|
 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
THE SOUL OF EUROPE
IMAGINATION – CONFISCATED
A PAPER FOR DISCUSSION
BY
DONALD REEVES
What is the price of experience?
Do men buy if for a song
Or wisdom for a dance in the street?
No it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his home,
His wife, his children.
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market
Where none can come to buy
And in the withered field where the
Farmer ploughs for bread in rain.
William Blake
INTRODUCTION
The Soul of Europe is an NGO whose aim is ‘to create
tangible signs of hope in Europe’. I founded the Soul of
Europe in 2000 after 30 years as a parish priest in London.
It was not until my colleague Peter Pelz and I arrived in
Banja Luka, Bosnia, in 2000 that we discovered what the Soul
of Europe had to do.
Banja Luka is the administrative centre of the Srpska
Republic, one of the two entities which make up Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and was created in 1995 as part of the Dayton
Agreement. Today Banja Luka is predominantly a Bosnian Serb
city. This was not always the case. Over the past 5
centuries it used to be predominantly Muslim. Under Tito the
Serb population grew, the Croats stayed the same and the
Muslim population, though still the majority, declined.
Banja Luka did not constitute a war zone during the war in
Bosnia. The city saw no fighting, but it experienced the
worst abuses of human rights in the whole country. Nearly
all non-Serbs were forcibly removed from their homes. The
numbers are still being contested, anything between 30,000
and 70,000. As they left, so Serbs being driven out of the
Serbian enclave in Krajina by Croats took their place, as
well as Serbs from Sarajevo.
Since the war the international community has made
considerable efforts to make it possible for people to
return to their homes. A number have returned but most sell
up and leave. This is mainly due to poor employment
prospects, and continuing discrimination and violence by
Serbs against non-Serbs.
Banja Luka is a frontier town, about the size of a place
like Nottingham. It became an important northern outpost of
the Ottoman Empire, on the boundary with the Austro
Hungarian Empire. The town is situated at the entrance to
the Vrbas Gorge, with the mountains of central Bosnia to the
south, the flat plains stretching north to Zagreb and east
to Belgrade.
In 1969 a violent earthquake damaged the city. Today it is a
mixture of shabby non-descript high-rise buildings and
streets of small houses surrounded by mostly unkempt
gardens. Banja Luka still does not feel like home to the
large numbers of Serbs from the Krajina who took over Muslim
properties. This is mainly because these Serbs came from
farming villages, and are not used to living in cities.
Banja Luka used to be one of the most beautiful places in
Bosnia, a popular vacation centre for Serbs and Muslims from
all over former Yugoslavia, because of its attractive
natural setting, and medieval castle overlooking the River
Vrbas which flows through the city - also because of the
Ferhadija Mosque, a celebrated jewel of Ottoman
architecture, designed by Sinan, who built the great
Sulejmanja Mosque in Istanbul. The Ferhadija Mosque was
destroyed with 16 other mosques in 1993 as part of the
Bosnian Serb programme of ethnic cleansing.
The destruction of the mosques, the desecration of Muslim
cemeteries and the shredding of property deeds owned by
Muslims sent a clear signal that history would be rewritten.
The guidebook to Banja Luka makes no mention of the
Ferhadija Mosque, and just refers in one sentence to the
‘centuries of suffering under cruel Turkish rule’. The
foundations of the mosques were carefully dug out. As a Serb
general said: ‘When they (the Muslims) see what we have
done, they will leave on their own accord.’
Today Banja Luka has pretensions to be a capital city. The
Srpska Republic has its own president, two vice-presidents
and a National Assembly of Deputies. France, Germany, the UK
and US have Embassy offices in Banja Luka. There are
tree-lined boulevards typical of any town in the former
Austro Hungarian empire, along which stand municipal
buildings alongside the Orthodox and Catholic cathedrals.
One park has a tennis club popular with the international
community.
The Soul of Europe discovered its mission in Banja Luka. We
learnt about ethnic cleansing and the deliberate destruction
of the Ottoman heritage. We quickly found out about the
intentions to remove every trace of Islam in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
So we promised the mufti of Banja Luka, and the Reis ul
Ulema, the senior religious cleric in Bosnia, that we would
see the Ferhadija Mosque reconstructed exactly as it was.
The mosque represented the heart of Banja Luka. Even
Catholics and Orthodox loved it. One Serb told me that it
was ‘part of the landscape of the town’. The destruction
took place with military precision. Local residents were
warned by the police to keep their windows open so that the
blast of dynamite would not blow the glass in. A curfew was
imposed. The stones were then crushed and removed by lorry.
Once we made the decision to help the mufti, we wrote to the
leaders of Banja Luka, senior politicians, religious
leaders, the mayor and his cabinet, teachers and business
people, to meet together to discuss what steps could be
taken towards Prosperity, Reconciliation and Peace in their
town. Fourteen months after our first visit to Banja Luka we
all met at the Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry
Cathedral. It took that time to persuade them to come. We
had after all arrived in Banja Luka unknown and uninvited.
We soon encountered the visceral mistrust of the west. Were
we spies from the CIA? But they all came. No one walked out.
We were invited to return and continue working in Banja
Luka.
We said: ‘We come with open hands. We want to rebuilt the
Ferhadija, but we want to do all we can to strengthen the
Catholic and Orthodox dioceses, to breathe new life into
politics. We want to reverse history, to show Bosnia and
Europe that Banja Luka can once again become a unique city
in Europe, where all three ethnic groups can flourish
equally, as they have done for centuries before.’
This introduction is no more than a sketch of Banja Luka. A
more complete picture of Bosnia and Herzegovina would
describe the progress since the war of the efforts of the
international community, the UN, Nato, the EU and the Office
of the High Representative, to push Bosnia towards
integration into Europe.
Unless Bosnia takes its place in Europe it will have no
future. Banja Luka will become an economic black hole,
dominated by the mafia and a breeding ground for Serb
nationalism. It has to be said that is anyone’s guess if a
whole range of reforms, of the judiciary, the police,
education, the system of taxation and much else being
implemented by Paddy Ashdown, the present High
Representative, will stick.
I will not continue to describe the activities of the Soul
of Europe in any detail. Our plans for reconstructing the
Ferhadija Mosque as a heritage project, a unique example of
collaboration between Islam and Christianity, our intention
to establish a place where cultural memories are honoured,
our attempts to bring together Catholic and Orthodox
communities, and the birth of the Banja Luka Civic Forum,
whose central tenet is that change happens when those who do
not usually speak are heard by those who do not usually
listen; all these have been described elsewhere. (1)
IMPEDIMENTS
What I need to do now is develop an argument about how the
processes by which funding is obtained compound the
problems. It is not just a question of finding funds to do
the work. This is common to anyone engaged in any form of
pioneering activity. It is simply that the values which
inform funding by governments and the European Commission
contradict the aims of a small NGO committed to address the
issues of justice and the slow difficult work of
reconciliation.
For two years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London
supported the Soul of Europe. We have also had to rely on
gifts from individuals, grants from foundations and at two
critical moments, significant donations from the Libyan
Philanthropic organization, The World Islamic Call Society.
The Soul of Europe prepared and submitted a bid for funding
to the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights,
under the section: Support for Democratisation, Good
Governance and the Rule of Law. This bid concerned
establishing the Banja Luka Civic Forum.
The funding was for a 3 year project. It took three months
to prepare. We submitted it in November 2002. The results of
the bid were to be announced in June 2003, but not until
October 2003 did we learn that the bid had failed. (2)
One of the more curious aspects of applying for funding
through the European Commission is that applicants are
forbidden personal contact with anyone connected with the
Application. Queries can be submitted to an email address,
but that vanished once the deadline passed.
The reason for this regulation is that it prevent any
opportunity for bribery of officials. A proper distance has
to be preserved between potential recipients and donors.
But there is another reason. Given the way applications are
framed and evaluated, human contact becomes unnecessary. The
Application asks, quite reasonably enough, for a clear
statement on aims, objectives and strategy. And then these
demands intensify. Activities have to be described in
detail. Priorities for each activity have to be justified. A
three year project meant that the activities for each month,
month on month, had to be described in detail, and how each
activity related to what had happened before, and what was
planned. Questions about internal and external continuous
assessment have to be answered. Local partners have to
provide value, and estimating and measuring the impact on
target groups was essential. Every activity had to relate to
every other in order that the aims and objectives of the
project could be placed in a logical frame, like a
complicated jigsaw puzzle. Any piece missing and as an
official told me: ‘your bid will be binned!’
A technical and financial grid evaluated the Soul of
Europe’s application. The title says it all. Social
engineering is the core conviction, which affirms that the
world ‘out there’ can be analysed, observed, measured and
activities can be controlled and managed. If the world
beyond the project is uncertain and unstable, a successful
log frame will insulate the project from all that.
If this is the way the world works then inevitably it
conveys a view of human nature which is reductionist and
mechanistic.
For example in Bosnia there is considerable apathy and
unwillingness to take part in the many programmes, which
NGOs concerned with developing civil society arrange. A
friend put it: ‘We had the Turks for 500 years, then the
Austro Hungarians, then 2 world wars, then fifty years of
communism, and you expect us to take charge of our destiny?
Now we have become a training ground for people like you,
with your bright ideas!’ To which I would add that a few
workshops on ‘building capacity’ while better than nothing,
do not really begin to touch the problems. We are confronted
in Bosnia as in so many other places with a demand to be
productive: instant solutions, quick fix and rapid results.
Funding has to produce concrete results, (concrete is a
favourite word in NGO circles) which satisfy politicians and
taxpayers.
But this one-dimensional view of human nature does not
acknowledge the astonishing potential in each of us. In
Bosnia for example there are hardly any opportunities for
recognizing and celebrating the stories of generosity,
compassion, bravery and courage of many Serbs, Muslims and
Croats during the war. And one of the triumphs of the 20th
century is the survival and flourishing of the cultural and
intellectual life of the people of Sarajevo. If ever a
testimony to the human spirit was needed, it happened there,
and continues to thrive.
Of course much of this argument needs careful nuancing.
Projects fail for many different reasons. There are many
successful projects because the managers have learnt to play
the game, which is played from the day the completed
application arrives in Brussels or Whitehall. And only the
most cunning managers see their projects succeed, in spite
of the straight jacket of the neutral, technocratic approach
which informs the process.
The language in which the work of reconciliation is couched
is ‘business speak’: impact, stakeholders, fast track, level
playing fields, resources, targets, bullet points, delivery,
outsourcing, benchmarking, ring fencing, business plans,
etc. The language is ugly. It is sloppy and often
meaningless.
I remember an official telling me: ‘Make sure you deliver
the deliverables in a sustainable way!’ (When I challenged
him to define in what sense he was using the word
‘sustainable’, he could not answer me.)
Three pictures:
Two Bosnians in their twenties now living in London,
refugees from Banja Luka in 1995. They arrived at a meeting
of the Bosnia Diaspora, brandishing well-thumbed paperbacks
on ‘How to Succeed in Business’. One of them enquired how we
were measuring the impact of the project to reconstruct the
Ferhadija Mosque.
In Banja Luka I sat in the Palace Hotel with a courageous
Muslim woman who had stayed in Banja Luka throughout the war
to be with her sick mother. She insisted: ‘This is my town.’
She has become a seasoned fundraiser from foundations and
the EC. We had spoken personally about her experience and
what happened to her during the war. Then she talked about
her work. Out it poured: outputs and outcomes, concrete
projects and the rest. She suddenly stopped. Her eyes filled
with tears. ‘I can’t go on like this!’ she cried.
In another part of Bosnia I visited an NGO. I asked the four
people sitting in front of their computers what they were
doing; preparing reports for their funders, they told me.
What are you doing locally? I asked. Well, they said, we are
networking with our European colleagues. At the heart of
their activities there was a void. Language, yes, but no
life.
People deserve better.
How have we academics, intellectuals, politicians,
officials, experts in development allowed this to happen.
What has gone wrong? What is the root of the problem?
Bureaucracy is not to blame. (3) Bureaucrats are the
guardians of the public purse. Their task is to see that
public money is spent in a way that is accountable to the
public. If all that is required consists of streamlining
systems then changes can and are continually being made to
lessen delays and increase efficiency.
But the problem is deeper and more critical.
What I am describing is that the values, assumptions and
principles informing the concept of ‘materialistic
determinism’ do not fit the patient, slow work of
peacemaking and reconciliation (anymore than they do for
cultural activities or intercultural dialogue). Moreover
‘materialistic determinism’ has become so pervasive, so
embedded in the way we operate and in the institutions we
have created that they are felt as facts. (4) This it is
believed is the way the world is and will be; this is how
the world is imagined, described and desired. That is why it
is so difficult to locate the causes of the ‘misfit’. So,
for example, when I speak about these matters to senior
diplomats at the Foreign Office in London they say: ‘we are
just marionettes.’ And who pulls the strings? I ask. ‘Our
political masters,’ they reply. Talking to politicians,
particularly in Brussels they say: ‘Yes, bureaucracy is a
problem… is there anything I can do to help?’ I am grateful
for the offer but decline.
The ways of describing the world ‘out there’ are based on
illegitimate principles. These secular and autonomous
assumptions are based on claims of power and pragmatism. But
these claims do not ultimately work because they are cut
off, removed from fundamental aspirations. In the west we
find compensation in consumerism and a host of diversionary
activities. Ultimately the myths around materialistic
determinism do not touch people. Ultimately they are not
compelling. Therefore they lack legitimacy. (5)
But there are those who say: ‘It has always been like this,
and it is the same the world over.’ Both assertions are
untrue.
I have been fundraising for over 30 years and I can name the
year, 1980, in the UK when ‘business speak’ began to creep
into the discourse about ‘development’ (and the arts).
Before then philanthropy whether from state of private
patronage has had a long and complex history.
It is also wrong to say what I am describing is universally
true. Two significant donations from the World Islamic Call
Society in Libya were unexpected. They showed no interest in
business plans. The Libyans needed to ensure that their
interests and ours coincided. We found advocates whom the
Libyans trusted; the World Islamic Call Society appreciated
our tenacity and persistence. What might have irritated the
Brussels bureaucrats was for the Libyans, and other Arab
donors, a sign of our seriousness. (6)
What we in the West have construed, we can change. We need
not; we must not be enthralled by the world of ‘business
speak’.
WE ARE FACING A CRISIS OF EPISTEMOLOGY – A CRISIS OF WHAT
COUNTS AS KNOWLEDGE.
There is another way.
This is the way of knowing through the imagination.
THE IMAGINATION
I am the necessary angel of earth
Since, in my sight, you see the world again.
(Wallace Stevens – on Imagination)
Imagination is like Adam’s dream, he awoke and found it true
(John Keats)
‘As Kingfishers Catch Fire’ – a meditation:
Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lonely in limbs, and lonely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s faces
(Gerald Manley Hopkins)
The possible’s slow fuse is lit by the Imagination
(Emily Dickinson)
The authentic Utopia is grounded in recollection
(Herbert Marcuse)
I would even say that it (the imagination) plunges into the
most impressive tradition: that of liberating acts, of the
Exodus and Resurrection. Perhaps there would be no more
interest in emancipation, no more anticipation of freedom,
if the Exodus and Resurrection were effaced from the memory
of mankind.
(Paul Ricoeur)
We know now we have always been in danger
Down in our separateness
And not up here together but till now
We had not touched our strength.
(Adrienne Rich)
I make no apology for prefacing this paper with quotations:
they signal a change of gear, not of direction.
Imagination is a problematic concept in our post modern
world. Post modernism describes, sometimes too
extravagantly, the fragmentation, incoherence and nihilism
of contemporary culture. Only ‘market economics’ and ‘the
market state’ remain unchanging and invincible.
So the briefest of sketches of the genealogy of the
imagination will show that out present melancholy landscape
has not always been so.
Once upon a time the artist used his skills and honed his
disciplines to lead the worshipper to God through the image
of the icon. The intense but passive eyes and stylised
features focussed attention of the worshipper beyond and
through the image. Then the portrait painter stressed the
image as a means of self expression in, for example,
Rembrandt’s sombre portraits which study his physical
disintegration before death or Van Gogh’s vivid paintings
which explore his mental disintegration before suicide.
Today the pop poster revels in surface effects,
incorporating at random, images, which the artist has
ransacked arbitrarily from any source.
Or to put the matter differently: once the artists were
craftsmen whose task was to serve and imitate the
transcendent plans of the Creator. The inventor replaced
this theocentric pattern, taking the place of God. Today he
has been replaced by the artist as an ‘operator’ playing
with images, symbols and metaphors.
This genealogy of the concept of the imagination – its
development and narrowing of focus is well beyond the scope
of this paper, except to say that it is a fleeting reminder
that to move beyond the post-modern confusion we need pay
attention to how we arrived at where we are, and look for a
way forward.
Two aspects of that story are relevant for our enquiry into
the nature of imagination. One is that we cannot renege on
our responsibility to ‘the other’. The ‘face’ of the other
invites and demands a response: to the victim and from the
powerless an unconditional response. ‘Where are you?’ comes
the question. ‘Here I am. Here we are,’ is the response. (7)
This is the ethical imagination – an imagination which has
nothing to do with daydreaming, wishful thinking or the
creation of the fantastical.
But this understanding of the imagination is neither stern
nor censorious. It does not sentimentalise ‘the other’,
because it is balanced and informed by the imagination of
hope. Imagination is that capacity to picture, portray and
receive the world in ways other than it appears to be at
first glance; it is a valid way of knowing. When the
imagination begins to function, then we live ‘as’ if we are
free, ‘as’ if justice will be done, ‘as’ if forgiveness and
peace are possible. The imagination rejects as false what
has been long accepted and beyond criticism. It is
astonishing how a long established ‘as’ can keep people in
their places until a counter ‘as’ emerges, is imagined and
given a voice. Oddly, hope begins to be a strength when
everything is hopeless; its expression is often unreasonable
and indispensable.
There is something old-fashioned, steady and ancient about
the ethical and hopeful imagination. Hopeful imagination is
not about ‘pie in the sky when you die’; neither is it
‘hoping for the best’. It is a communal and public assertion
in which our connectedness is expressed and nourished. Far
from being separate, distant and detached as a world
informed by facts of materialistic determinism, there is a
striving for connection, communion and community although at
every turn these aspirations are always being threatened and
sometimes defeated.
The working out of the ethical and hopeful imagination in
peacemaking and reconciliation has at least 3 implications:
Firstly there has to be a willingness to trust whatever
emerges; not manipulating, not even searching for
explanations. Attention is as necessary as analysis. Stories
as well as statistics. In Bosnia this is particularly
difficult: the outward appearance of normality easily
induces amnesia about the recent past. I am trying to convey
something of the way an artist or a poet goes about her
craft.
Secondly the process of peacemaking and reconciliation is as
much the product as the end result. Time is needed – a lot
of time. Those who initiate this type of work are like
weavers, slowly, patiently weaving a strong new cloth.
Sometimes the threads will unravel, but with patience the
unravelling can resume so the weaving continues. I am
speaking about the long haul, not the quick fix.
The process is slow because all the players have to be
involved. No one is excluded. It is slow because confidence
and trust have to be built up between the different groups.
The decision to reconstruct the Ferhadija and the beginning
of the project on site immediately raises the question: what
do the other groups feel about this, and what should be done
to keep their trust. The weaving has to continue and
momentum is established (which may be destroyed if funding
is not available). As far as possible all levels of society
need to know what is happening: national governments,
international organizations, local governments and NGOs, all
need to be kept in the loop. And always there has to be
readiness to take risks (the Coventry Consultation was one
such). These are some of the strands which the weaver has to
incorporate. And time is needed. (8)
Thirdly it becomes difficult to fit the emerging developing
work into a rigid log frame. The future cannot be so easily
contained. There is a tentative provisional quality because
if the hopeful imagination is flourishing, a new reality
whose outcome cannot easily be measured is being born. (9)
If what I have written is true, it requires an upheaval in
thinking, and in the way international organizations and
institutions, establishing democracy and working for peace
and reconciliation, function. Therefore I hope it will be
possible to consider this paper as a start for conversation.
Donald Reeves
NOTES
1
Reports and updates are available on the Soul of Europe’s
website: www.soulofeurope.org or from our office at:
The Coach House, Church Street
Crediton, Devon UK EX17 2AQ, Phone: 0044 1363 775 100 Fax:
0044 1363 773 911
donalreeve@aol.com peterpelz@aol.com
2
Our application received 85%. I asked for a copy of the
Evaluator’s Report, which I received with the Evaluator’s
name removed. They found little to criticise except to say
‘that it was somehow too ambitious’ and that the Soul of
Europe had had ‘no experience in handling large budgets.’ A
conversation, a meeting or an interview would have resolved
the first criticism; and had the Evaluators taken up
unsolicited references they would have discovered I was
responsible for a budget of a turnover year after year of
800K during my ministry at St James’s Church Piccadilly.
3
That is not quite true, because of the length of time it
takes to process Applications. There are delays. The Soul of
Europe had to wait 11 months before we received the result
of our Application. Our work in Banja Luka proceeded
intermittently because of funding processes. The effect of
these delays on those who worked for us increased their
cynicism about ‘Europe’ and reaffirmed their suspicions that
they were not being taken seriously. When I informed our
partners about the failure of our Application to the EC they
shrugged their shoulders: ‘What else do you expect?’ they
said.
4
‘Materialistic determinism’ is a phrase used to describe the
world view I have been outlining. I came across it in Edward
Luttwak: The Missing Dimension, in Douglas Johnston and
Cynthia Sampson (Eds): Religion: the Missing Dimension of
Statecraft (OUP).
5
This is the argument of Jurgen Habermass in his On
Legitimization. He is a difficult writer, and I hope I have
got his argument right.
In the UK there is an instinctive and widespread distrust of
politicians who use the language of ‘business speak’ –
‘delivering resources, etc.’ Voters are not impressed with
this sort of language applied to Health and Education, etc.
6
I appreciated the contrast made by Professor Leonce Bekeman
in his introductory report: Europe’s Duty in Intercultural
Dialogue in Intercultural Dialogue published by the European
Commission.
‘The Atlantic (western tradition) of mainstream economics
lost its original sense of culture and became an abstraction
free of culture, less and less inspired by the effort of
understanding reality and man’s place in society. On the
contrary the pre-modern ‘Mediterranean’ tradition of
economic thought perceived the economy as embedded in a
complex web of social and cultural institutions regulated by
religion and ethical norms (discussed in L Baeck’s The
Mediterranean tradition in economic thought, Routledge).’
Although this approach may be increasingly marginalized our
experience with Libya and to an extent with Qatar, indicates
that old habits die slowly. Try doing business in Ramadan.
7
The work of Emmanual Levinas has meant a lot to me, in his
understanding of the other – particularly Totality and
Infinity, an Essay on Exteriority (Pittsburgh 1969). More
immediately in Bosnia, the Soul on Europe relies on this
understanding. Because we use interpreters, the ‘eyes’, the
‘face’, the body language of ‘the other’ becomes a
significant part of communication.
8
A story: One of the first actions by the Banja Luka Civic
Forum was a decision to ask the mayor of Banja Luka if they
could attend City Council meetings. The Civic Forum could
then take the debate out on to the streets and into
different neighbourhoods. The mayor refused permission. The
committee of the Forum, made up of Bosniaks, Serbs and
Croats, were not able to handle this refusal. Two left the
committee. The remainder did not know what to do. They had
no experience of confronting local officials. Instead of
considering different options, the group began to
disintegrate. Meanwhile pressure was put on the group to
produce high profile events, round tables, conferences etc.
9
Space prevents a consideration of the place of ‘celebration’
as part of hopeful imagination as well as ways of dealing
with deep disagreements as an opportunity for building
trust. Peace making is an art.
POSTSCRIPT
A CASE FOR BEING BILINGUAL (1)
This paper was written in such a way that I hope it will be
understood by anyone concerned with the issues I have
raised.
I write as a Christian and as one for whom Christianity
matters. Had I written the paper using religious and
theological language, some of my readers would have been
dismayed – especially those who regard Christianity and
religion as incomprehensible or inimical to the pursuit of
justice and reconciliation.
However this matter will not be solved just by getting the
language right - writing in such a way that theology
resonates beyond the church door.
What is at stake are two epistemologies – two different ways
of ‘knowing’; and therefore for those who are ‘religious’ –
Jew, Muslim or Christian for example – there is a need to
stay close to home, to the roots of their traditions,
otherwise they will have nothing to offer than an echo of
whatever happens to be the prevailing wisdom.
A story from the Hebrew Scriptures illustrates the case for
being bilingual. It occurs in 2 Kings, chapter 18, verses
1-27. Jerusalem is under siege. The Assyrians are at the
wall of the city, surrounding it. Rabshakeh is the
negotiator; he stands by the city wall and shouts out the
terms of surrender: ‘You have no choice: your God has
failed!’. Agents of King Hezekiah of Judah say: ‘Speak in
Aramaic; this we understand. But don’t speak to us in Hebrew
within the hearing of the people behind the wall.’ In other
words: ‘Speak to us in the language of international
diplomacy, which ordinary people do not understand. If you
speak in Hebrew they will know what is happening and they
will be terrified.’ Rabshakeh ignores the request and speaks
in Hebrew. This intimidation makes negotiation impossible.
There is also another conversation going on behind the wall:
here the Judeans only speak to each other. King Hezekiah
orders the Judeans not to answer the Assyrians directly. He
goes to the ‘house of the Lord’. The prophet Isaiah is
summoned to pray for the city. Yahweh – the living God –
cannot be mocked. And Isaiah’s response is remarkable: ‘Do
not be afraid of the Empire.’
Two conversations: one on the wall, one behind the wall. On
the wall, the language is that of politics, public policy
and the project: the agenda is that of the prosperity of
Empire. All other claims are excluded. Behind the wall,
there is a communal language which holds them to the primal
source of their faith – Israel’s conversation goes deep into
its strange, unique experience expressed in Isaiah’s words:
‘Do not fear.’ The oddity of the conversation behind the
wall is often forgotten – not just the emergence of the
Torah (which was an ‘alternative’ reading of reality) but
later in the reality of the Kingdom of God where sins are
forgiven, the dead raised, debts are cancelled and outcasts
return home – always a critique of whatever is the dominant
reality.
Two conversations are occurring simultaneously, one on the
wall, one behind the wall - but also together, because what
is happening is too serious to be one-sided.
Those behind the wall do not, should not compromise their
truth. They seek to counter what passes for official truth
in the conversations by those on the wall.
Some say there is only one conversation: the one behind the
wall. No other conversation is valid. (2)
Others say there is only one conversation: the one on the
wall. The story that has lost its power and legitimacy is
the one behind the wall.
But beyond the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ is another
position: that of the person who is learning to be
bilingual, living with different epistemologies, so he/she
is being recreated by the radical Gospel behind the wall,
and is also ready to engage with those on the wall. There is
nothing obscurantist about this position; but whether the
Churches have it within themselves to be self critical, so
clearing a way for renewal, that is a different story.
Donald Reeves
11th November 2004
1
Much of this postscript comes from Walter Brueggemann, whose
writing have been an inspiration. His exposition of the
story comes in The Legitimacy of a Sectarian Hermeneutic –
in Interpretation and Obedience.
2
In the USA those on the wall have hijacked most of those
behind the wall for its own version of Christian imperialism
|
| |
|
|
|
The Ferhadija Trust is a
company limited by guarantee. Registered no. 509744, and a
registered charity no. 1104416.
All material contained on
this site is Copyright © 1999-2005 Revd Donald Reeves.
Any comments, questions etc. about this site can be directed
to the webmaster/designer (Steven
Stewart). |
|