Religion, Peace, and Violence: Citylife Christian Church Perspectives

Religion has the potential to cause violence or facilitate peace. The extent to which religion is used to justify violence or motivate peace building is dependent upon the religion’s doctrine and community. This essay will integrate the attitudes of Citylife Christian Church and relevant theoretical concepts with an aim of critically reviewing the complex relationship between religion, violence, and peace. Initially, I will highlight the role of sacred texts, specifically the Bible, in codifying violent behaviour and promoting peace within religious communities. More importantly, I will examine how these communities enable and encourage peace building, which stems from positive interfaith and intercommunity relationships.

For the perspectives of Citylife, I interviewed Daniel Harding, an Executive Pastor responsible for the church’s administration and organization. He is also a ‘spiritual leader’, although he believes that sounds a tad pious. Dan became involved with Citylife because he “…saw the privilege and necessity of people who could lead others toward Jesus.” He describes the fundamental principles of Citylife as “…people matter, people aren’t who they would like to be, and people need Jesus. And he would love to help them out.” Dan maintains that “everything centers around that”, whether they are discussing relationships, finances, or peace and violence.

Sacred texts can play a significant role in formatting, promoting and justifying acts of religious violence. However, is it the texts that promote violence, or those who read it? Dan believes that “…it is not how you interpret the text, but rather choosing to ignore or address [the passages concerning violence]”. He stresses that when “you choose to address the violent ones you are forced to understand the context of them.” Although there are themes of incest and rape in the Bible, it does not promote the concept of violence, but rather it highlights that violence is a part of particular individual’s narratives. Dan’s ideas are mirrored in the theoretical work of Roy Zuck (1991) who highlights contextualization of sacred texts as paramount in their proper understanding. Zuck (1991) explain through three reasons: firstly, as words and phrases can have multiple meanings, context can determine which meaning is intended; secondly, a series of words are not said in isolation and are instead controlled by what precedes and follows it; and finally, false interpretations arrive from ignoring the context. Sacred texts play a significant role in developing community identity and setting the group’s boundaries, when these texts are inappropriately interpreted it can become a potent tool for supporting belligerence and antagonism (Kille, 2007).

As for interfaith building, there has always been some hesitance to introduce one faith to another. Eboo Patel (2006) emphasizes that it is common for all people of religion, and all leaders of religious communities to wish to preserve their traditions and religious identity, and therefore ‘protect’ it from other belief systems. However, as Rabbi Johnathan Sacks asserts, now more than ever “…careers, relationships, and lifestyles have become things we freely choose from a superstore of alternatives” (Sacks cited in Patel, 2006, p. 17). Therefore, how do we build interfaith relationships when there is some harsh competition for believers? As Dan expresses, “what if the Buddhist guy is really inviting, or what if the Christian is a charismatic speaker?” Concluding, “if people believe that their faith is true, I think it is fair enough to be worried about their believers going”. It is this fear that can feed negative interfaith relationships.

There are complications to creating interfaith relationships within the diverse communities of Australia. Gary Bouma opens his Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the Twenty-first Century by identifying that “…we find ourselves increasingly in a twenty-first century postmodern and secular world where spiritualities are rife, and religious diversity is an accepted feature of a seriously multicultural society…”(2006, p. 1). How then, do we approach interfaith dialogue within our local and global communities when everyone speaks a different religious language? Citylife approaches it from a secular, rather than religious perspective. The Homeless Ministry, is a program run by Citylife where “every second Thursday night, people would just make food, and get blankets and stuff, and just go out to the homeless community. And not just try to be a charity, which is obviously good, but try to actually befriend people, and slowly become part of their circles, by eating dinner with them.” The church is also involved with the Red Frogs, which is a chaplaincy network that provides a “…positive presence within the party culture [of schoolies and leavers events]” (Red Frogs Australia, 2008). Through these examples, it is clear that Citylife is not offering their aid to the community because it increases membership numbers, but because they wish to share the love that Jesus has given them. Dan explains:
It is not just about talking about Jesus, it’s about experiencing his forgiveness, power, freedom. About having God’s spirit use you to change the world, literally, for people’s benefit. When people get like that, they start doing red frogs, serving homeless, going overseas and building stuff. And when that happens, I get excited! That is why I am doing what I am doing.
Moreover, the recent floods in Brisbane are an example of how different faiths can aid the community harmoniously without religious motivation. Dan expressed that he knows of many religious groups who mobilized great forces to aid the flood victims, but “no one was asking what faith they were”. As said by Diana Eck, the shared experience for all people is our encounter with varied worlds and worldviews (1993): our diversity is our commonality.

Dan stresses education as the key to creating interfaith relationships. Through his work at the Multifaith Center at University of Queensland, Dan has come across young people “who are not able to understand dialogue. They feel that once they have an idea, that idea must be right.” He emphasizes, “we must teach our kids that it is okay to discuss, and you must ask questions.” Furthermore, Dan believes it important that “actual relationships are developed, because once you develop a relationship [based on personality], it is much harder to be antagonistic”. And a public forum, “a place where you can evaluate ideas”, is imperative. Although the public can be narrow-minded, Dan believes that “if we are educated about [knowledge and questioning knowledge], then we are forced to have dialogue, and hopefully in that dialogue we can build relationships.” He adds that although he would love to see everyone experience Jesus, “not everyone will, so we must have positive dialogue and positive relationships instead.”

References
Bouma, G. (2006). Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the Twenty-first Century. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Eck, D. (1993). Encountering God: A spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras. Boston, United States of America: Beacon Press.
Kille, A. (2007). “The Bible Made Me Do It”: Text, Interpretation, and Violence. In J. H. Ellens (Ed). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Connecticut, United States of America: Praeger Publishers.
Patel, E. (2006). Affirming Identity, Acheineving Pluralism: Sociological Insights from a Practicionor of Interfaith Youth Work. In E Patel & P Brodeur (Eds) Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action. United States of America: Rowman & Littelfield Piblishers, Inc.
Red Frogs Australia. (2008). About Us. Retrieved Sepetember 12, 2011, from http://www.redfrogs.com.au/hotelchaplaincy/about-us/what-is-red-frogs
Zuck, R. (1991). Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practocal Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. United States of America: David C. Cook Publishers.


Written by Gabrielle Lang