MWR : MCC-sponsored dialogue to include Iranian president among religious, political leaders

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

Oct. 6, 2008 issue

MCC-sponsored dialogue to include Iranian president among religious, political leaders

AKRON, Pa. — Mennonite Central Committee is co-sponsoring a dialogue with international political and religious leaders that is intended to build peace and understanding between societies often divided by animosity.

Ron Flaming, left, MCC’s director of international programs, presented a quilted wall-hanging to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a meeting of a 13-member religious delegation from the United States in Tehran Feb. 24, 2007. The full story is available in the March 5, 2007 issue. — Photo provided by MCC

The dialogue is scheduled to take place Sept. 25 in New York and includes Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and political and religious leaders from Christian, Jewish and Muslim traditions, in addition to leaders from other faiths.

MCC is facing some public criticism for co-sponsoring the dialogue out of a misconception that it is meant to honor President Ahmadinejad. The dialogue is intended to be a respectful conversation about the need for religious involvement in peacemaking, and it is not intended to honor the president or any other individual, said Arli Klassen, MCC’s executive director.

“It doesn’t mean that we agree or support everything or anything that the person does, but it does mean that we recognize their humanity, and that God has created us all, and that we need to find ways to live together,” Klassen said.

The theme of the dialogue, based on Malachi 2:10, is, “Has not one God created us? The significance of religious contributions to peace.”

MCC is co-sponsoring this dialogue out of a commitment to follow Jesus Christ’s way of peace, according to Klassen.

“As Christians, we take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount very seriously and say ‘Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you,’ ” Klassen said. “Right now the U.S. and Iran are defining each other as enemies and so, as Christians, we are trying to promote dialogue, understanding and bridge-building, rather than leading to war.”

The dialogue is also sponsored by American Friends Service Committee, Quaker United Nations Office, Religions for Peace and World Council of Churches in consultation with the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations.

This event will be MCC’s fourth encounter with the Iranian president since 2006. Previous meetings have focused on barriers to peace between Iran and the West, including mutual suspicion and hostile rhetoric.

“Many persons around the world have interpreted your public rhetoric as a threat to destroy the state of Israel,” said Ron Flaming, MCC’s director of international programs, in a September 2007 meeting with President Ahmadinejad.

“This does not match what some of us have heard you say privately, where you stated that there is not a military solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” Flaming said. “If it is not your intention to destroy Israel, for the sake of understanding, for the sake of peace, for the sake of a bridge, we urge you to clearly and publicly say so.”

Comments

In Jesus for President, Claiborne states:

"Christians in the first few hundred years were called atheists because they no long believed in the Roman gospel: they no longer had any faith in the state as savior of the world. They were called all kinds of names 'renegade Jews' 'rebel citizens' even 'enemies of the human race.' "

They were accused of incest because they called each other sister and brother even when they had no biological relationship. And there were accused of being cannibals because they had a strange ritual of eating something they called the body and blood of their Lord.

They were enemies of the state.

When MCC tries to act and work for political solutions it is DEEPLY un-Anabaptist, co-opted by Empire-like solutions (e.g. force or non-christian idols of peace. Not all peace-making is Jesus based pacifism. As such it is inherently another form of Kingdom of the World power.) The dialogues with states instead of engaging in Kingdom of God proclamation is simply playing imperial games with imperial rules.

My concern: I appreciate what others are saying in defense of MCC political-religious talks, but I think my argument must be clear enough – because the nuance of being a church agency vs. a political action agency is not getting through.

MCC does much good on the ground in Iran. I am saying that the political mediation peace-making approach is a case in MCC missing the point (and boat theologically). The way of Jesus was NEVER to sit down with Caesar. When the religious leaders sought him out he didn’t turn them away, but his reconciliation efforts were with the people in need. The evidence of being the Prince of Peace was that he engaged the Spiritual Powers directly and therefore indirectly the political Powers. And when it came to direct talk with the Religious-Political Powers it was in prophetic confrontation or his being at the end of their weapons — e.g. the way of the Cross!

Jesus proclamation was of another Kingdom. His peace message was the in-breaking reign of God. In the case of Iran, the right way to enter this conversation would be because MCC is planting churches, helping the poor, and sharing the good news in Iran in such a way as to be brought before the modern 'Pilates.' Then there would be a claim of offense. But TO the powers (Spiritual and Political) not as a full on participation in them (MCCs complete co-option).

It is abdicating the prophetic peace-making of Jesus for political, inside the systems of the world that Jesus came to dethrone. (again see: Boyd, Yoder, Claibourne, etc.)

The present approach makes MCC looks co-opted by left (or in some cases perhaps right) politics.

When MCC sits down with political leaders that is expressly NOT the ‘Jesus way’ of peace – whether it be the US or Iranian Empires.

Being controversial and unpopular for anything other than direct witness to the gospel in word and deed to helpless, harassed, and people in need of conversion is the be the wrong kind of offense. The social work MCC does is a great step in the direction of the RIGHT (meaning congruent with Jesus life and teachings) offense. SO AGAIN offending someone’s political sensibilities with simply another religious-political act, as MCC has done, wins them no gospel glory or kudos -just applause from like minded or those that use such “talks” as screens for true motives.

Moreover, based on MCCs actions, the enemy that MCC makes is the Israeli people and nation.

If the political peace work is the goal of MCC (violating the above theology) in the Middle East then so be it. But it still needs to change its approach and meet with its political enemy — which is not (clearly) Iran. MCC however is not a state. So I don’t even understand it’s enemy speak? In what way does MCC represent the US government or American people? MCC represents MCC.

We ARE called to judge actions not people. I am in no way judging the eternal condition of anyone involved - am not God. The actions of political peace-making vs. kingdom-of-god counter-intuitive service is what I am concerned with. And will point out that MCC is perceived as making enemies in the name of political peace-making and a misappropriation of Anabaptist pacifism.

MCC's Iranian political interactions “in the name of Christ” are contradicting Jesus own approach to transformation and peace-making.

I hope the debate about political approaches vs Jesus-centered approaches continues. I love the Anabaptist historic peace church too much to let this slide.

Thanks, Shel

- Rev. Shel Boese (sep 25 at 5:51 p.m.)

Comment on the article MCC-sponsored dialogue to include Iranian president among religious, political leaders

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.