Results tagged “peace” from Marilyn Sewell

I woke up this morning with the news that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Comments from previous recipients and from world leaders were pouring in.  Although some said the prize was "premature," most respondents seem to receive the news as a harbinger of hope for our world.  I would agree.

It is true that Obama has been in office a scant 9 months, but he has not been given the Prize for what he has accomplished, so much as what he embodies.  With his election as our President, he became an iconic figure for the whole world, signifying a new day. 

--He says we need to work together in non-partisan ways to solve the enormous problems of our country.  (And he has tried to do so, in spite of no encouragement from the Republicans.)

--He says that everyone deserves to have health care.

--He says we should rid the world of nuclear weapons.

--He says it's way past time for Israel and Palestine to work for a concrete solution to their ages-old conflict.

--He says that the United States can and should lead the way in the reduction of carbon emissions, but that we cannot solve this problem alone..

--He is not naive about defense, but will always hold out the olive branch for peace.

But it is more than what he says--it is what he is, that won the Nobel Prize.  He listens, respectfully.  He changes his mind sometimes, when the facts merit it.  His wish is to compromise, some say to a fault, but he keeps the vision of the good ever before him.  He is humble.  His life has never been his own, to gain riches or fame--he is a servant of the people.  He understands that the United States is not the only country, but one country among many.  He respects his wife as his peer and true partner--which says everything about his attitude towards women.  And he is a person of color in a world long dominated by white people, but a world that is mostly populated by people of color.  His very presence as head of state of our country says to the world, "This is a new day.  No longer will we do business as usual."

So Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  What are the implications of his winning?  Undoubtedly, his voice will carry ever more authority when he speaks of peace.  His distractors--and they are many and they are shockingly effective--will have a tougher time convincing others that he is unworthy, for one reason or another.  His character will only become stronger as he grows into this new honor.

But Obama cannot bring peace to our world alone.  No one can.  What can each one of us do to make our world more peaceful?  I mean, personally, in addition to our political activities. 

I think peace has to be learned, like any other skill, and this skill is best learned by example.  It is learned first in the home.  Then in school and in the workplace.  It is learned in churches and universities and unions and non-profits.  What if wherever we have influence, we sought to bring caring and compassion to our words and actions?  What if we did not allow ourselves to be "hooked" by others' anger or frustration?  What if we assumed the best of people?  What if resentment was released and forgiveness practiced?  I'm not arguing for Casper Milquetoast--it's possible to be firm as well as kind.  

I have only one bumper sticker on my car--it's a small one, on the left side of the back bumper, and it says "Nonjudgment Day Is Near."  I'm trying to practice not judging--discernment, yes, but not judgment.  Just being present with what is.  I've begun noticing how much calmer I am when I can pull this off.  And how much more peaceful the world feels. 

 Share this

In institutional affairs, as well as in affairs of the heart, we do well to "speak the truth, in love."  This promise was part of the covenant which ministers typically make when they are installed in a church.  It is not an easy covenant to keep.  Leaders of all kinds of institutions tend to think that fudging the truth from time to time will keep the institution stable and whole; they tend to believe that transparency is just threatening.  Well, truth-telling is messy, yes, but necessary--necessary for the integrity of an institution, and necessary for its long-term viability and strength. And it must be done in love.  That's the clincher. 

Romantic partners also tend to shy away from truth-telling.  We will hold back our true feelings, even deny these feelings altogether, in the name of holding onto the "togetherness"--or at least the peace of the household.  But this denial of our own emotional reality never works.  As one friend once reminded me, "The unconscious always wins."  So we push those hurt feelings under, over and over again, and then all of a sudden we lash out--or worse than that, we just decide we don't want to be with this person any longer.  We may not even know why.  For some reason, we just don't like ourselves when we are with this partner. 

In affairs of state, the same principle holds: speak the truth, with respect and compassion.  President Obama beautifully illustrated how this might be done in his speech in Cairo, on June 4.  In a world in which posing and posturing are the order of the day, resulting in seemingly endless hostilities and shameful human loss, Obama simply said: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity.  This cycle of suspicion and discord must end. I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world . . . ."

Obama doesn't skirt the specifics: the Arab world heard about extremism, about nuclear arms programs, about a poor record in human rights.  On the other hand, Obama spoke with equal passion about the suffering of the Palestinians due to the Israeli occupation, about the injustice of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory.  He quoted from the Holy Koran (a holy scripture rarely heard by U.S. citizens): "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."  He went on to say that he will try "to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us . . . ."

Obama is showing the world--and most especially his own country--what leadership is all about.  He may not be able to heal the ages-old rift between Palestinians and Jews--which after all, goes back all the way to Jacob and Esau--but the truth of his words moved people all over the world, ordinary people who understand on a very viseral level that violence multiplies upon itself and that peace makes possible lives of hope and prosperity, for us and for our children and for our children's children.

Courage is required to speak the truth, whether it's in regard to institutions, or intimate relationships, or foreign affairs.  There are always those who are ready to condemn, or to take advantage of any weakness shown.  But the fact is that there is health in the truth, and people are drawn to health when it is given as an alternative.  Honesty has a way of opening up possibility, because a clean field emerges where previously obfuscation made everything blurry and confusing. 

Yes, truth-telling takes courage, but when it's done for the right reason and when it's done in love, it leads to new life.  Ways open that have been shut.  Dreams that never could be imagined suddenly appear. Nothing seems impossible.

 Share this

During Archbishop TuTu's recent visit to Portland, some of us were asked to participate in panel discussions on several related topics.  I was asked to be on a panel entitled "Religion as a Bridge to Reconciliation."  The following is part of what I said in my introductory remarks:

The word religion comes from the prefix re, meaning back and the Latin ligare, which means "to bind" or "to bind back" or "to reconnect."  One might say that the function of religion is to repair the illusion of our separation.  Religion should play a natural, a logical role in reconciliation--to bind us together in common values of love, compassion, justice, and forgiveness.

Unfortunately, religion--and I can speak with real authority only of the Christian religion, which is my own--religion most often seems to do the opposite: it serves to separate and to divide.  Christianity has such a bad reputation that the very use of the word in the common vernacular connotes "one who is rigid in belief," and people who are not religious are wary of those who are, for these unconverted individuals--those unwashed in the blood, so to speak--too often have been targets for conversion and have not been respected as the persons, theological and otherwise, that they are.

Of course, all religious people are not Fundamentalists by any means, but even so, when any group of people begin to say, "My way is the way, my path is the only path," the result is division and acrimony.

In fact, religion then becomes no different in this way from any other ideology, whethers an idealogy of communism or capitalism or racism or deconstructionist thinking.  One who becomes an ideologist, or a true believer, begins to exist in a closed system.  Whatever fits into this chosen system is labeled "true" and whatever does not is labeled "false."  The curiosity, spontaneity, and growth of such an individual become limited.

Because each of us is troubled by a multitude of interior forces we do not and will not ever totally understand, it is our nature to look for a system which explains our angst and which makes us feel safe within the walls of that system.  We do not see that system as arbitrary, as created by humans who are terrified of our own inevitable demise, and so we reify those structures--that is, we come to believe that there is a concrete reality there.  Therefore, we cling to these beliefs as to life itself, and whatever threatens them must be challenged--or perhaps stemped out, eliminated.

Given this very human and very pervasive problem with religion, one can see why religion often fails to be a sturdy instrument of reconciliation.  At the same time, we know that there have been instances when it has been.  I'm thinking of enlightened leaders who have internalized the radical way of being that seems to be at the heart of all major religions--the radical way of love, compassion, peace.  Violence and retribution have no part to play.  I'm thinking, for example, for Martin Luther King, Jr., who taught non-violence in the Civil Rights movement; or Gandhi, who practiced satyagraha, or passive resistance, to free his people from British rule; or a more recent example, the Amish, who forgave the man who gunned down their children in a Pennsylvania schoolhouse a few years ago, because these gentle people could do no other: forgiveness is their way of being.

So if we mean by religion, a spiritual commitment to love and compassion and non-violence--if we mean by religion, a radical change of being in which the individual or community understands that we are all one and that love and forgiveness are central to their being, then yes, religion is the essence of reconciliation and a path to that difficult state.

But if we mean by religion--which we generally do--an institutionalized set of beliefs, then, no, just the opposite.  For religion in that sense divides people into the righteous and the unrighteous, the saved and the unsaved, the good and the evil.  And of course if we have made "the other" evil, then the righteous must have control over the evil ones.  We righteous ones can then project all of our shadow side onto these evil ones, and then Christians can smile as we say things to gays and lesbians like, "I hate the sin, but love the sinner," or say to those of another faith tradition, "If you haven't accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you're going to hell."  Not to mention the generations of wars between believers of various faiths throughout the world, throughout all time.  Make the people of a different tribe or race or religion "other," and they are much easier to kill.

So is religion a path to reconciliation?  Not until its practititioners mature as religious beings.  Not until its institutions become more devoted to the heart-lessons of their prophets than to the divisive theology of their true believers.

 Share this