Weekly Recap for Tuesday, May 17, 2016 from ProgressiveChristianity.org from Gig Harbor, Washington, United States - Have churches failed to plan for the future? This and more in our Free Weekly Recap of our most viewed and new resources from last week.
Last Week At ProgressiveChristianity.org ...
We delved into the topics of: Evolving Progressive Christianity, Church Future, Religious Freedom and Silence.
Visit our website to join in on the discussion and to view our thousands of spiritual resources!
We are entirely reader supported, please support us today.
ProgressiveChristianity.org is a global portal for authors, scholars, theologians and liturgists to share their resources for the progressive spiritual journey.
Drink from the Well
Fred C. Plumer
From a rich lode of speeches, articles and numerous publications, Fred Plumer has mined those that define the Progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world.From a rich lode of speeches, articles in eBulletins, and numerous publications, Fred Plumer has mined those that define the Progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world.
Written over a period of approximately six years, the material has been reviewed and edited but not in a manner that would change its original themes and purpose. This anthology is vintage Plumer, concise and direct to the point. It is organized into chapters that focus on a particular subject, so it might shed more light on that subject or theme.
The reader is invited to Drink from the Well.
Buy now ⋅ $24.50
From a rich lode of speeches, articles and numerous publications, Fred Plumer has mined those that define the Progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world.From a rich lode of speeches, articles in eBulletins, and numerous publications, Fred Plumer has mined those that define the Progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world.
Written over a period of approximately six years, the material has been reviewed and edited but not in a manner that would change its original themes and purpose. This anthology is vintage Plumer, concise and direct to the point. It is organized into chapters that focus on a particular subject, so it might shed more light on that subject or theme.
The reader is invited to Drink from the Well.
Buy now ⋅ $24.50
Needed: Leaders Whose Charge is the Future
Tom Ehrich
Churches aren’t kind to their future-minded leaders... I am convinced that the near-collapse of mainline Christianity in America was mainly a refusal to see and adapt to the future.
Churches, like other enterprises, need several kinds of leadership: maintenance (tending the store), financial (keeping the doors open), staff support (serving constituents), marketing (selling the product), quality control (freshening and problem-solving), and training (transmitting skills and values.)
There is one more leadership skill needed, and this is the critical one. Its absence is keenly felt. That skill is looking into the future. Every leadership team needs some person or group whose charge is to look down the road, to see emerging needs, to see opportunities, to read trends and to imagine the new into being.
Future-minded leaders aren’t sufficient by themselves, but their absence leaves the enterprise doing little more than maintenance.
Churches aren’t kind to their future-minded leaders. Since the future always involves change, the downdraft of change-resistance tends to stifle the future-minded leader. Since the future always entails risk and the unknown and spending resources not yet in hand, the normal values of settlers – be realistic, don’t risk anything, don’t change for the sake of change, don’t reinvent the wheel, don’t forget the old folks, don’t get too far ahead – add to the stifling.
I am convinced that the near-collapse of mainline Christianity in America was mainly a refusal to see and adapt to the future. The trends were there to see in the 1960s and 1970s, but there was so much inertia among leaders, so much whining about change, that the future-minded leaders fell away. Church councils – like corporate boards of directors in the same era, interestingly – became populated by stand-patters, maintainers, settlers. (The same inertia was crippling the auto industry, remember, and the steel industry, telecom industries, and public education.)
For a time, clergy took the role of future-thinker. But as they got clobbered in conflicts, many clergy shifted into maintenance mode. At a time when churches needed their clergy to be entrepreneurs, clergy were working on liturgies, in-house communications, and their own continuing education.
Lay leadership teams, meanwhile, tended to value maintenance and keeping the peace more than getting ready for tomorrow. Even “visioning” retreats looked only at incremental changes on a short horizon.
Problem is: with no one actively scanning the future, celebrating it and preparing for it, the future doesn’t happen. Continuation of today happens, but that continuation grows increasingly out of touch with emerging realities. The major course changes that any enterprise must embrace aren’t on the table.
What do churches need to be doing? Two things.
First, they must hire entrepreneurial clergy and then allow them to do entrepreneurial work. Stop burying clergy in maintenance work, and stop attacking them when they do look down the road. Clergy need to let go of the dream of long tenures. They must be change agents, now more than ever, and change agents tend to have short tenures.
Second, lay councils must include some people whose charge is tomorrow. Those future-minded leaders must have more clout than the budget-managers who tend to dominate council meetings. Churches won’t become lively and healthy by paying their bills on time, but by working with God on the new things God is doing.
A future-minded leader is concerned about emerging trends in the larger community, hearing voices outside the walls, imaging new ministries, seeking new constituents, and taking risks. Many longtime constituents will cry “Foul.” Let them. Their self-serving is understandable – and it’s certainly what churches have tended to reward – but it is abuse of the church and its future.
About the Author
Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the publisher of Fresh Day online magazine, author of On a Journey and two national newspaper columns. His website is Church Wellness – Morning Walk Media
READ ON ...
Countering The “Countering Violent Extemism” Program
Churches aren’t kind to their future-minded leaders... I am convinced that the near-collapse of mainline Christianity in America was mainly a refusal to see and adapt to the future.
Churches, like other enterprises, need several kinds of leadership: maintenance (tending the store), financial (keeping the doors open), staff support (serving constituents), marketing (selling the product), quality control (freshening and problem-solving), and training (transmitting skills and values.)
There is one more leadership skill needed, and this is the critical one. Its absence is keenly felt. That skill is looking into the future. Every leadership team needs some person or group whose charge is to look down the road, to see emerging needs, to see opportunities, to read trends and to imagine the new into being.
Future-minded leaders aren’t sufficient by themselves, but their absence leaves the enterprise doing little more than maintenance.
Churches aren’t kind to their future-minded leaders. Since the future always involves change, the downdraft of change-resistance tends to stifle the future-minded leader. Since the future always entails risk and the unknown and spending resources not yet in hand, the normal values of settlers – be realistic, don’t risk anything, don’t change for the sake of change, don’t reinvent the wheel, don’t forget the old folks, don’t get too far ahead – add to the stifling.
I am convinced that the near-collapse of mainline Christianity in America was mainly a refusal to see and adapt to the future. The trends were there to see in the 1960s and 1970s, but there was so much inertia among leaders, so much whining about change, that the future-minded leaders fell away. Church councils – like corporate boards of directors in the same era, interestingly – became populated by stand-patters, maintainers, settlers. (The same inertia was crippling the auto industry, remember, and the steel industry, telecom industries, and public education.)
For a time, clergy took the role of future-thinker. But as they got clobbered in conflicts, many clergy shifted into maintenance mode. At a time when churches needed their clergy to be entrepreneurs, clergy were working on liturgies, in-house communications, and their own continuing education.
Lay leadership teams, meanwhile, tended to value maintenance and keeping the peace more than getting ready for tomorrow. Even “visioning” retreats looked only at incremental changes on a short horizon.
Problem is: with no one actively scanning the future, celebrating it and preparing for it, the future doesn’t happen. Continuation of today happens, but that continuation grows increasingly out of touch with emerging realities. The major course changes that any enterprise must embrace aren’t on the table.
What do churches need to be doing? Two things.
First, they must hire entrepreneurial clergy and then allow them to do entrepreneurial work. Stop burying clergy in maintenance work, and stop attacking them when they do look down the road. Clergy need to let go of the dream of long tenures. They must be change agents, now more than ever, and change agents tend to have short tenures.
Second, lay councils must include some people whose charge is tomorrow. Those future-minded leaders must have more clout than the budget-managers who tend to dominate council meetings. Churches won’t become lively and healthy by paying their bills on time, but by working with God on the new things God is doing.
A future-minded leader is concerned about emerging trends in the larger community, hearing voices outside the walls, imaging new ministries, seeking new constituents, and taking risks. Many longtime constituents will cry “Foul.” Let them. Their self-serving is understandable – and it’s certainly what churches have tended to reward – but it is abuse of the church and its future.
About the Author
Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the publisher of Fresh Day online magazine, author of On a Journey and two national newspaper columns. His website is Church Wellness – Morning Walk Media
READ ON ...
Countering The “Countering Violent Extemism” Program
Elizabeth Shakman Hurd
The history of American foreign relations is replete with attempts to cultivate forms of religiosity in other countries that align with US strategic interests and conform to specific conceptions of what it means to be religiously and politically free.“The following is reprinted with permission from Religion Dispatches. Follow RD on Facebook or Twitter for daily updates.”
Avi Asher-Schapiro described the scene at a recent P2P event in Washington for VICE News:
CJ Drew is a senior at West Point, and like most college students he checks Facebook incessantly—”every couple hours,” he says. But unlike his peers, he’s not counting likes, or scouring for cleavage. CJ is trying to lure would-be-jihadists into conversations about radical Islam on the internet.
CJ is not on the verge of becoming the first ever West Point-educated member of the Islamic State. Quite the opposite: his Facebook activity is sanctioned by the State Department and the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point.
Last week, for the third semester in a row, the State Department hosted the P2P: Challenging Extremism finals in Washington. It’s the culmination of an international “peer to peer” marketing contest that enlists youngsters like CJ to combat extremism using the latest advertising techniques.
CJ and his team of West Point cadets just took second place. Their Facebook page—which West Point has asked VICE News not to name—and a corresponding Twitter account and website are all part of what Bryan Price, the director of the Combating Terrorism Center, calls an “inbound marketing” strategy.
Countering violent extremism programming, or CVE, is on the rise at home and abroad. The domestic side of the story is receiving solid coverage by outlets like AlterNet and substantial pushback from an active coalition of civil society and civil libertarian groups, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“…the CVE agenda adopts a particular approach to religion in which the latter is understood to “cause” political outcomes, both good and bad.”
There has been less debate on the foreign policy side. According to the State Department’s Sarah B. Sewall, the increased US emphasis on CVE in foreign policy is motivated by “learning” from “more than a decade since the searing experience of 9/11.” As Sewall explains, “[o]ver the last two years, the Obama administration has dramatically elevated CVE in the international agenda” in developing a “preventative, civilian-led framework.”USAID and others have taken steps to incorporate CVE into their programming. There is talk of women’s CVE initiatives. According to Sewall, “women’s empowerment is not only essential for defeating violent extremism; defeating violent extremism is essential for women’s empowerment. CVE is a feminist agenda, because it is about inclusion and rights.”
It is not only the US. In January 2016, Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon presented a UN “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.” Canada has announced the creation of an Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator, which “will provide leadership on Canada’s response to radicalization to violence.”
CVE is being presented as a kinder, gentler way to “get at the roots” of the problem by moving beyond security-focused counterterrorism toward a more broad-spectrum approach. New partnerships are taking shape between experts and government officials.
What to make of these developments? First, these programs are the latest installment in a long history of US interventions in religious and political fields abroad. Second, the CVE agenda assumes that religion is the “cause” of various political outcomes, both good and bad. It is the job of the state, and other international authorities, to cultivate religious moderation and to sideline extremism. Third, this good/bad religion narrative distils complex socio-political conditions into a black and white morality tale that makes it impossible to respond effectively to the situations in which actions marked as “violent extremism” emerge.
The “Right Kind” of Religion
The history of American foreign relations is replete with attempts to cultivate forms of religiosity in other countries that align with US strategic interests and conform to specific conceptions of what it means to be religiously and politically free. As I have described elsewhere, Americans pursued something called “global spiritual reform” during the Cold War. And Anna Su’s recent book, Exporting Freedom, examines the US-occupied Philippines, Japan and Iraq.
“[N]o doctrinal position or school can be identified as causing the actions of jihadi groups.”
Since 2009, US military chaplains have engaged with local religious leaders overseas to advance American strategic objectives: gathering cultural intelligence, promoting religious tolerance, and patching up relations with local citizens whose lives have been damaged or destroyed by American military actions. In Afghanistan, the US required Navy Chaplains to give Koran lessons to citizens in an effort to cultivate particular understandings of Islam. A program called Voices of Religious Tolerance had US Marines taking Afghan elders and politicians from Helmand Province on a “collaborative influence program” tour to Amman, Jordan to learn about “life in a religiously tolerant country.”
In short, the US has never disestablished religion in our foreign policy. Instead, American authorities coopt and cooperate with religious institutions and leaders overseas, perceiving these efforts as essential to securing US interests.
Since 9/11 and the rise of counterterrorism, US-sponsored religious interventionism has intensified and it has assumed new forms. Government-led programs and projects intended to support moderate religion and to suppress violent religion are flourishing. These efforts encompass advocacy for religious freedom, interfaith dialogue, and legal protections for religious rights. Increasingly, they also include CVE. In all cases the right kind of (moderate) religion, recognized and cultivated by states and other public authorities, is seen to have emancipatory potential. Religion “done right” contributes to international peace and security and diminishes the potential for violence.
Religion Made Them Do It
“CVE initiatives are strategies for shaping and controlling the political and religious lives of foreign subjects.”
There is a contrast between official ways of approaching religion in bureaucracies in Brussels and Washington, and the approach taken by most scholars who study religion. The purveyors of CVE programming tend to depict religion as a force for good (and for evil) that stands apart from the world and acts upon it. “Religion made them do it,” says the State Department.
To the extent that religion is understood as a cause of political behavior, public interventions to shape it come to be seen as legitimate, even necessary. Most scholars of religion tell a different story—in which religion cannot be distilled or distinguished cleanly from the socio-political and legal surroundings in which it is embedded. Put simply, religion cannot “cause” particular forms of politics. As Daryl Li has observed in a provocative article on jihad talk as a form of demonology, “no doctrinal position or school can be identified as causing the actions of jihadi groups.”
CVE initiatives are strategies for shaping and controlling the political and religious lives of foreign subjects. Their objective is to generate particular forms of religious and political subjectivity that conform to US interests. If successful, “moderate” forms of belief and belonging cultivated through these efforts will engender temperate, reasonable (in other words, pro-American) political inclinations and actions.
Like other forms of state-sponsored political and religious interventionism, CVE is never neutral but rather privileges what the authorities define as “tolerant” beliefs and practices that carry the promise of accommodative or quiescent forms of politics. This creates a divide between these “most-favored” beliefs and practices and those associated with a host of political and religious nonconformists and dissidents.
Seen this way, CVE may actually exacerbate social tensions by policing and politicizing the divide between the religion/politics of those who hold positions of power and those who do not. Naz Modirzadeh makes a related point in a discussion of the UN’s Preventing Violent Extremism Plan:
If the Plan is implemented as the SG hopes, then every state in the world will have a national plan of action on CVE. States will dedicate resources and energy towards this effort. They will draft new laws. They will change where development and aid money is invested. Their officials will refer to communities that are “vulnerable” to terrorism, or ethnic or religious groups that must be “protected” from their own tendency to be drawn to “violent extremism.” These communities will be scrutinized and surveilled under the banner of CVE; states will engage in efforts to make religious people more “moderate,” or to teach them that their religious texts say something other than what they believe…. by CVE’s own internal logic it might produce as many “violent extremists” as it prevents.
CVE as Morality Tale
Writing in the London Review of Books in 2007, Mahmood Mamdani critiqued Nicolas Kristof’s writings on the politics of genocide in Darfur. Mamdani suggested that Kristof’s accounts reduced “a complex political context to a morality tale unfolding in a world populated by villains and victims who never trade places and so can always and easily be told apart.”
Like Kristof’s rendering of the Darfur conflict, the current wave of CVE programming reduces a series of complex political contexts to a morality tale that unfolds in a world populated by (“bad,” usually Muslim) villains and (“good” Muslim or non-Muslim) victims who never trade places and can easily be told apart. The myriad and cross-cutting factors that contribute to episodes of discrimination and violence fade into the background, washed away in a wave of excitement at the prospect of religio-political reform.
Some who have refused this morality tale have instead pointed to the politics of imperial blowback as explanations of the violence. As Frank Barat observed on the day of the March attacks in Brussels,
Why did they do it? What did they say while doing it? If you read these—not something you’ll find easily with a Google search—you will realise that all the attackers are talking the same language. They were politically educated out of the destruction of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the drones bombing in Pakistan, Yemen, the torture of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and the colonisation and occupation of Palestine. While most identified themselves as Muslims, they also said they were horrified by the ideological war the West has carried out against what it wrongfully calls “the Muslim world.”
Patrick Eddington made a similar point in his critique of the politics of CVE:
CVE-related actions . . . shift the blame away from the federal government for its role in helping create and sustain ISIS—first by invading and destabilizing Iraq and Libya, and second by doubling-down on a failed security-centric approach to counterterrorism in the Arab and Muslim world. That disastrously overly-militarized approach to militant salafism, combined with federal support for de facto anti-Arab and anti-Muslim CVE programs at home, only help groups like ISIS make the case that America is, contrary to all public statements to the contrary, at war with Islam.
These points are worth considering. But as Li points out it would be a mistake to banalize the violence by writing it off as the product of imperial blowback. The greater challenge, as he sees it, is to take “radicalism seriously as a political orientation, whether its idiom is Islamic, communist or anarchist. The challenge is how to understand the distinctiveness of jihadi groups without lapsing into an all-too-often racialized exceptionalism.” Li concludes, “the fundamental problem is not only how Islam is discussed; it is how politics is understood in general.”
How is politics understood—or elided—in State’s P2P counter-messaging program? We can catch a glimpse by listening to Amanda Rogers, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgia State University’s Transcultural Conflict and Violence Initiative. Asked for her opinion of State’s P2P counter-messaging initiative, Rogers suggests that, “the gap between US foreign policy in the Muslim world and its message of peace undermines any anti-violent extremism propaganda campaign.” She concludes:
Anyone who goes online and says: “I don’t like beheading innocent civilians”—of course a lot of people are going to agree with you . . . I’m not 100 percent against these sorts of efforts, but I do think they are 99.9 percent worthless . . . I think rhetoric will need to match policy for it to be effective . . . We’re arming groups in Syria, we’re flying drones. It’s hard to take a message of peace seriously.
READ ON ...
Liturgy Selection
The history of American foreign relations is replete with attempts to cultivate forms of religiosity in other countries that align with US strategic interests and conform to specific conceptions of what it means to be religiously and politically free.“The following is reprinted with permission from Religion Dispatches. Follow RD on Facebook or Twitter for daily updates.”
Avi Asher-Schapiro described the scene at a recent P2P event in Washington for VICE News:
CJ Drew is a senior at West Point, and like most college students he checks Facebook incessantly—”every couple hours,” he says. But unlike his peers, he’s not counting likes, or scouring for cleavage. CJ is trying to lure would-be-jihadists into conversations about radical Islam on the internet.
CJ is not on the verge of becoming the first ever West Point-educated member of the Islamic State. Quite the opposite: his Facebook activity is sanctioned by the State Department and the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point.
Last week, for the third semester in a row, the State Department hosted the P2P: Challenging Extremism finals in Washington. It’s the culmination of an international “peer to peer” marketing contest that enlists youngsters like CJ to combat extremism using the latest advertising techniques.
CJ and his team of West Point cadets just took second place. Their Facebook page—which West Point has asked VICE News not to name—and a corresponding Twitter account and website are all part of what Bryan Price, the director of the Combating Terrorism Center, calls an “inbound marketing” strategy.
Countering violent extremism programming, or CVE, is on the rise at home and abroad. The domestic side of the story is receiving solid coverage by outlets like AlterNet and substantial pushback from an active coalition of civil society and civil libertarian groups, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“…the CVE agenda adopts a particular approach to religion in which the latter is understood to “cause” political outcomes, both good and bad.”
There has been less debate on the foreign policy side. According to the State Department’s Sarah B. Sewall, the increased US emphasis on CVE in foreign policy is motivated by “learning” from “more than a decade since the searing experience of 9/11.” As Sewall explains, “[o]ver the last two years, the Obama administration has dramatically elevated CVE in the international agenda” in developing a “preventative, civilian-led framework.”USAID and others have taken steps to incorporate CVE into their programming. There is talk of women’s CVE initiatives. According to Sewall, “women’s empowerment is not only essential for defeating violent extremism; defeating violent extremism is essential for women’s empowerment. CVE is a feminist agenda, because it is about inclusion and rights.”
It is not only the US. In January 2016, Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon presented a UN “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.” Canada has announced the creation of an Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator, which “will provide leadership on Canada’s response to radicalization to violence.”
CVE is being presented as a kinder, gentler way to “get at the roots” of the problem by moving beyond security-focused counterterrorism toward a more broad-spectrum approach. New partnerships are taking shape between experts and government officials.
What to make of these developments? First, these programs are the latest installment in a long history of US interventions in religious and political fields abroad. Second, the CVE agenda assumes that religion is the “cause” of various political outcomes, both good and bad. It is the job of the state, and other international authorities, to cultivate religious moderation and to sideline extremism. Third, this good/bad religion narrative distils complex socio-political conditions into a black and white morality tale that makes it impossible to respond effectively to the situations in which actions marked as “violent extremism” emerge.
The “Right Kind” of Religion
The history of American foreign relations is replete with attempts to cultivate forms of religiosity in other countries that align with US strategic interests and conform to specific conceptions of what it means to be religiously and politically free. As I have described elsewhere, Americans pursued something called “global spiritual reform” during the Cold War. And Anna Su’s recent book, Exporting Freedom, examines the US-occupied Philippines, Japan and Iraq.
“[N]o doctrinal position or school can be identified as causing the actions of jihadi groups.”
Since 2009, US military chaplains have engaged with local religious leaders overseas to advance American strategic objectives: gathering cultural intelligence, promoting religious tolerance, and patching up relations with local citizens whose lives have been damaged or destroyed by American military actions. In Afghanistan, the US required Navy Chaplains to give Koran lessons to citizens in an effort to cultivate particular understandings of Islam. A program called Voices of Religious Tolerance had US Marines taking Afghan elders and politicians from Helmand Province on a “collaborative influence program” tour to Amman, Jordan to learn about “life in a religiously tolerant country.”
In short, the US has never disestablished religion in our foreign policy. Instead, American authorities coopt and cooperate with religious institutions and leaders overseas, perceiving these efforts as essential to securing US interests.
Since 9/11 and the rise of counterterrorism, US-sponsored religious interventionism has intensified and it has assumed new forms. Government-led programs and projects intended to support moderate religion and to suppress violent religion are flourishing. These efforts encompass advocacy for religious freedom, interfaith dialogue, and legal protections for religious rights. Increasingly, they also include CVE. In all cases the right kind of (moderate) religion, recognized and cultivated by states and other public authorities, is seen to have emancipatory potential. Religion “done right” contributes to international peace and security and diminishes the potential for violence.
Religion Made Them Do It
“CVE initiatives are strategies for shaping and controlling the political and religious lives of foreign subjects.”
There is a contrast between official ways of approaching religion in bureaucracies in Brussels and Washington, and the approach taken by most scholars who study religion. The purveyors of CVE programming tend to depict religion as a force for good (and for evil) that stands apart from the world and acts upon it. “Religion made them do it,” says the State Department.
To the extent that religion is understood as a cause of political behavior, public interventions to shape it come to be seen as legitimate, even necessary. Most scholars of religion tell a different story—in which religion cannot be distilled or distinguished cleanly from the socio-political and legal surroundings in which it is embedded. Put simply, religion cannot “cause” particular forms of politics. As Daryl Li has observed in a provocative article on jihad talk as a form of demonology, “no doctrinal position or school can be identified as causing the actions of jihadi groups.”
CVE initiatives are strategies for shaping and controlling the political and religious lives of foreign subjects. Their objective is to generate particular forms of religious and political subjectivity that conform to US interests. If successful, “moderate” forms of belief and belonging cultivated through these efforts will engender temperate, reasonable (in other words, pro-American) political inclinations and actions.
Like other forms of state-sponsored political and religious interventionism, CVE is never neutral but rather privileges what the authorities define as “tolerant” beliefs and practices that carry the promise of accommodative or quiescent forms of politics. This creates a divide between these “most-favored” beliefs and practices and those associated with a host of political and religious nonconformists and dissidents.
Seen this way, CVE may actually exacerbate social tensions by policing and politicizing the divide between the religion/politics of those who hold positions of power and those who do not. Naz Modirzadeh makes a related point in a discussion of the UN’s Preventing Violent Extremism Plan:
If the Plan is implemented as the SG hopes, then every state in the world will have a national plan of action on CVE. States will dedicate resources and energy towards this effort. They will draft new laws. They will change where development and aid money is invested. Their officials will refer to communities that are “vulnerable” to terrorism, or ethnic or religious groups that must be “protected” from their own tendency to be drawn to “violent extremism.” These communities will be scrutinized and surveilled under the banner of CVE; states will engage in efforts to make religious people more “moderate,” or to teach them that their religious texts say something other than what they believe…. by CVE’s own internal logic it might produce as many “violent extremists” as it prevents.
CVE as Morality Tale
Writing in the London Review of Books in 2007, Mahmood Mamdani critiqued Nicolas Kristof’s writings on the politics of genocide in Darfur. Mamdani suggested that Kristof’s accounts reduced “a complex political context to a morality tale unfolding in a world populated by villains and victims who never trade places and so can always and easily be told apart.”
Like Kristof’s rendering of the Darfur conflict, the current wave of CVE programming reduces a series of complex political contexts to a morality tale that unfolds in a world populated by (“bad,” usually Muslim) villains and (“good” Muslim or non-Muslim) victims who never trade places and can easily be told apart. The myriad and cross-cutting factors that contribute to episodes of discrimination and violence fade into the background, washed away in a wave of excitement at the prospect of religio-political reform.
Some who have refused this morality tale have instead pointed to the politics of imperial blowback as explanations of the violence. As Frank Barat observed on the day of the March attacks in Brussels,
Why did they do it? What did they say while doing it? If you read these—not something you’ll find easily with a Google search—you will realise that all the attackers are talking the same language. They were politically educated out of the destruction of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the drones bombing in Pakistan, Yemen, the torture of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and the colonisation and occupation of Palestine. While most identified themselves as Muslims, they also said they were horrified by the ideological war the West has carried out against what it wrongfully calls “the Muslim world.”
Patrick Eddington made a similar point in his critique of the politics of CVE:
CVE-related actions . . . shift the blame away from the federal government for its role in helping create and sustain ISIS—first by invading and destabilizing Iraq and Libya, and second by doubling-down on a failed security-centric approach to counterterrorism in the Arab and Muslim world. That disastrously overly-militarized approach to militant salafism, combined with federal support for de facto anti-Arab and anti-Muslim CVE programs at home, only help groups like ISIS make the case that America is, contrary to all public statements to the contrary, at war with Islam.
These points are worth considering. But as Li points out it would be a mistake to banalize the violence by writing it off as the product of imperial blowback. The greater challenge, as he sees it, is to take “radicalism seriously as a political orientation, whether its idiom is Islamic, communist or anarchist. The challenge is how to understand the distinctiveness of jihadi groups without lapsing into an all-too-often racialized exceptionalism.” Li concludes, “the fundamental problem is not only how Islam is discussed; it is how politics is understood in general.”
How is politics understood—or elided—in State’s P2P counter-messaging program? We can catch a glimpse by listening to Amanda Rogers, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgia State University’s Transcultural Conflict and Violence Initiative. Asked for her opinion of State’s P2P counter-messaging initiative, Rogers suggests that, “the gap between US foreign policy in the Muslim world and its message of peace undermines any anti-violent extremism propaganda campaign.” She concludes:
Anyone who goes online and says: “I don’t like beheading innocent civilians”—of course a lot of people are going to agree with you . . . I’m not 100 percent against these sorts of efforts, but I do think they are 99.9 percent worthless . . . I think rhetoric will need to match policy for it to be effective . . . We’re arming groups in Syria, we’re flying drones. It’s hard to take a message of peace seriously.
READ ON ...
Liturgy Selection
Silence
“In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness.” Gandhi’s words ring true today, as silence becomes an ever more precious experience in our wired world. Where do you find silence?
Religions are like languages… by Rami
To me, religions are like languages: no language is true or false; all languages are of human origin; each language reflects and shapes the mindset of the civilization that speaks it; there are things you can say in one language that you cannot say or cannot say as well in another; and the more languages you know, the more nuanced your understanding of life. Judaism is my mother tongue, yet in matters of the spirit I strive to be multi-lingual. In the end, however, the deepest language of the soul is silence.
-------
“In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness.” Gandhi’s words ring true today, as silence becomes an ever more precious experience in our wired world. Where do you find silence?
Religions are like languages… by Rami
To me, religions are like languages: no language is true or false; all languages are of human origin; each language reflects and shapes the mindset of the civilization that speaks it; there are things you can say in one language that you cannot say or cannot say as well in another; and the more languages you know, the more nuanced your understanding of life. Judaism is my mother tongue, yet in matters of the spirit I strive to be multi-lingual. In the end, however, the deepest language of the soul is silence.
-------
Silence by Roger Courtney
Today it is hard to find silence
We are bombarded by noise from all sides
And when we actually might be able to find silence
We destroy it by turning on some noise
In order to find distraction from ourselves
Because we are restless
Uncomfortable in our own skins.
If we experience the stillness of silence
We might have to look deep inside ourselves
And we are not sure if we would like what we would find.
Mother Teresa said “God is the friend of silence”
The trees, plants and flowers all grow in silence
The sun, moon and stars all move in silence.
Let us take a few moments to enjoy silence
To allow ourselves to be who we are
To be comfortable with who we are
To allow the divine to flow through us.
Submitted by Roger Courtney, Ireland
-------
Jewels of Silence, CD by Ashana
Buy now ⋅ $15.99
Ashana’s music is a luminous tapestry of soaring angelic vocals and the healing sounds of crystal singing bowls. This stunningly beautiful alchemy is magical.
A musical retreat for the soul, it quiets the mind, returning you to a place of deep stillness and remembrance of the Divine … a place where you will be inspired and uplifted … a place of comfort and peace.
Buy now ⋅ $15.99
Click on Amazon Smile and choose ProgressiveChristianity.org as your charity - when you shop Amazon donates .05%.
Events and Updates
Irvine United Congregational Church Celebrating 25 Years as Open & Affirming on June 12th.
Special guest preacher will be Fred C. Plumer and there will be an open conversation with questions and answers at the gathering in Plumer Hall after the service.
Irvine United Congregational Church Celebrating 25 Years as Open & Affirming
Irvine United Congregational Church is radically inclusive, declaring to neighbors and strangers alike, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here.” We celebrate the Creator’s diversity as we worship God and grow in our faith.
A musical retreat for the soul, it quiets the mind, returning you to a place of deep stillness and remembrance of the Divine … a place where you will be inspired and uplifted … a place of comfort and peace.
Buy now ⋅ $15.99
Click on Amazon Smile and choose ProgressiveChristianity.org as your charity - when you shop Amazon donates .05%.
Events and Updates
Irvine United Congregational Church Celebrating 25 Years as Open & Affirming on June 12th.
Special guest preacher will be Fred C. Plumer and there will be an open conversation with questions and answers at the gathering in Plumer Hall after the service.
Irvine United Congregational Church Celebrating 25 Years as Open & Affirming
Irvine United Congregational Church is radically inclusive, declaring to neighbors and strangers alike, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here.” We celebrate the Creator’s diversity as we worship God and grow in our faith.
On Sunday June 12th there will be a celebration of the 25th anniversary of becoming an Open and Affirming church. Special guest preacher will be Fred C. Plumer and there will be an open conversation with questions and answers at the gathering in Plumer Hall after the service.
Click Here for More Information
Images
Start:
June 12, 2016
End:
June 12, 2016
Location:
Irvine United Congregational Church
4915 Alton Parkway
Irvine CA
Website:
http://iucc.org/
Telephone:
949-733-0220
READ ON ...
View all upcoming events here!
News
Job Listings
Facebook
Twitter
Website
Email
YouTube
Our mailing address is:
ProgressiveChristianity.org
4810 Point Fosdick Drive NorthWest
#80Gig Harbor, Washington 98335, United States
---------------------
Click Here for More Information
Images
Start:
June 12, 2016
End:
June 12, 2016
Location:
Irvine United Congregational Church
4915 Alton Parkway
Irvine CA
Website:
http://iucc.org/
Telephone:
949-733-0220
READ ON ...
View all upcoming events here!
News
Job Listings
FacebookTwitterWebsiteEmailYouTubeOur mailing address is:
ProgressiveChristianity.org
4810 Point Fosdick Drive NorthWest
#80Gig Harbor, Washington 98335, United States
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment