'You Will Not Have My Hatred,' Husband of Paris Victim Tells ISIS

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

"These are the times that try men's souls," Thomas Paine famously wrote in 1776. He was writing about a different time and different troubles than those faced in Paris last week, but his words couldn't be more applicable.

And this week, Antoine Leiris, the husband of one of the 129 people killed by ISIS terrorists, showed the depth of his soul when he put a post on his Facebook page titled, "You will not have my hatred."

Leiris was addressing ISIS. His post is in French, but in translation, it begins, "Friday night you stole the life of an exceptional being, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you will not have my hatred. I do not know who you are and I do not want to know; you are dead souls. If God, for which you kill blindly, made us in his image, every bullet in the body of my wife has been a wound in his heart."

Leiris continued, "So I will not give you the privilege of hating you. You certainly sought it, but replying to hatred with anger would be giving in to the same ignorance which made you into what you are. You want me to be frightened, that I should look into the eyes of my fellow citizens with distrust, that I sacrifice my freedom for security. You lost. I will carry on as before."

"I saw her this morning," Leiris said of his wife Helene. "Finally, after nights and days of waiting. She was as beautiful as when she left on Friday evening, as beautiful as when I fell madly in love with her more than 12 years ago. I am of course devastated by heartbreak, I'll cede you that little victory, but it will be short-lived. I know that she will be with us every day and that we will meet again in a paradise of free souls to which you will never have access."

Leiris closed by promising to raise his son happy and free: "There are only two of us, my son and I, but we are stronger than all the armies of the world. Moreover, I have no more time to grant you, I must go to Melvil who is waking up from his nap. He is just 17 months old. He will eat his snack like he does every day, then we will play like we do every day and every day of his life this little boy will affront you by being happy and free. Because you will not have his hatred either."

Leiris' post has been viewed thousands of times, and many people have responded with comments on his page showing how deeply touched they are by his words. For example, respondent Jaime Henry Sinift wrote, "My thoughts are with you and sweet Melvil. Helene would be proud of your response and courage."

We suspect that God is pleased with Leiris' response as well.

More on this story can be found at these links:

You Will Not Have My Hatred. Antoine Leiris on Facebook  (Original post is in French. Select the "translate" option in Facebook for a machine translation of the post. The CNN article below includes a better translation.)

The Husband of Paris Victim Tells ISIS: You Can't Make Me Hate. CNN 

Applying the News Story

We don't have any information about Leiris' religious faith, though we gather from his words about meeting his wife again in paradise that he's not an atheist. And his response about not hating gives evidence of the spirit of Christ's words in Matthew 5:43-45: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven ...."

Leiris' response also brings to mind one of the responses after a gunman shot 10 Amish girls ages 6-14 execution-style in the Nickel Mines schoolhouse in 2006. On the very day of the shooting, the Amish grandfather of one of the slain girls told the members of his community in reference to the killer, "We must not hate this man."

In terms of our own lives, if we take our Christian faith seriously, then not hating belongs in the bedrock our response when faced with painful loss caused by others.

TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey comments, "We need to be reminded that hating is not only an emotional response, but a proactive choice, an act of the will. Its corollary is also true, that loving is also more than an emotion over which we have no control; it is a decision, an action, a behavior we live out. 'To hate or not to hate, that is the question.'"

The Big Questions

1. Is the Sermon on the Mount an ideal or an order? What does it mean for daily life to take Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) seriously? How might your life be different if you continually measured your actions against the Sermon on the Mount? How might the world be different? Is it reasonable to expect Christians to live by the Sermon on the Mount?

2. How do you define hatred? Is there more than one definition? What is the difference, if any, between not hating and loving? Which emotion involves more passion -- loving or hating? In what personal circumstances should not hating be consciously applied?

3. How are not hating and healing related? Is it possible to fully recover from a great wrong inflicted on you while hating the perpetrator(s)? Does not hating preclude seeking punishment of the wrongdoer(s)? Why or why not?

4. To what extent can not hating lead to pardon and reconciliation? Can one be reconciled with someone who is hate-filled?

5. What should be the attitude of Christians toward persons who perpetrated the Paris crimes? How well does your answer match what your attitude actually is toward these perpetrators?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope

Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

Jeremiah 8:21

For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. (For context, read 8:18--9:1.)

Psalm 69:1-3

Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me. I am weary with my crying .... (No additional context needed.)

Jeremiah 8:18--9:1 is part of a personal lament by the prophet Jeremiah over the sad plight falling on his fellow Judeans. Their nation was about to fall to the Babylonians, and God had told Jeremiah of what would follow -- the exile of many of the citizens of Jerusalem. The prophet was so filled with grief that he didn't know what to say. "My heart is sick" (v. 18) was about all he could manage.

Psalm 69 is also a lament, though it doesn't identify the circumstances that caused the pain. Whatever it was, when we are in deep pain, we can no doubt identify with the psalm's words of despair.

Incidents such as the Paris attacks fill many of us with a similar heartsickness and the sense that we don't know what to say. Why is our world as it is? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why didn't God intervene and stop these killers? Why, after Jesus was born, didn't God stop Herod from killing the infants? There are times when words fail us, and sometimes the best we can stammer out is "I don't know."

Today's news, and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount text quoted in the "Applying the News Story" above, suggest an additional response: "I will not let hatred master me."

Questions: Some people are convinced that everything that happens, good or bad, is part of God's plan and that we simply cannot see the big picture God sees. Do you find that a convincing argument or not? Explain your answer. Is an explanation of God's ways necessary for faith to carry us? Why or why not?

Psalm 137:8

O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! (For context, read 137:1-9.)

This psalm, which is a lament about Jerusalem being destroyed by the Babylonians and its people being exiled in Babylon, includes this very natural reaction: the hope that someone would pay back the oppressors "for what you have done to us!"

In the case of the Paris attacks, the French government has already begun certain "payback" moves, including the bombing of ISIS targets, though it's probable that the moves are more than mere vengeance; they are likely aimed at so crippling ISIS as to reduce its ability to launch future attacks -- or teaching ISIS that the cost of attacking France will be so high as to cause them not to attack again.

Questions: Are governmental responses to terrorism matters of hate? If not, what are they? How do you reconcile the admonition to "overcome evil with good" with the satisfaction of repaying someone for "what has been done to us"? Do you struggle with this problem, or do you ignore it? What might be some of the thoughts and positions used in discussions on this matter? Try to include thoughts and positions that you personally do not hold, in such a way that they are made as thoughtful and with as good intentions as you ascribe to yourself.

Psalm 97:10 

The LORD loves those who hate evil; he guards the lives of his faithful; he rescues them from the hand of the wicked. (For context, read 97:10-12.)

Luke 14:26

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. (For context, read 14:25-33.)

Romans 12:9 

Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good .... (For context, read 12:9-21.)

Here are three Bible verses that use the word "hate" in ways that are clearly deemed not only acceptable, but even desirable.

In Psalm 97:10, the Hebrew word rendered in English as "hate" covers emotion ranging from "bitter disdain" to outright "hatred." It means to hate personally, and it's related to words meaning "enemy" and "odious." And while here the object of that hate is the impersonal "evil," the same Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to indicate hatred toward a person, though not necessarily as a desirable response (see, for example, Genesis 37:8). However, the word is also used at least once in the Old Testament to name an attitude of God in a particular situation (Malachi 1:3).

In Luke 14:26, which is quoting Jesus, "hate" is rendering a Greek word that means "to love less" -- that is, to have relative preference for one thing over another. We don't usually use the word "hate" with this meaning in our speech today. The Message paraphrases this verse to read, "Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters -- yes, even one's own self! -- can't be my disciple."

In Romans 12:9, "hate" is translating another Greek word that means "detest" or "abhor" or "loathe." As the apostle Paul uses it here, he is directing it toward the impersonal "what," not a personal "who."

"Hate," then, is something that cannot be condemned in its own right, without context. But in Leiris' context, not hating seems a godly thing.

Questions: Is it even possible to hate evil without also hating the perpetrators of that evil? In what contexts might hatred be appropriate? When is it sinful?

Romans 12:20-21 

No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (For context, read 12:9-21.)

Here the apostle Paul urges overcoming evil with good, rather than repaying evil with evil. It is about loving one's enemy rather than exhibiting hatred. We don't have control over the other's response, but we do over our own.

In referring to heaping burning coals on an enemy's head, Paul is quoting Proverbs 25:21-22. TWW team member Doug Hargis comments, "The burning coals should not be understood as an evil thing, for we are told in the next line to overcome evil with good. Rather it needs to be understood against the backdrop of Isaiah 6:5-7. Isaiah confesses that he is a man of 'unclean lips.' A seraph then uses tongs to take a live coal from the altar. He touches Isaiah's unclean lips with it and declares, 'Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out.' The coal destroys the guilt and the sin, not the person." Paul is indicating that the food and water we give can function as the sanctifying coal.

Questions: How can the biblical command to overcome evil with good be applied to situations such as the violent crimes in Paris? In what ways does a national response to the evil deeds need to differ from personal responses such as the one from Leiris? Can a response based on the teachings of Jesus seem weak to haters?

Matthew 5:4 (NRSV) 

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. (For context, read 5:1-12.)

Matthew 5:4 (GNT)

Happy are those who mourn; God will comfort them!

We've quoted this beatitude from both the New Revised Standard Version and the Good News Translation to show that the first word of the beatitude, which in the original Greek is makarios, can be translated into English as either "blessed" or "happy." But we really need both of the English words to capture the meaning of makarios. To understand what the Bible means by that word, we have to think of both "happy" (the feeling of satisfaction) and "blessed" (God's favor) together.

We doubt that any who are mourning loved ones killed in the Paris attacks would use the word "happy" to describe themselves right now, but we suspect that "blessed" is an adjective that, in its sense of God's favor, does apply. People like Leiris who can say "I will not hate" are blessed by God even as they mourn.

Questions: In what ways have you experienced makarios in times of grief? Did the makarios moment seem like a blessing at the time? In retrospect?

For Further Discussion

1. In terms of our grieving with those who grieve, do you feel the pain of people who've lost loved ones to terrorism in Baghdad and Paris equally? Explain your answer.

2. Read this article -- Where Is God: Grace the Morning After Paris -- to your class and invite members to respond.

3. How can we promote the gospel's call to love our neighbor and live at peace with others in a culture in which some people believe their goals trump such qualities and justify terrorism?

4. To whom, for the good of your own soul, might you need to say, "I do not hate you"? Who needs to hear it from you? What is your definition of loving your enemies? Is this love different from the love you show your family? If so, how/why? Who do you suspect needs to say to you, "I do not hate you"?

Responding to the News

As TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey said in the "Applying the News Story" section above, "hating is not only an emotional response, but a proactive choice, an act of the will." This is a good time to remind ourselves of that and decide how to invite God into our choices about how we respond to others.

Closing Prayer

O God, we pray for your comfort for those who have lost loved ones in the violence of the past weeks, both in Paris and elsewhere. We ask that you help us as a nation to find whatever means we can to reduce or eliminate such events. And help us each to practice the not-hating to which the gospel calls us. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Iranian Supreme Leader Affirms 'Death to America' -- Sort Of

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

"Death to America" has been a rallying cry in Iran since the 1979 seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the holding of 52 Americans as hostages for 444 days in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. Each year since, on the November 4 anniversary of that takeover, a crowd, reportedly smaller each year, gathers to commemorate that event, burn American flags and chant again "Death to America."
Understandably, most Americans don't hear those words as friendly.
This year's November 4 anniversary, however, came after Iran and six world powers, including the United States, concluded a pact in which Iran agreed to stop work toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and, in exchange, the world powers agreed to lift specified sanctions against Iran.
While that accord is far from a statement of friendship between Iran and the other nations in the agreement, the Iranian regime's continued support for the "Death to America" shout after the pact seems particularly undiplomatic.
The internal politics of Iran, however, as well as a certain belligerence and perhaps matters of face-saving apparently make the nation's leadership unwilling to stop the chants.
However, in a pre-anniversary-day speech to university students two weeks ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "clarified" the slogan. After saying that the catch phrase was justified and would stay, he added, "The slogan 'death to America' is backed by reason and wisdom; and it goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the U.S. policies, death to arrogance."
Earlier this year, Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, similarly walked back the three-word shout. In an interview with CBS's Steve Kroft, Rouhani said that the chant "is not a slogan against the American people." He then mentioned the U.S. role in supporting the shah before the revolution and Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. "People will not forget these things. We cannot forget the past, but at the same time, our gaze must be toward the future."
It remains to be seen whether these statements that play down the slogan really represent a softening of attitudes. There are still hard-liners in Iran, who, while not in power at present, remain influential and powerful.
And, in the view of some observers of Iran, the softening of the intent of the chant isn't really much of a change. Some say that Iran still advocates fundamentally transforming the United States from a democratic republic with civil rights for all to a Muslim nation based upon religious law.
Still, polls show that the vast majority of Iranians, even if they don't back U.S. policies, don't wish to kill Americans.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Iranian Leader: 'Death to America' Refers to Policies, Not the Nation. CNN 
'Death to America' Endures in Iran. Lowell Sun
'Death to America!' and the Iran Deal. The New Yorker
Applying the News Story
In applying this matter of reinterpreting long-standing words and phrases in the church or when addressing the world from the church, there is more than one direction we can go with the discussion. We've chosen one, but note that we've included three others in the "For Further Discussion" section below, all suggested by TWW team members.
The line of development we've chosen to focus on is this: Sometimes, after listening faithfully for God's word, we conclude that certain long-standing terms or phrases used in the church or certain long-used understandings of scripture passages no longer apply because we now realize that those understandings were based on faulty assumptions or bias rather than on the demands of true discipleship. In such cases, we might want to honor the understanding of previous generations by retaining some of their language, but still steer the discussion in another direction.
Two terms, frequently used in seminaries and Bible schools, are applicable here. They are "exegesis" (ek-si-JEE-sis) and "eisegesis" (ahy-si-JEE-sis). Exegesis simply means explanation. When applied to scripture, it means an explanation or critical interpretation of a text, seeking its original intent. Eisegesis means the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. The best sermons often incorporate both exegesis and eisegesis of the chosen scripture passage.
If, in his speech, the Iranian leader was reinterpreting the "Death to America" text, he was doing eisegesis. However, if his interpretation of the slogan actually reflects its original intention, then he was doing exegesis.
All Christians are doing eisegesis when they are figuring out how to apply a passage of scripture to the particular circumstances of their lives.
The Big Questions
1. When, if ever, have you felt that a particular phrase or teaching in your church hindered rather than advanced the gospel? If possible, give an example, and explain what you considered problematic about it.
2. When has a fresh interpretation helped you to see how a doctrine or a faith practice that previously didn't connect for you, really does apply to your life of faith? If possible, give an example, and explain how the fresh interpretation helped you.
3. Is it necessary for us to embrace every teaching of our church for our Christian faith to be real? Why or why not?
4. When have you had to rely on your own judgment to give advice on a matter of Christian living because you had no word from the Lord about it? How did that turn out? What tools for making such judgments does God provide?
5. When faithful Christians do eisegesis from scripture, are they giving only their own ideas or might divine inspiration also be involved? Explain your answer.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. (For context, read 2:14-19.)
Paul wrote these words to his coworker, Timothy, while the latter was guiding a group of Christians, possibly in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). He urges Timothy to "rightly" explain "the word of truth," which can refer to either scripture or the gospel message, or both.
Since Paul uses the word "explaining," we could say that he is calling for Timothy to do careful exegesis of scripture and the gospel, but as soon as someone in the congregation approached Timothy with a question such as "Yes, but what do those words mean I should do about my troublesome non-believing neighbor?" Timothy would have to do some eisegesis, drawing from his fuller knowledge of scripture and saying what action he thinks the scripture would support.
Questions: What do you do to present yourself as "one approved by God"? Have others told you so when you were successful in so presenting yourself?
Ezra 9:1-3
... the officials approached me [Ezra] and said, "The people of Israel ... have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands …." When I heard this, I tore my garment and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. (For context, read 9:1-4; 10:1-3, 44.)
1 Corinthians 7:12-13
To the rest I say -- I and not the Lord -- that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (For context, read 7:8-16.)
The book of Ezra tells of a time after the Jewish exiles returned to their homeland where Ezra the priest, who was at the time their religious leader, learned that some of his people had taken foreign spouses. In some cases, these mixed marriages had been in place long enough that they had children. When Ezra learned of this, he understood it as a violation of Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:1-3). He led the people to expel these foreign wives and their children.
Centuries later, in the era of the early church, the apostle Paul when faced with a similar situation -- Christian believers married to unbelievers -- clearly did not use Ezra as a model for a solution. He admits that he has no instruction from God about this (that the meaning of his statement "I and not the Lord" in the verses above), but goes on to give the instructions for the situation he thinks best. And clearly, the church has followed Paul's model and not Ezra's.
Questions: What does the Ezra model say about the sacredness of the marriage vow? What does the Paul model say about it? When have you navigated between separate and seemingly conflicting scriptural viewpoints?
Hebrews 9:12-14
[Jesus] entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! (For context, read 9:1-22.)
Here the writer of Hebrews, writing to fellow Jews, uses their practice of offering animal sacrifices in the temple to help them understand the atoning work of Jesus.
We hesitate to call the Hebrews author's work eisegesis exactly, because, believing in the divine inspiration of scripture, we doubt he was simply giving his own ideas, but he was, in fact, giving a different understanding of sacrifice.
Questions: What argument can you make to support the idea, presented in Hebrews, that Christ's death was effective for our salvation? Is it necessary to buy into the idea of sacrifice for Christ to be your Lord? What other approaches to understanding the ministry of Jesus can help when the idea of blood sacrifice makes no sense or even repels potential new Christians?
Jonah 4:9-11
But God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" And he said, "Yes, angry enough to die." Then the LORD said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" (For context, read 3:10--4:11.)
The Lord had sent the prophet Jonah to Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, which was an archenemy of Israel, to call its citizens to repentance.
After trying to duck the job, Jonah went, and when he delivered his message, the whole city of people did repent. And the Lord spared them from the prophesied calamity.
Jonah's mission was successful, but he wasn't happy about it, for he didn't want Israel's enemies to be saved. He went and sulked under a bush that provided him some shade from the hot Mideastern sun. When the bush died, Jonah was angry and the conversation in the verse above ensued.
What God did here was to reinterpret for Jonah the idea that being chosen people meant God loved only Israel. Here Jonah learned that God loved others as well.
Questions: During World War II, Germans and Japanese were depicted in propaganda (including cartoons) as bloodthirsty subhuman caricatures in the 20th century -- but the words "German" and "Japanese" do not have the same emotional juice now. The same was true about us for them. What, besides the end of the war itself, caused those depictions to change?
How do you apply this scripture to those who shout "Death to America"? Where do you need to walk back an assumption about who is an enemy?
How might people have to revise an earlier assessment of your life when you were markedly different?
For Further Discussion
1. Invite a class member who wishes to volunteer to pick one of the following historic teachings of the church and say why that particular teaching does not (or does) connect personally for him or her, and then, as a group, discuss the person's explanation.
     Pick from these: "Jesus died in my place on the cross" (also called the substitutionary atonement); "we are all tainted with sin from birth" (also called original sin); "God in three persons" (also called the doctrine of the Trinity).
     Then ask class members if any have heard fresh interpretations of these matters that helped them connect these to their own life.
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "It is interesting to note the modifying voices that have spoken up about other groups who have been depicted negatively in our nation of late; specifically, some have responded to the painting of all law enforcement officers with the brush of violence and abuse or the characterization of all Muslims as extremists by sharing stories of police doing good deeds for members of the public they serve, or Muslims who have been good neighbors, etc. The story of our nation is constantly being shaped by all our voices."
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Michael Harnish: "It seems to me that every generation of believers thinks that the next generation of believers are all going to hell due to their misrepresentations of the gospel. And each generation feels like they have Jesus more figured out than the last." Harnish goes on to say that each generation can be arrogant about its view when looking at the view of the previous or next generation. So, says, Harnish, the lesson could take the angle of how arrogance hinders authenticity in the church. "I've simply been pondering how we trust new movements in the church without either side becoming arrogant," Harnish says.
4. Respond to this, from TWW team member Liz Antonson, who suggests that takeaways from the lesson "could come from exploring 1) the church's 'devolution' to standard-less inclusiveness with the rationale of appealing to the unchurched, 2) the church's abandonment/over-simplification of the core teachings of the salvation message, 3) the church's dumbing-down in the area of music composition and presentation, and 4) the reality that the 'West' needs to be evangelized by the 'rest' in some cases (that is, the West needs a true revival of the message and power of Christ Jesus)."
5. Discuss TWW team member Mary Sells' reaction to today's news story: "I think we have become so accustomed to being hated by certain groups that we have developed a defensive reflex that maybe makes us a little more vulnerable to the erosion of our own understanding of how God's love can work within us. Perhaps our focus is on how to heal the other of their sinfulness, rather than how to use the love of God within us for the betterment, not only of ourselves, but also for the other. (That worked for Jesus who showed love and kindness and mercy and wisdom while living in a world gone mad.) Maybe that is part of what we learn by being the point of others' hatred: how to live God's way."
Responding to the News
Certainly we don't condone the "Death to America" slogan, but this news does give us an opportunity to understand a bit better what might drive the retention of that cry in Iran. To gain more perspective on the view of the United States as seen by some Iranians, we recommend reading The New Yorker article in the list of links above.
This is also a good time to:
• critically consider how to apply our Christian faith to the modern age.
• re-examine long-standing catch phrases.
• reflect on the usefulness or legitimacy of the process called "eisegesis" in our efforts to be a good follower of Christ's teaching in a modern world.
Closing Prayer

Guide us, O Lord, as we apply the ancient words of scripture and the historic teachings of the church to our day and age. In Jesus' name. Amen.

Preschoolers and Their Families Learn to Coexist in Increasingly Segregated Society

© 2015 The Wired Word

www.thewiredword.com

Since mid-September, tensions in Jerusalem have spread due to disagreements over access to places sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews. At least 55 Palestinians have died in clashes with Israeli authorities responding to attacks, often by knife-wielding assailants, that killed 11 Israelis.

While unrest percolates within the nation of Israel and violence mounts throughout the Middle East, educators in six Hand in Hand schools in Israel teach Muslim, Jewish and Christian students to respect and dialogue with each other.

One of those schools is located in the port city of Jaffa (or Joppa) just three miles south of Tel Aviv, where people of different faiths sometimes live as neighbors in integrated apartment buildings. But the idea of educating their children together is still novel in a nation that routinely segregates groups according to their differences.

The Jaffa school has 170 pupils, about half Arab and half Jewish. Classes are taught in Arabic and Hebrew, languages all students are expected to learn. "It's fun to know other languages because then you can speak with all kinds of people!" 5-year-old Ofri Druckman enthusiastically declared as two of her friends, one Arab and one Jewish, nodded appreciatively.

All holidays important to Judaism, Islam and Christianity are noted in class. Nor do teachers avoid difficult dates such as Israeli Independence Day and "Nakba" Day (when Palestinians mourn the birth of the nation of Israel).

Rebecca Bardach, Hand in Hand director of resource development and strategy, and parent of two children enrolled in the Hand in Hand school, vividly remembers a day about four years ago when she saw a 4-year-old boy at a daycare pretending to shoot a gun. When his mother came to pick him up, he cried out, "Mommy, I killed Arabs." Aware that children on all sides of conflict act out scenarios like this, Bardach was more grieved by the fact that the child's mother was so concerned about being late that she didn't even respond to his imagining the killing of other human beings.

Jewish photographer Dafna Kaplan said she heard her daughter, who attends a different school in Jaffa, call Palestinians "dirty Arabs" for the first time after the recent acts of violence in Israel. Kaplan described Hand in Hand as "the only sane place," which could only exist as people accept it as "a mission," as something "you have to create [because] it won't happen by itself."

"What is glaringly evident throughout the school is the strong desire to learn from one another, a commitment to tolerance and a sense of urgency to coexist," wrote Jewish-American educator and Hand in Hand volunteer Miri Wexler. "The students ... are not scared of differences; rather they approach 'the other' with curiosity and admiration."

Arab engineer Hani Chamy, who sent her two girls to the Hand in Hand preschool, said the schools prove that students of different backgrounds can "be together, while still different, and learn about each other."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Arab-Jewish preschool an island of sanity amid violence, parents say. USA Today 

Hand in Hand Center for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel. Tel Aviv-Jaffa Preschool website 

The Big Questions

1. The Free Dictionary defines to coexist as "1) To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place. 2) To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy: 'I've been wrestling with the dilemma of how you coexist with those you hate' (Ariel Dorfman)." When have you found peaceful coexistence with someone or others particularly difficult? What factors made coexistence hard to achieve? How did you handle the stress of the situation? Can you coexist with those who hate you? If so, how do you do that? If not, what options do you have?

2. Respond to these questions from Rebecca Bardach, parent of two Hand in Hand students: "Are we the chosen people? To me the question is: Are we a choosing people? At every point along the way, we can choose what kind of society this is, what kind of people we are, which traditions we will espouse, debate or reject." What is the difference between being a "chosen people" and being "a choosing people"? What might be positive or negative aspects of viewing yourselves as "chosen"? as "choosing"? Can one be both? If a small group believes it can "choose" on behalf of the entire society, is that necessarily arrogant?

3. Were you ever welcomed as a stranger or included in spite of your differences? How did it affect you and others involved? When have you included a stranger in an attempt to find out more about him or her? Describe the experience and the outcome.

4. Respond to another set of questions from Bardach: "Today's students become tomorrow's citizens. What happens when children grow up rooted only in their community, and without any opportunity to interact with others, to be challenged by and appreciative of diversity, to learn about or learn from others? What kind of socializing influence and values do we want for our children? What kind of person[s] and what kind of citizen[s] do we want our children to become?"

5. Have you ever been involved in an experience in which a group of disparate individuals were required to work through their differences together to accomplish a task? What was challenging about the experience? What was rewarding?

Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope

Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:

John 4:7-10

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." (For context, read 4:3-42.)

Jesus' encounter with this woman highlights God's desire to invite the sinner and the outcast to share in God's salvation. Most Jews would have avoided Samaritans in general, and most Jewish men would have avoided the woman in particular, because of her gender, her "colorful" past (she had had five husbands, not counting the man she was living with at the time), her ethnicity, and her religion, which they considered an impure mishmash of their own faith with idolatrous practices of other belief systems. But Jesus deliberately traveled through Samaria (v. 4), and while there, he had the audacity to ask to share her cup before offering himself as living water to quench her spiritual thirst.

Questions: How often do you share things in common with people who are radically different from you? What barriers stand in the way of that kind of sharing for you? How did Jesus go about dismantling barriers between himself and the Samaritan woman, and what was the result?

Galatians 3:26-29

… for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. (For context, read 3:23-29.)

Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia deals with the problem of Jewish believers who were advocating a two-tiered hierarchy within the church that put those who followed Jewish laws in a higher class than Gentiles who did not. In no uncertain terms, Paul rejects that philosophy, arguing that we are not saved by our own works, but only through faith in Christ. Therefore, no one has higher status or worth than anyone else in the kingdom of God.

Questions: If Paul were writing a letter to Christians today, what other groups do you think he might add to the statement "There is no longer Jew or Greek … slave or free … male or female"? Does that mean that human diversity disappears, or something else?

Besides defining what we are not, how does Paul describe who we are in this passage? Who does Paul include among the "children of God"? Is anyone still excluded? Why or why not? What is meant by the statement that "the ground is level at the foot of the cross"?

Acts 10:15-17

The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. (For context, read 10:1-48.)

In this passage, Peter is praying around lunchtime on a rooftop in Joppa, the very same city featured in our news story today, when he falls into a trance. In a vision, he sees all sorts of animals being lowered down from heaven in a sheet, and he hears a voice telling him to kill and eat one of them. When he objects that he has never eaten prohibited foods, the voice declares that God's cleansing removes the "banned" label.

The vision occurs three times, as if to emphasize the importance of the message, but then the sheet is taken up to heaven, as if to indicate that the message is about more than dietary restrictions. At that moment, messengers from a Roman centurion show up, and Peter begins to connect the dots.

Even though the visitors are Gentiles with whom it was unlawful for Jews to associate (vv. 28-29), Peter not only speaks to them but gives them lodging (v. 23) and accompanies them to the house of Cornelius, where he preaches this message of inclusion: "... God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him, … Jesus Christ … is Lord of all, [and] everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (vv. 34-36, 43).

Questions: When is the last time you were surprised or puzzled by something God revealed? What was God trying to teach you?

Matthew 5:9, 43-45

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. … You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. (For context, read 5:1- 12, 43-48.)

In these verses from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus lays out the nature of those who are God's children.

Questions: Why do you think those who make peace will be called children of God? Who gives peacemakers that name? Why are the acts of loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you markers of the children of God?

What is the relationship between "tough love" and peacemaking? Is it possible to be a peacemaker while at the same time exercising "tough love"? Why or why not?

John 1:9, 12

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. … But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God …. (For context, read 1:9-13.)

These verses from John's introduction to his gospel describe the incarnation of Jesus, when God became human and dwelt among us as Emmanuel, God with us. He is depicted as light that shines on everyone; as the sun when it dawns does not provide light only for certain people of a particular race or gender or status in the world, so Jesus does not hide his light from the rich or the poor, from the powerful or the weak. He enlightens everyone. In the context we also see him rejected, yet to all who receive him, who believe in his name, he gives power to become children of God.

In the preceding passage, we read that peacemakers will be called children of God and that those who love their enemies and pray for their persecutors will be children of God. Here, to those who receive Jesus and believe in his name, he gives power to become children of God.

Questions: What is involved in becoming God's children? How do people in the world recognize those who are truly the children of God, who bear God's likeness in everything they say and do?

For Further Discussion

1. Read the lyrics or listen to the song "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" from the musical South Pacific. Is hatred primarily inborn, or introduced from one's environment? Comment on this from TWW writer Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "Attitudes of children are certainly influenced by authority figures and peers as well as by blatant or subtle subtexts in messages from educators, government agencies, marketers, purveyors of popular culture and beliefs, and others." How can the church assist parents who want to "train up a child in the way he should go"?

2. Ashutosh Varshney, in his 2002 book Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, reported that ethnic violence between Muslims and Hindus was largely restricted to certain cities where groups were segregated and lacking in common experience and goals. Such violence rarely happened in the smaller villages where people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds lived close enough together to get to know each other well as neighbors. 

     In other words, when disparate people belonged to the same associations, unions, book clubs, athletic clubs, businesses and organizations, sharing common interests and goals, violence did not generally break out. 

     With further study, Varshney discovered that this phenomenon held true in the former Yugoslavia, Ireland and the United States. When people belong to the same organizations and share daily associations they generally will ignore provocations, finding a way to get along, even with tremendous differences.

     In light of these findings, consider the following questions:

a) Why do you think some prominent people in government and media suggest we should be in a state of war, or at least be wary and suspicious of those we see as different from us? 

b) What associations do you have in common with people who are substantially different from you? 

c) Must associations only be among Christians, or does Christ call us to cross all boundaries and barriers? 

d) How might church members go about building deep and intentional relationships with others who are quite different from ourselves? 

e) When and where have you seen peace preserved because people with significant differences worked together to find and build common ground? 

f) What is the role of the church in such endeavors?

Responding to the News

What can you do as an individual to begin to share things in common with people who are substantially different from you? What can your group or church do to connect more meaningfully with people who don't look like you? Why might you want to do this?

Closing Prayer

Father God, help us to open our hearts to you and to others with the generosity and guilelessness of children, so that we may see people as you see them, love them with enthusiasm, and welcome them without reservation, as you have welcomed us. For the sake of Christ and by the power of the Spirit at work within and among us. Amen.