Ambivalence and Ahmadinejad
The cover of the bulletin said it all, and it was probably too much. "East West Dialogue; Interfaith Encounter, A time of dialogue and prayerful reflection." Dialogue, Encounter, Reflection: the terms suggests the ambivalence of those planning and those party to the convocation, more than 100 representatives of religious communities, congregations, adjudicatories, alliances, mostly Christian. Do we want to explore together, confront one another, or inform our own search for truth?
If it is all of the above and more, what is a sufficient timeframe one needs to dedicate to such goals? How does the size of the group contribute to its potential success? What are the costs of formal settings and events compared to the intimacy of more private gatherings? If this was the third gathering of principals to the conversation, and a step toward enlarging the engagement, why does it seem necessary to rehearse so many of the same basic questions again and again? We are ambivalent about when we can move forward and when we must circle back. It seems that St. Thomas might be the patron saint of this enterprise.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whatever his stature or power in the Iranian political arena to manage or change the directions of that government (and the consensus seems to be that it is limited), is first and foremost a "true believer." That is to say, he has an Islamic worldview which he can articulate and recite in rapid-fire narrative coherence, grounded in a historical simplicity that really offers no surprises.
He represents a familiar Shi'a orthodoxy. He convincingly restated his beliefs, over and over again, that the proper role of mankind is to serve God. This is, he says, the key to freedom. This is the right path, all worshippers of God must follow this demand — serve God first. This is the call to repentance voiced by all prophets in the monotheistic traditions, he argues. This is the obligations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, he claims. This is what he believes. And he believes that it is the 12th Imam, the Madhi, who will return to redeem the righteous, much as many Christians believe a second coming of the Christ will redeem the righteous.
It is difficult to imagine a Western political leader making this his central claim to authority, or his central teaching in a public setting, that social, economic, and political justice will only be achieved through worship and service to God. That is the message for the pulpit, in the sanctuary, not the bully pulpit of the elected head of state. Such an uncompromising public position by a Western political leader would be deeply suspect.
It is not clear to me that these are reconcilable differences of style or belief, between East and West, if it is East and West that they differentiate. The panelists, and many of us who are apologists for peace and nonviolence, want to put the words that would reassure us of the prospect of immediate reconciliation into the mouths of such spokesmen. We seem disheartened when they will not use our words to express their positions, when they condition one position with another, and that with a third.
Make our lives and work easy, say what we want you to say the way we want you to say it.
I think I actually heard reconciling words: The arrogance of power seekers and the impious put all of us at risk. The inequities and suffering of the world's poor, hungry, diseased, homeless saddens us all. Accepting our mistakes is necessary but not sufficient to effect change: to condemn slavery and then market and buy the products of slavery; to condemn genocide and then hesitate to react to genocidal conditions in the world, are unacceptable positions. Just as there is a legitimate concern for the fate of the Jewish people, there is a legitimate concern for the fate of the Palestinians. Those who maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons may not be the best arbiters of access to nuclear technology. When you see poverty it means somewhere nearby a right has been violated: someone is using more than their share. Hospitality must be the root environment for productive dialogue to blossom and flower.
But maybe I heard these wrong. I also watched the all too familiar dance of dissimulation, the coy and overly cautious segue away from the question on the table, the inability to acknowledge what is well documented and is challenging in the face of a message of affirming human worth, the dignity of all, the image of God in which we each are made. And then I still am confused at times, is it ambivalence or ambiguity that makes us uncomfortable?
Make our lives and work easy, say what we want you to say the way we want you to say it.
For more info on this topic:
- Mennonite Central Committee press release
- New York Times story: "Ahmadinejad Meets Clerics, and Decibels Drop a Notch"
- USA Today story: "Ahmadinejad Leaves After Contentious Visit"
- Pax Christi press release
