RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS TODAY
(a) Examine the forms of conflicts existing in the Christian church today.
INTRODUCTION
A conflict in this context refers to a situation or condition of disharmony in an interactional process in the religious settings.
The Christian church is blessed by being made of many people who care deeply about it. Any time that people care deeply about something, it is inevitable that some conflict will ensue. Conflict is a natural, healthy part of community life, and if handled responsibly, will lead to further growth. But it is incumbent upon Christians, to be responsible about the way they participate in conflict
There are several forms of conflicts existing in the Christian church today world wide as here below presented;
First of all it is because of dangers of modern states which tend to develop secular ideologies that separate the state from particular religious affiliation. Secularism guarantees citizens freedom to believe and practice their faith in whatever location or circumstances that all religious groups have right to acquire places of worship anywhere in the country, that the government does not give preferential treatment to any particular religion and that within each religious group, no established religious authority is allowed to determine the orthodoxy or belongingness of sects, denominations or brotherhoods (IDEA, 2001). When this kind of arrangement manifests itself, then what follows sometimes is a conflict.
Secondly there are some aspects of religion that make it susceptible to being a latent source of conflict. All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter.
Also religious extremists can contribute to conflict escalation in churches today. They see radical measures as necessary to fulfilling God’s wishes. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world. If the world is a struggle between good and evil, it is hard to justify compromising with the devil. Any sign of moderation can be decried as selling out, more importantly, of abandoning God’s will and will therefore result into a conflict.
Some groups, such as America’s New Christian Right and Jama’at-i-Islami of Pakistan, have operated largely through constitutional means though still pursue intolerant ends. In circumstances where moderate ways are not perceived to have produced results, whether social, political, or economic, the populace may turn to extreme interpretations for solutions. Without legitimate mechanisms for religious groups to express their views, they may be more likely to resort to conflict.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have engaged in conflict, but they also gained supporters through social service work when the government is perceived as doing little for the population. Radical Jewish cells in Israel and Hindu nationalists and Sikh extremists in India are other examples of fundamentalist movements driven by perceived threat to the faith. Religious revivalism is powerful in that it can provide a sense of pride and purpose, but in places such as Sri Lanka and Sudan it has produced a strong form of illiberal nationalism that has periodically led to intolerance and discrimination hence conflict.
Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism, which can be conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers of the flock. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on subject people was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonization. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practice their faith. In part, this is out of a desire to minimize beliefs the dominant group feels to be inferior or dangerous. Suppression of Christianity in China and the Sudan are but two contemporary examples. In the case of China, it is not a conflict between religions, but rather the government views religion as a dangerous rival for citizens’ loyalties. All of these instances derive from a lack of respect for other faiths which in the long run end up in conflict.
Religious fundamentalists are primarily driven by displeasure with modernity. Motivated by the marginalization of religion in modern society, they act to restore faith to a central place. There is a need for purification of the religion in the eyes of fundamentalists.
Recently, cultural globalization has in part become shorthand for this trend. The spread of Western materialism is often blamed for increases in gambling, alcoholism, and loose morals in general. Al-Qaeda, for example, claims it is motivated by this neo-imperialism as well as the presence of foreign military forces in the Muslim holy lands. The liberal underpinning of Western culture is also threatening to tradition in prioritizing the individual over the group, and by questioning the appropriate role for women in society. Of course, the growth of the New Christian Right in the United States indicates that Westerners too feel that modern society is missing something.
Conflict over abortion and the teaching of evolution in schools are but two examples of issues where some groups feel religious tradition has been abandoned.
Religious nationalists too can produce extremist sentiment. Religious nationalists tend to view their religious traditions as so closely tied to their nation or their land that any threat to one of these is a threat to one’s existence. Therefore, religious nationalists respond to threats to the religion by seeking a political entity in which their faith is privileged at the expense of others. In these contexts, it is also likely that religious symbols will come to be used to forward ethnic or nationalist causes. This has been the case for Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Serbian Orthodox church in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, and Hindu nationalists in India.
Popular portrayals of religion often reinforce the view of religion being conflictual. The global media has paid significant attention to religion and conflict, but not the ways in which religion has played a powerful peacemaking role. This excessive emphasis on the negative side of religion and the actions of religious extremists generates interfaith fear and hostility. What is more, media portrayals of religious conflict have tended to do so in such a way so as to confuse rather than inform. It does so by misunderstanding goals and alliances between groups, thereby exacerbating polarization. The tendency to carelessly throw around the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘extremist’ masks significant differences in beliefs, goals, and tactics.
Ethnic culture is one of the important ways people conceive of themselves, and culture and identity are closely intertwined (IDEA,2001). On the other hand, the Oxford Learners Dictionary explained religion as the belief in a super human controlling power that is entitled to obedience and worship. It goes further to state that it is a particular system of faith and worship that one is entitled to. Religious insecurity can provoke interminable conflicts that make democratic practice impossible.
Generally speaking, democracy is a way of life that involves freedom to make choices about what one does, where he lives, and how he uses his earnings, the operation of institutions-the home, the church, local, state and federal government, the right of justified property ownership, social justice and fairness, absence of social and class barriers, equality of opportunity; and the solution of common problems through the exercise of the free will of the people (Mbachu,1990). Only democracy therefore provides and allows conflicts in society to be resolved by rational argument and persuasion rather than by violent coercion. In a democracy, government should not only be responsible or acceptable to the ‘demos’-people or the masses-but indeed political power itself and its expression should emanate from the popular will and failure to do so will automatically result into conflict.
Conflict of interest as cause of crises for example the causes of ethno-religious conflicts in Nigeria are embedded in the basic foundations of the Nation-State. These contradictions have proved incurable especially as efforts to obliterate them have always been truncated aggressively by the custodians of power.
Religious intolerance and the nation state where religious contradictions that Nigeria faces is daunting .The country is essentially a heterogeneous society, with the two monotheistic religions-Islam and Christianity-enjoying the loyalty of most Nigerians. A sizeable fraction of the population still prides itself as being pure religious traditionalists, meaning adherence to one or the other of the many traditional religions. The origin of the employment of religion as an instrument of politics in Nigeria can be traced to the colonial era. Although the British colonialists claimed to have Nigerians on the imperative of secularity in a multi-religious society, available evidence suggests that the colonial administration consciously employed religion as an instrument of pacification. This kind of arrangement has brewed religious conflicts in Nigeria for a long time.
Ethnic diversities and the nation-state a notion of Nigeria as a mere geographic expression (Awolowo,1990) was engendered by the forceful packaging by colonial authoritarian fiat of unwilling communities of diverse origin and culture under the same polity. Consequently, relations and political behavior of the peoples are characterized by mutual suspicion and invidious hatred since they are strange bed-fellows, who were only coerced into the Nation-State via amalgamation. Until 1960, Nigeria was a British colony; like most colonies, it was not constructed for internal coherence, but rather for the administrative convenience of the British (Shively,1997:39).Over 250 different languages and dialects are spoken within its borders, and there is also an important religious split, as the north is primarily Muslim and the south is predominantly Christian.
Religion is sometimes viewed as the belief in a super human controlling power that is entitled to obedience and worship. It goes further to state that it is a particular system of faith and worship that one is entitled to. Religious insecurity can provoke interminable conflicts that make democratic practice impossible.
In virtually every heterogeneous society where religious difference serves as a source of potential latent conflict as individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension. Religion is not necessarily conflictual but, as with ethnicity or race, religion serves, as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from the other. Often, the group with less power, be it political or economic is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, however, such as the Jews historically were in much of Europe, they are often well aware of the latent conflict.
Also religion and conflict escalation where religion is a latent source of conflict, a triggering event can cause the conflict to escalate. At this stage in a conflict, grievances, goals, and methods often change in such a way so as to make the conflict more difficult to resolve. The momentum of the conflict may give extremists the upper hand in a religious environment.
Another reason for the myth of conflict continuing religion is because at the moment there is undoubtedly a conflict between one wing of Christianity and modern science over evolution. Although the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants have long ago reconciled themselves to Darwin’s theory and modified their theology accordingly, many conservative Christians remain deeply suspicious about evolution and its alleged metaphysical implications. Unfortunately the reaction of many who are defending evolution is to try and widen the gap between religion and science by using it to push non-scientific but anti-religious philosophical agendas.
The conflict between science and religion is an acceptable cliché which crops up all over the place. In the episode of The Simpsons in which the late Stephen J Gould was a guest voice, Lisa found a fossil angel and events led to a court exclusion order being placed on religion to try and sort out the eternal conflict.
Finally birth control causes conflict within religion today. For example some Protestants speak of birth control as a positive virtue. They are hurt and perhaps humiliated that their code of personal morality in this matter is held to be grossly wrong by their Catholic friends. The Catholic Church views this practice as contrary to the natural law, that is, to the law of human reason itself. The birth-control question is only a part of her total philosophical and theological view of the right relations between husband and wife.
Conclusion
According to this presentation, no Christians are justified sinners, and Christians do go through conflict. This should always be expected and therefore we should be open about conflict, and learn to deal with it in a godly and Christian manner.
References
Bebber, M. (1996): E-mail communication to Tom Henderson.
Bower, K,(1996): Western Civilization, College Of Biblical Studies.
Charles E. Hummel, (1986): The Galileo Connection (InterVarsity Press.
David, L, 1996): Religious Militancy, in Managing Global Chaos, eds, (Washington DC: USIP Press).
Scott, R, A.(2001) : Religion, Conflict Transformation, and Peace building,” in Turbulent Peace: (Washington DC: USIP Press).
Shapin, S. (1996).: The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
Stillman, D, (2002): Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Anchor Books, 1957.
http://www.usip.org/religionpeace/rehr/belethnat.html(22/07/2011)
INTRODUCTION
A conflict in this context refers to a situation or condition of disharmony in an interactional process in the religious settings.
The Christian church is blessed by being made of many people who care deeply about it. Any time that people care deeply about something, it is inevitable that some conflict will ensue. Conflict is a natural, healthy part of community life, and if handled responsibly, will lead to further growth. But it is incumbent upon Christians, to be responsible about the way they participate in conflict
There are several forms of conflicts existing in the Christian church today world wide as here below presented;
First of all it is because of dangers of modern states which tend to develop secular ideologies that separate the state from particular religious affiliation. Secularism guarantees citizens freedom to believe and practice their faith in whatever location or circumstances that all religious groups have right to acquire places of worship anywhere in the country, that the government does not give preferential treatment to any particular religion and that within each religious group, no established religious authority is allowed to determine the orthodoxy or belongingness of sects, denominations or brotherhoods (IDEA, 2001). When this kind of arrangement manifests itself, then what follows sometimes is a conflict.
Secondly there are some aspects of religion that make it susceptible to being a latent source of conflict. All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter.
Also religious extremists can contribute to conflict escalation in churches today. They see radical measures as necessary to fulfilling God’s wishes. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world. If the world is a struggle between good and evil, it is hard to justify compromising with the devil. Any sign of moderation can be decried as selling out, more importantly, of abandoning God’s will and will therefore result into a conflict.
Some groups, such as America’s New Christian Right and Jama’at-i-Islami of Pakistan, have operated largely through constitutional means though still pursue intolerant ends. In circumstances where moderate ways are not perceived to have produced results, whether social, political, or economic, the populace may turn to extreme interpretations for solutions. Without legitimate mechanisms for religious groups to express their views, they may be more likely to resort to conflict.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have engaged in conflict, but they also gained supporters through social service work when the government is perceived as doing little for the population. Radical Jewish cells in Israel and Hindu nationalists and Sikh extremists in India are other examples of fundamentalist movements driven by perceived threat to the faith. Religious revivalism is powerful in that it can provide a sense of pride and purpose, but in places such as Sri Lanka and Sudan it has produced a strong form of illiberal nationalism that has periodically led to intolerance and discrimination hence conflict.
Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism, which can be conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers of the flock. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on subject people was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonization. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practice their faith. In part, this is out of a desire to minimize beliefs the dominant group feels to be inferior or dangerous. Suppression of Christianity in China and the Sudan are but two contemporary examples. In the case of China, it is not a conflict between religions, but rather the government views religion as a dangerous rival for citizens’ loyalties. All of these instances derive from a lack of respect for other faiths which in the long run end up in conflict.
Religious fundamentalists are primarily driven by displeasure with modernity. Motivated by the marginalization of religion in modern society, they act to restore faith to a central place. There is a need for purification of the religion in the eyes of fundamentalists.
Recently, cultural globalization has in part become shorthand for this trend. The spread of Western materialism is often blamed for increases in gambling, alcoholism, and loose morals in general. Al-Qaeda, for example, claims it is motivated by this neo-imperialism as well as the presence of foreign military forces in the Muslim holy lands. The liberal underpinning of Western culture is also threatening to tradition in prioritizing the individual over the group, and by questioning the appropriate role for women in society. Of course, the growth of the New Christian Right in the United States indicates that Westerners too feel that modern society is missing something.
Conflict over abortion and the teaching of evolution in schools are but two examples of issues where some groups feel religious tradition has been abandoned.
Religious nationalists too can produce extremist sentiment. Religious nationalists tend to view their religious traditions as so closely tied to their nation or their land that any threat to one of these is a threat to one’s existence. Therefore, religious nationalists respond to threats to the religion by seeking a political entity in which their faith is privileged at the expense of others. In these contexts, it is also likely that religious symbols will come to be used to forward ethnic or nationalist causes. This has been the case for Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Serbian Orthodox church in Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, and Hindu nationalists in India.
Popular portrayals of religion often reinforce the view of religion being conflictual. The global media has paid significant attention to religion and conflict, but not the ways in which religion has played a powerful peacemaking role. This excessive emphasis on the negative side of religion and the actions of religious extremists generates interfaith fear and hostility. What is more, media portrayals of religious conflict have tended to do so in such a way so as to confuse rather than inform. It does so by misunderstanding goals and alliances between groups, thereby exacerbating polarization. The tendency to carelessly throw around the terms ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘extremist’ masks significant differences in beliefs, goals, and tactics.
Ethnic culture is one of the important ways people conceive of themselves, and culture and identity are closely intertwined (IDEA,2001). On the other hand, the Oxford Learners Dictionary explained religion as the belief in a super human controlling power that is entitled to obedience and worship. It goes further to state that it is a particular system of faith and worship that one is entitled to. Religious insecurity can provoke interminable conflicts that make democratic practice impossible.
Generally speaking, democracy is a way of life that involves freedom to make choices about what one does, where he lives, and how he uses his earnings, the operation of institutions-the home, the church, local, state and federal government, the right of justified property ownership, social justice and fairness, absence of social and class barriers, equality of opportunity; and the solution of common problems through the exercise of the free will of the people (Mbachu,1990). Only democracy therefore provides and allows conflicts in society to be resolved by rational argument and persuasion rather than by violent coercion. In a democracy, government should not only be responsible or acceptable to the ‘demos’-people or the masses-but indeed political power itself and its expression should emanate from the popular will and failure to do so will automatically result into conflict.
Conflict of interest as cause of crises for example the causes of ethno-religious conflicts in Nigeria are embedded in the basic foundations of the Nation-State. These contradictions have proved incurable especially as efforts to obliterate them have always been truncated aggressively by the custodians of power.
Religious intolerance and the nation state where religious contradictions that Nigeria faces is daunting .The country is essentially a heterogeneous society, with the two monotheistic religions-Islam and Christianity-enjoying the loyalty of most Nigerians. A sizeable fraction of the population still prides itself as being pure religious traditionalists, meaning adherence to one or the other of the many traditional religions. The origin of the employment of religion as an instrument of politics in Nigeria can be traced to the colonial era. Although the British colonialists claimed to have Nigerians on the imperative of secularity in a multi-religious society, available evidence suggests that the colonial administration consciously employed religion as an instrument of pacification. This kind of arrangement has brewed religious conflicts in Nigeria for a long time.
Ethnic diversities and the nation-state a notion of Nigeria as a mere geographic expression (Awolowo,1990) was engendered by the forceful packaging by colonial authoritarian fiat of unwilling communities of diverse origin and culture under the same polity. Consequently, relations and political behavior of the peoples are characterized by mutual suspicion and invidious hatred since they are strange bed-fellows, who were only coerced into the Nation-State via amalgamation. Until 1960, Nigeria was a British colony; like most colonies, it was not constructed for internal coherence, but rather for the administrative convenience of the British (Shively,1997:39).Over 250 different languages and dialects are spoken within its borders, and there is also an important religious split, as the north is primarily Muslim and the south is predominantly Christian.
Religion is sometimes viewed as the belief in a super human controlling power that is entitled to obedience and worship. It goes further to state that it is a particular system of faith and worship that one is entitled to. Religious insecurity can provoke interminable conflicts that make democratic practice impossible.
In virtually every heterogeneous society where religious difference serves as a source of potential latent conflict as individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension. Religion is not necessarily conflictual but, as with ethnicity or race, religion serves, as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from the other. Often, the group with less power, be it political or economic is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, however, such as the Jews historically were in much of Europe, they are often well aware of the latent conflict.
Also religion and conflict escalation where religion is a latent source of conflict, a triggering event can cause the conflict to escalate. At this stage in a conflict, grievances, goals, and methods often change in such a way so as to make the conflict more difficult to resolve. The momentum of the conflict may give extremists the upper hand in a religious environment.
Another reason for the myth of conflict continuing religion is because at the moment there is undoubtedly a conflict between one wing of Christianity and modern science over evolution. Although the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants have long ago reconciled themselves to Darwin’s theory and modified their theology accordingly, many conservative Christians remain deeply suspicious about evolution and its alleged metaphysical implications. Unfortunately the reaction of many who are defending evolution is to try and widen the gap between religion and science by using it to push non-scientific but anti-religious philosophical agendas.
The conflict between science and religion is an acceptable cliché which crops up all over the place. In the episode of The Simpsons in which the late Stephen J Gould was a guest voice, Lisa found a fossil angel and events led to a court exclusion order being placed on religion to try and sort out the eternal conflict.
Finally birth control causes conflict within religion today. For example some Protestants speak of birth control as a positive virtue. They are hurt and perhaps humiliated that their code of personal morality in this matter is held to be grossly wrong by their Catholic friends. The Catholic Church views this practice as contrary to the natural law, that is, to the law of human reason itself. The birth-control question is only a part of her total philosophical and theological view of the right relations between husband and wife.
Conclusion
According to this presentation, no Christians are justified sinners, and Christians do go through conflict. This should always be expected and therefore we should be open about conflict, and learn to deal with it in a godly and Christian manner.
References
Bebber, M. (1996): E-mail communication to Tom Henderson.
Bower, K,(1996): Western Civilization, College Of Biblical Studies.
Charles E. Hummel, (1986): The Galileo Connection (InterVarsity Press.
David, L, 1996): Religious Militancy, in Managing Global Chaos, eds, (Washington DC: USIP Press).
Scott, R, A.(2001) : Religion, Conflict Transformation, and Peace building,” in Turbulent Peace: (Washington DC: USIP Press).
Shapin, S. (1996).: The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
Stillman, D, (2002): Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Anchor Books, 1957.
http://www.usip.org/religionpeace/rehr/belethnat.html(22/07/2011)
posted by mwesigye herbert at 2:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home