Christ at the Checkpoint - Opening and Day One

Last night was the beginning of the Christ at the Checkpoint conference and it was definitely eye opening. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the fact that our welcoming speaker was the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority – Dr. Salam Fayyad who stated that “The occupation has made us strangers in our own land.” That’s a sentiment that has been often echoed throughout my encounters in the Palestinian territories. The establishment of the state of Israel has been based on the framework of “A land without people for a people without a land.” But there were people who were here. There are always people on the habitable land. (Except on the moon, but I’ll leave colonizing that to Newt Gingrich.) The interesting bit of Dr. Fayyad’s talk was the concept of sharing in rituals as the definition of what it means to be Palestinian. According to him, “This is what it means to be custodians of the Holy Land.” Custodians. Not owners. Custodians. Humans did not make this land holy, God did. It was here that the Abrahamic faiths got their starts, here where the historical Jesus lived, ministered, and died. There is a sacredness inherent in this place to many people of faith, but what does that mean for the conflict and the disputes. Does anyone have a right to claim this land as their own or should everyone who lives here simply identify as a custodian of the land? I wasn’t sure what to expect from Dr. Fayyad – politicians can be very well spoken, but they can also be inflammatory – two sides of the charisma necessary to be elected. However, I was pleased by the main point of Dr. Fayyad’s talk – that the goal of the Palestinians is “To be able to live with dignity in our home.” Is not that a basic human right? I’m sure the Israelis have the same desire, but how do you solve such a heated debate with two (or more) sides laying claim to the same piece of earth. There were, of course, other speakers the first night, but they paled in comparison to Dr. Fayyad and I began to struggle with being a fish out of water in the midst of this evangelical conference.

Today I find myself in an interesting state of mind. The conference begins with worship every morning, but it is in a tradition that is foreign to me. Parts of it leave me a bit uncomfortable. While I support ecumenical movement, this feels odd and I realize that my tradition / beliefs / upbringing make me feel more comfortable in a group where ecumenical refers to Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Perhaps because of the claims to apostolic succession in many of those churches, perhaps because of the shared histories and the strength(?) of the theology. This conference is quite the opposite of that. One of the speakers I’m most looking forward to hearing is a priest of the Latin patriarche of Jerusalem and I really hope I get a chance to speak to him.

It’s odd to be at this conference because the World Council of Churches (WCC) held a conference on the Middle East from February 22-27 and I wonder if I would have found myself more at ease there. The WCC conference had Jews, Muslims, and Christians attending and presenting and I don’t see the same type of diversity at this conference. The lack of diversity is hard for me to reconcile. I need diversity, especially in discussion about peace and conflict resolution. While homogeneity can be comforting, without diversity, without recognizing the stranger as our neighbor, I don’t think there can be peace.

The first presentation of the day was on Arab Christians with an emphasis on the words “Arab” and “Palestinian”. What is the significance of these words, this language? It’s becoming increasingly evident to me that so much of the dialogue (or monologue) on this issue relates to the language used – the words chosen and their connotations. Identity. People. What do we mean by these words? The presentation emphasized how much of the early church was Arab and to me that was a no-brainer. Of course the church was largely Arab – this land, this area, is the birthplace of the church. There is certainly an issue of nationalism, national identity, race, religion – it comes back to the language we use. What makes a people? What makes a nation? How do we construct our identity?

Continuing on the issue of language, why is this conference “Evangelical” and not “Ecumenical”? What separates evangelicals from the rest? What is the opposite of evangelical? It makes me wonder if I belong here. I was telling a colleague last night that I wish I had a cassock or a habit. Something to identify me as catholic/Anglican. I think this speaks to a reluctance of being assumed to be evangelical. I would never describe myself in such a way. I don’t believe in evangelization, I don’t believe in proselytizing, I don’t believe in missionary work in the sense of trying to convert people. For me, “spreading the good news” takes a much more subtle method. Mine is influenced by the words attributed to Saint Francis, “Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.” Actions should speak for themselves and I don’t believe that words will make the difference. By this definition, I’m not sure I qualify. I’m not sure my actions have been representative of Christ, of the gospel. Does that make me less of a Christian? I’m not sure. I come back to the lyrics of the Tom Conry song “Ashes” in the second verse:
“We offer you our failures
We offer you attempts
The gifts not fully given
The dreams not fully dreamt
Give our stumblings direction,
Give our visions wider view,
An offering of ashes,
An offering to you.”


I think it is enough to try, to attempt to live a Christian life. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but I believe the intent of our actions, the intent of our lives, is important. Attempts are still a step in the right direction. As human beings, inherently imperfect, we can never truly be like Christ and the best we can do is to attempt.

The theme of the conference is “Hope in the midst of conflict” and I wonder if this is hope for the existence (and proliferation) of the [evangelical?] church in Israel and the Palestinian Territories or if this is about peace. For me, my reason for being here is the latter. I strongly believe in peace, in working towards that in a nonviolent manner and I don’t think there should be a push to expand the Christian churches here and certainly not to attempt to convert people. If people wish to convert on their own, that is between them and God, but it’s not in me to support something that believes that Christianity is the only way to peace. I don’t believe that Christ is the only way to God. The divine is experienced in a myriad of ways and perhaps some would consider this blasphemy, but I believe that God speaks to all of us in the way we can best understand and connect with. Where does that leave me? It leaves me feeling uncomfortable as an Anglican / Episcopalian at an evangelical conference and struggling to view this as an ecumenical opportunity. I approach this with an open, yet critical, mind. It may be a difficult five days, but hopefully I’ll learn some things and have some great experiences (even if I find myself longing for the critical theological thought of Harvard).