way forward. The essay can be read here.

Portland and Fledgling Buddhist Chapter of FRD

I recently returned from a very productive trip to Portland, Oregon for the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In my work with the Evangelical Chapter, I have not only been building that up as chapter custodian, but also serving as a master custodian, providing help to people of goodwill in other religious traditions who are as deeply committed to their religion as I am to Christianity. I am helping them build their chapters so they can prepare their religious communities for interreligious engagement in the best way possible.

One of the ways this took shape recently was with a trip to Portland. The trip, symbolized by the picture above, was like the opening line to a joke: “Three Buddhists, two Evangelicals, and one Mormon walk into a bar.” Only this story was not a joke. Instead, it is an example of a new and promising way of engaging those in other religions.

We traveled to Portland to visit Kyogen Carlson (pictured above, third from the right), a resident teacher who leads the Dharma Rain Zen (Buddhist) Center. Kyogen and his wife and co-abbot Gyokuko (second from right), will be working with a growing network of Buddhists to form the Buddhist chapter of FRD. I traveled with FRD founder and president, Charles Randall Paul (in the center of the picture), and we stayed at the monastery and discussed various aspects of chapter formation and interreligious relationships with the key elements of civility without compromise. Ejo McMullen of Eugene (first on the left of the picture) was another Buddhist and part of this discussion. We finished the day with a lunch, and Paul Louis Metzger (first on the right), who is a professor at Multnomah Biblical Seminary, and who is a charter member of the Evangelical chapter and a Senior Fellow for FRD. During lunch we had an amazing discussion about our mutual desires to see greater religious freedoms in the public square for religious discourse, but without the animosity we often aim at each other. We also discussed our mutual desires to see the others embrace our faith perspectives.

Unresolvable? documentary screening at UVU

There will be a free screening of the new FRD documentary Unresolvable? The Kingdom of God on Earth next Tuesday night, October 30, at 7:30 p.m. on the campus of Utah Valley University at the Library. There will be a panel that includes FRD Chapter Custodians, including myself, who share their thoughts on the film.

Essay at Patheos: Evangelical Reflections on a Muslim World Aflame

My first essay with the Evangelical portal of Patheos has been published. It is a piece that looks at Evangelical responses to religious pluralism and interreligious dialogue. From the piece:

If we're willing to engage in critical self-reflection, evangelicals will acknowledge that in the years since 9/11 few of us have done much to improve interreligious understanding.

To their credit, some evangelicals did get involved in sending well wishes to the Sikhs who lost loved ones in August's gurdwara shooting in Wisconsin. And other evangelicals showed support for Muslims whose mosque was torched in Missouri. But where have large segments of evangelicalism been in response to these recent events, or in interreligious engagement as a result of 9/11? Given the work of evangelicalism in pressing cultural issues, why isn't interreligious engagement on our social agenda? And why, for the most part, have evangelical leaders been conspicuously absent in regards to interreligious engagement? Perhaps it is a combination of indifference plus fear of the fallout when they do try to get involved. When Rick Warren worked alongside the Muslim community in Southern California, evangelicals attacked him for advancing "Chrislam," a syncretistic hybrid of Christianity and Islam.

The whole entry can be read here. Look for my regular contributions to Patheos in the future, as well as others who are part of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.

FRD Documentary: Unresolvable? The Kingdom of God on Earth

 
The Foundation for Religious Diplomacy has finished its documentary and is beginning the promotion for the film titled Unresolvable? The Kingdom of God on Earth. From the film's website:

Angered by the barrage of attacks on his faith and desperate for answers, Bryan Hall, a devout Mormon, travels into the heart of the Bible Belt to discover for himself what it means to be a “Christian.”

The world he discovers is more terrifying and heartwarming than he ever could have imagined. Somewhere between the growing movement to establish a Christian Nation and those who believe Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, the lines between fanaticism and devotion are easily blurred.

Ultimately, Hall is forced to face the same questions that he is lancing at his religious rivals. UNRESOLVABLE? challenges viewers to ask themselves the most difficult and revealing question in all of Christianity: Must you - really - love your enemies to be a true disciple of Christ? 

The website includes various video clips, and it will be available for rental or purchase in various venues including Amazon.com starting next week.

"Every good Christian should see this film." 
Richard Land President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Commission

“A must see.” 
Mike Allen Politico Playbook

“Moving and inspiring...a brilliant film every American should see."
Ralph Reed Former President of the Christian Coalition

“It touches the heart and stimulates the mind...a must see!" 
Robert Millet Dean of Religious Education, Emeritus Brigham Young University

"Courageous Christians" and a Film That Sparked a Muslim Flame

As the unrest in the Middle East spills over into other Muslim countries, the debate about the controversial film trailer for Innocence of Muslims said to have sparked the protests continues as well. Print and video media have recently linked it to Steve Klein, an individual connected to an evangelical "counter-cult" ministry called Courageous Christians United. This ministry utilizes confrontational approaches with adherents of various religions, including Mormonism and Islam. In the latter they have an affiliated ministry called MuslimInfo.org. The photo above demonstrates the kinds of approaches they use, pointing people to a website in ways that are sure to outrage Muslims.

When news broke about the Courageous Christians' connection to the film trailer the organization's president, Rob Sivulka, posted the following on their website:

We at Courageous Christians United (CCU) had no knowledge of the film "The Innocence of Muslims" or Steve Klein's involvement in it until September 12, 2012. Steve was removed from the board of CCU as of September 14, 2012 because of his involvement in this film. As the founder of CCU, Steve was an honorary board member, but he has never been to any of our board meetings. In 2006, when I wanted to form my own non-profit corporation, Steve gave me CCU, which he was no longer using.

Steve was in no way acting on behalf of our mission organization in the production of the video. While both Steve and the film maker have a right to express their views, that doesn't mean that we here at CCU endorse this movie as a good means to convey the truth about Islam. In fact, we find this film reprehensible and irresponsible, and serving primarily to provoke a violent response. (emphasis mine)

I appreciate the lack of direct involvement that Klein may have had with the film, and Courageous Christians' desire to distance themselves from it. But this statement from Sivulka and his organization has me confused. It also appears disingenuous. As demonstrated above in the photo, the organization has engaged in forms of "outreach" to Muslims at mosques by holding up signs that insult Muhammed, the prophet of Islam. They do similar things in Mormon contexts, holding up signs that insult the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. In each religio-cultural context their has been anger and resistance on the part of Muslims and Mormons. I submit that holding up signs in front of a mosque demeaning the Muslim prophet should be construed as a parallel to the Arabic-dubbed film trailer for Innocence of Muslims which may have at least partially inflamed large segments of the Muslim world. Therefore, how can Courageous Christians pursue the types of activities they do before American Muslims and at the same time condemn a film that functions in the same way among Muslims overseas? Must not the film and the questionable approaches of Courageous Christians be considered "reprehensible and irresponsible, and serving primarily to provoke a violent response?"

In a recent essay at Aslan Media co-authored with Paul Louis Metzger in response to the recent Islamic uprisings we wrote, "What lessons might be learned by Evangelicals as they seek to respond to and interact with the broader religious world, including Islam, in a context that all too easily leads to violence?" As the article continues, among other things, we suggest the following:

Much of the conservative commentary on this event, within and outside Evangelicalism, has emphasized American freedoms of speech concerning the right to share whatever views one might have about Islam. While it is certainly true that Americans have the right to express our convictions, from a Christian perspective our freedoms are informed by love for others; at times, we must be willing to restrict our freedoms for the brethren (1 Corinthians 8) and the world at large. In this instance, it may very well entail restricting our use of our constitutional freedoms for the greater good in the public square here and abroad. With this in mind, we would do well to remember that with the Internet we live in a global village, and the rhetoric, tactics and approval of a controversial pastor or filmmakers can contribute to an international climate of tension that may lead to violence and death in other parts of the world. Simply because we have such freedoms does not mean we must always exercise them; when we do exercise such freedoms, they should be exercised in ways that come down on the side of caution, seeking to contribute to the way of peace for the sake of Americans living and serving overseas, including our fellow Christians living in Muslim lands.

The events connected with the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American soil provide evangelicals with an opportunity to reflect on our religious identity often formed in hostile relation to those in other religions, and how our attempts at persuading others of our religious convictions might be dramatically less than persuasive, if not offensive and downright counter-productive. For those interesting in considering an alternative vision, see the website of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and our previous essays touching on this at Aslan Media:

"On the Dearborn Drama: Pig-Headed Engagement of Islam"

"Sikhs and Muslims, Shootings and Burnings: A Call to Peaceful Contestation"