Guys, it's hard to do, but this is great to build in our daily life.
A Prayer from St. Fransiskus Asisi.
TUHAN, jadikanlah aku pembawa damai.
Bila terjadi kebencian, jadikanlah aku pembawa cinta kasih.
Bila terjadi penghinaan, jadikanlah aku pembawa pengampunan.
Bila terjadi perselisihan, jadikanlah aku pembawa kerukunan.
Bila terjadi kesesatan, jadikanlah aku pembawa kebenaran.
Bila terjadi kebimbangan, jadikanlah aku pembawa kepastian.
Bila terjadi keputus-asaan, jadikanlah aku pembawa harapan.
Bila terjadi kegelapan, jadikanlah aku pembawa terang.
Bila terjadi kesedihan, jadikanlah aku pembawa sukacita.
Ya Tuhan Allah,
ajarlah aku untuk lebih suka menghibur daripada dihibur;
mengerti daripada dimengerti;
mengasihi daripada dikasihi;
sebab dengan memberi kita menerima;
dengan mengampuni kita diampuni,
dan dengan mati suci kita dilahirkan ke dalam Hidup Kekal.
Amin.
Stay blessed!
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
LOVE
" Isabella Swan, I promise to love you every moment forever. And would you do me the extraordinary honor of marrying me?” - quoted from "Eclipse" movie dialogue -. So sweet! Loving and be loved forever. Idealnya, all of us pasti menginginkan hal itu. A marriage should happens once in a life time. Everyone dreams of an eternal love. In our human being it can be translated as; "love of a life time, till death do us apart". The most important; that's what GOD want us to be! And HE wants us to keep it in mind. Itulah mengapa di setiap pemberkatan pernikahan in Catholic way selalu dikatakan imam dan diamini umat, sabdaNYA ini: " Apa yang dipersatukan Tuhan, TIDAK BOLEH diceraikan manusia." It means, cinta yang mendasarinya dituntut untuk selalu eksis, accompanied by sahabatnya; KESETIAAN.. Cinta yang sejati itu SETIA dan unselfish oriented.
There are many persons who might ask; is it possible? Is it realistic? See, it's happening to some people around us.
Well, guys, actually it's depend on our perspective about loving. If love is translated only as a beautiful feeling; something we feel, something we can't stop thingking of coz an attraction from someone and make everything seems beautiful, and just based on it we. decide to marry someone and promise love him/ her forever with a belief that you can do anything for it, that promise will lose it's meaning.
People change, feelings change You might stop feeling it if your heart were to change
This perspective is one of some causes why divorcement, polygamy happens in this world. They failed knowing what a true love is, and live in it.
A friend of mine has a different perspective about love. That's true that a love is related with feeling, with heart, but the most important is; it's connected with mind too. Love is an action, not only about emotions.
He said; wanna know how to make a marriage last? Stop thinking that love is that feeling of butterflies in your tummy. Stop thinking that love is that giddy feeling of attraction. Start thinking that loving means giving respect, commitment, loyalty, and the deliberate choice to move past negative emotions that might pull things apart. Love is not about fair weather relationships. It's about weathering storms together. Love is not just live in your heart, but deeply in your soul! That's LOVE. A grew up love.
So, if you feel guilty when you forget your true lover coz someone else has attracted tto you, just realize that actually your love in your soul remind you not to do the mistake with other woman/man, and come back to your true lover, coz CINTA sejati itu SETIA dan menjaga komitmen. It's bigger than just feeling.
Stay blessed!
There are many persons who might ask; is it possible? Is it realistic? See, it's happening to some people around us.
Well, guys, actually it's depend on our perspective about loving. If love is translated only as a beautiful feeling; something we feel, something we can't stop thingking of coz an attraction from someone and make everything seems beautiful, and just based on it we. decide to marry someone and promise love him/ her forever with a belief that you can do anything for it, that promise will lose it's meaning.
People change, feelings change You might stop feeling it if your heart were to change
This perspective is one of some causes why divorcement, polygamy happens in this world. They failed knowing what a true love is, and live in it.
A friend of mine has a different perspective about love. That's true that a love is related with feeling, with heart, but the most important is; it's connected with mind too. Love is an action, not only about emotions.
He said; wanna know how to make a marriage last? Stop thinking that love is that feeling of butterflies in your tummy. Stop thinking that love is that giddy feeling of attraction. Start thinking that loving means giving respect, commitment, loyalty, and the deliberate choice to move past negative emotions that might pull things apart. Love is not about fair weather relationships. It's about weathering storms together. Love is not just live in your heart, but deeply in your soul! That's LOVE. A grew up love.
So, if you feel guilty when you forget your true lover coz someone else has attracted tto you, just realize that actually your love in your soul remind you not to do the mistake with other woman/man, and come back to your true lover, coz CINTA sejati itu SETIA dan menjaga komitmen. It's bigger than just feeling.
Stay blessed!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Judgement
Jangan menghakimi jikalau kamu tidak ingin dihakimi. Sinkron dengan perintah yang umumnya diamini banyak orang; perbuatlah apa yang engkau inginkan orang lain perbuat padamu. Idealnya begitu..kenyataannya ada saja yg berpikir "Itu bagian loe, gw mau loe yg lakuin perintah itu, gw terima result-nya aja" alias mau enaknya sendiri. "Loe harus hargai gw, jangan judge gw. Gw nih orang yg bener & elo yg salah." Kadang tanpa lihat kenyataannya. Aneh juga, sudah tahu idealnya, tapi kenapa ya banyak orang suka hakimi orang lain, ngegosip,- jahatnya - kadang menyimpulkan dan menghakimi orang lain dengan point of view yang salah, pikiran yang dangkal."Suka2 gw!" (Tidak lagi berpikir "Kalau saya di posisi dia, gimana ya?") Empati sepertinya jadi barang yang langka.
Some of us bisa lihat 'semut' di mata orang lain (padahal belum tentu benar juga kalau yang di mata orang lain itu semut), tapi tidak bisa lihat balok di matanya sendiri. Yesus sangat mengecam hal ini. DIA men-skak mat- tipikal orang yang suka menhakimi dan kemudian menghukum sesamanya. Cerita soal pezinah yang dihakimi & dihukum, hendak dilempari batu oleh orang yang tidak bisa melihat 'balok' di matanya sendiri.Yesus mengatakan siapa yang merasa tidak berdosa dipersilakan menghukum wanita itu. Akhirnya tidak ada satupun yang berani melempari wanita itu. Coba deh kita intropeksi diri, apakah kita sering berada di posisi orang-orang itu?
Guys, penghakiman dan penghukuman bukan hak kita. Itu hak Allah. Ada saatnya penghakiman dan penghukuman itu ada. Alangkah sombongnya kita jika kita melakukan hal itu, padahal Pencipta kita sangat murah hati untuk mengampuni kita dan selalu berpikir positif kalau kita bisa berubah. Memang siapa sih kita? Kita cuma debu di bawah kakiNya.
Bagian kita adalah "menerbitkan terang atas orang-orang yang baik dan jahat" Berbuat baik kepada semua orang & 'menarik' orang lain agar bisa menjadi lebih baik. tanpa kecuali. Mengesampingkan ego, menghilangkan pikiran negatif, mengubah perspektif lama menjadi selaras dengan kehendakNya.Sama seperti BAPA yang menurunkan hujan & menerbitkan matahari tidak hanya bagi orang yang baik, namun juga bagi yang jahat. Menjadi sempurna - dalam kapasitas kita sebagai manusia - sama seperti DIA yang adalah sempurna (Mat.5:45-48)
Stay blessed!:)
Some of us bisa lihat 'semut' di mata orang lain (padahal belum tentu benar juga kalau yang di mata orang lain itu semut), tapi tidak bisa lihat balok di matanya sendiri. Yesus sangat mengecam hal ini. DIA men-skak mat- tipikal orang yang suka menhakimi dan kemudian menghukum sesamanya. Cerita soal pezinah yang dihakimi & dihukum, hendak dilempari batu oleh orang yang tidak bisa melihat 'balok' di matanya sendiri.Yesus mengatakan siapa yang merasa tidak berdosa dipersilakan menghukum wanita itu. Akhirnya tidak ada satupun yang berani melempari wanita itu. Coba deh kita intropeksi diri, apakah kita sering berada di posisi orang-orang itu?
Guys, penghakiman dan penghukuman bukan hak kita. Itu hak Allah. Ada saatnya penghakiman dan penghukuman itu ada. Alangkah sombongnya kita jika kita melakukan hal itu, padahal Pencipta kita sangat murah hati untuk mengampuni kita dan selalu berpikir positif kalau kita bisa berubah. Memang siapa sih kita? Kita cuma debu di bawah kakiNya.
Bagian kita adalah "menerbitkan terang atas orang-orang yang baik dan jahat" Berbuat baik kepada semua orang & 'menarik' orang lain agar bisa menjadi lebih baik. tanpa kecuali. Mengesampingkan ego, menghilangkan pikiran negatif, mengubah perspektif lama menjadi selaras dengan kehendakNya.Sama seperti BAPA yang menurunkan hujan & menerbitkan matahari tidak hanya bagi orang yang baik, namun juga bagi yang jahat. Menjadi sempurna - dalam kapasitas kita sebagai manusia - sama seperti DIA yang adalah sempurna (Mat.5:45-48)
Stay blessed!:)
Monday, February 16, 2009
No Body Perfect!
No body perfect. Suatu ungkapan yang sangat familiar & mudah diutarakan yah, but pada kenyataannya tidak mudah untuk diterima dan dihadapi. Saya mendapati banyak orang tidak mudah menerima & memaklumi kenyataan ungkapan itu dalam diri orang-orang di sekitarnya. Penolakan, kepahitan hati, antipati dan dendam dengan segala implementasinya adalah buah-buah dari ketidaksanggupan menerima bahwa no body perfect.
Saya rasa setiap orang mengalami pergulatan untuk menerima bahwa memang tidak ada yang sempurna. Jika saja, idealnya, setiap orang mampu menerima, memaklumi kelemahan orang lain dan karenanya bisa mengampuni dan mencari solusi terhadap ketidaksempurnaan sesama dan dirinya sendiri, dengan saling melengkapi dan menyempurnakan satu sama lain, maka berbahagialah seluruh umat manusia di bumi ini. Hidup menjadi terasa lebih mudah untuk dijalani bersama, dan pastinya Kerajaan Allah akan tercipta di bumi ini. I’m dreaming of it...
Yah...namun realitas yang kita hadapi sekarang jelas masih jauh dari ideal. Kenyataan yang ada orang saling menjatuhkan, bahkan mencari-cari kesalahan yang sering kali dilatarbelakangi dari pengalaman pahit yang pernah dialami dan membekas, membuahkan sikap ‘membalas’ dalam berbagai bentuk pengejawantahannya yang sebenarnya didasari naluri. Kalau dipikir dalam-dalam, useless to do yah... Ndak ada goal yang sejalan dengan kehendak Allah dengan sikap seperti itu.
Ah...saya jadi berpikir sejauh itu dari pengalaman yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini. Saya memang sedang menghadapi tipikal orang yang mengalami masalah penerimaan terhadap ketidaksempurnaan kronis. Ketidakmampuan menerima ketidaksempurnaan diri sendiri telah menjadi dasar ketidakmampuan menerima ketidaksempurnaan diri orang lain di sekitarnya. Beliau sulit sekali menerima masukan, kritik, cepat tersinggung, dan cenderung merugikan orang lain dengan masalah internalnya itu. Menjadi over protektif terhadap dirinya sendiri dan cenderung berpandangan negatif terhadap orang-orang di sekitarnya dan mencari cara melindungi dirinya tidak perduli itu merugikan orang lain atau tidak. Mencoba menutupi kekurangannya dengan mencari cara agar orang lain menilainya baik, tidak perduli dengan cara menjatuhkan orang lain atau bahkan melakukan pembunuhan karakter orang lain demi kepentingannya sendiri. Sangat sulit menerima kekurangan orang lain, dan seringkali menjadikannya alat untuk mencoba mencari identitas keunggulannya, terlebih di mata orang lain. Saya rasa orang ini mengalami ketakutan yang akut di dalam jiwanya karena ketidakmampuan menerima diri sendiri.
Kalau mau jujur, pusing juga menghadapi tipikal orang seperti itu. Orientasinya tidak mencoba mencari solusi jika ada masalah, malah mengembangkan satu masalah menjadi masalah-masalah baru. Menilai satu masalah hanya dari sudut pandangnya yang sempit saja, dan bahayanya mengambil tindakan berdasarkan sudut pandangnya yang sangat terpengaruh kondisi emosionalnya yang tidak bisa menerima ketidaksempurnaan orang lain. Menghukum orang lain atas dasar prasangka negatifnya, penilaian subyektifnya pribadi yang sama sekali tidak bisa dijadikan dasar yang ideal untuk membuat keputusan dan tindakan eksekusi yang fair.
Pernah menghadapi orang seperti itu, guys? Hm... No body perfect ya... Ndak perduli apakah seorang biarawati atau awam, ndak perduli seorang bos besar atau seorang bawahan.
Well, seperti saya berusaha menerima kekurangan diri saya apa adanya, saya pun berusaha menerima kekurangan ‘orang’ yang saya hadapi ini. Being good person and full of kindness to this guy adalah jalan yang tepat yang senantiasa harus saya perjuangkan, walaupun memang tidak mudah (so...please pray for me guys!) Seperti apa yang diteladankan oleh Sr. Teresa dari Liseux dalam menghadapi orang yang menyebalkan dan merugikan orang lain. Dia memilih untuk terus berjuang untuk menerima orang lain apa adanya dan menjadi pribadi yang baik bagi orang tersebut, bahkan berjuang untuk mencintai orang tersebut, mendoakannya, walaupun dia memang harus bergulat melawan dirinya sendiri untuk tidak mengimplementasikan kehendaknya sendiri (untuk tidak menerima orang itu apa adanya dan mementingkan dirinya sendiri dan bertindak bdk. naluri), melainkan kehendak Allah. Sr. Teresa berusaha mengeluarkan ‘sisi baik’ dari orang ini dengan sikap yang hangat dan penuh kasih terhadapnya, bukan dengan memancing sisi buruknya dengan menolak dan menghukumnya. Sr. Teresa sangat menyadari bahwa hanya kasih yang bisa membawa orang ini kembali pada jalur yang benar, bukan dengan penolakan dan penghukuman. Inilah kehendak Allah.
Setiap orang memang memiliki naluri (seperti halnya hewan) untuk cenderung protektif terhadap diri sendiri, tidak menyukai dan menyerang (balik) pihak yang dirasa membahayakannya, namun sebagai manusia kita diperlengkapi oleh akal budi yang bisa mempertimbangkan mana yang baik dan mana yang tidak baik, mana yang etis dan sesuai kehendak Allah dan mana yang tidak. Dalam hal ini, apakah kehendak Allah itu? Seperti halnya Allah menerima kita apa adanya dan memancing ‘sisi baik’ kita bukan dengan penghukuman, melainkan dengan Hadiah terindahnya bagi manusia dalam pribadi Sang Putera, itulah kehendak Allah bagi kita untuk kita lakukan terhadap sesama. Akal budilah yang menimbulkan kesadaran demikian dalam diri Sr. Teresa dan seharusnya kesadaran bagi kita semua. Akal budilah yang membedakan manusia dengan hewan. Jadi bagaimana kita berusaha untuk menjadi manusia (seutuhnya) - dengan berpikir, bersudut pandang dan bertindak tidak hanya berdasarkan naluri, melainkan – terutama – dipengaruhi oleh akal budi & hati kita yang diterangi Roh-Nya - itulah tantangan kita, perjuangan kita, karena dengan mewujudkannya, maka kehendak Allah akan terwujud sepenuhnya.
Saya rasa setiap orang mengalami pergulatan untuk menerima bahwa memang tidak ada yang sempurna. Jika saja, idealnya, setiap orang mampu menerima, memaklumi kelemahan orang lain dan karenanya bisa mengampuni dan mencari solusi terhadap ketidaksempurnaan sesama dan dirinya sendiri, dengan saling melengkapi dan menyempurnakan satu sama lain, maka berbahagialah seluruh umat manusia di bumi ini. Hidup menjadi terasa lebih mudah untuk dijalani bersama, dan pastinya Kerajaan Allah akan tercipta di bumi ini. I’m dreaming of it...
Yah...namun realitas yang kita hadapi sekarang jelas masih jauh dari ideal. Kenyataan yang ada orang saling menjatuhkan, bahkan mencari-cari kesalahan yang sering kali dilatarbelakangi dari pengalaman pahit yang pernah dialami dan membekas, membuahkan sikap ‘membalas’ dalam berbagai bentuk pengejawantahannya yang sebenarnya didasari naluri. Kalau dipikir dalam-dalam, useless to do yah... Ndak ada goal yang sejalan dengan kehendak Allah dengan sikap seperti itu.
Ah...saya jadi berpikir sejauh itu dari pengalaman yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini. Saya memang sedang menghadapi tipikal orang yang mengalami masalah penerimaan terhadap ketidaksempurnaan kronis. Ketidakmampuan menerima ketidaksempurnaan diri sendiri telah menjadi dasar ketidakmampuan menerima ketidaksempurnaan diri orang lain di sekitarnya. Beliau sulit sekali menerima masukan, kritik, cepat tersinggung, dan cenderung merugikan orang lain dengan masalah internalnya itu. Menjadi over protektif terhadap dirinya sendiri dan cenderung berpandangan negatif terhadap orang-orang di sekitarnya dan mencari cara melindungi dirinya tidak perduli itu merugikan orang lain atau tidak. Mencoba menutupi kekurangannya dengan mencari cara agar orang lain menilainya baik, tidak perduli dengan cara menjatuhkan orang lain atau bahkan melakukan pembunuhan karakter orang lain demi kepentingannya sendiri. Sangat sulit menerima kekurangan orang lain, dan seringkali menjadikannya alat untuk mencoba mencari identitas keunggulannya, terlebih di mata orang lain. Saya rasa orang ini mengalami ketakutan yang akut di dalam jiwanya karena ketidakmampuan menerima diri sendiri.
Kalau mau jujur, pusing juga menghadapi tipikal orang seperti itu. Orientasinya tidak mencoba mencari solusi jika ada masalah, malah mengembangkan satu masalah menjadi masalah-masalah baru. Menilai satu masalah hanya dari sudut pandangnya yang sempit saja, dan bahayanya mengambil tindakan berdasarkan sudut pandangnya yang sangat terpengaruh kondisi emosionalnya yang tidak bisa menerima ketidaksempurnaan orang lain. Menghukum orang lain atas dasar prasangka negatifnya, penilaian subyektifnya pribadi yang sama sekali tidak bisa dijadikan dasar yang ideal untuk membuat keputusan dan tindakan eksekusi yang fair.
Pernah menghadapi orang seperti itu, guys? Hm... No body perfect ya... Ndak perduli apakah seorang biarawati atau awam, ndak perduli seorang bos besar atau seorang bawahan.
Well, seperti saya berusaha menerima kekurangan diri saya apa adanya, saya pun berusaha menerima kekurangan ‘orang’ yang saya hadapi ini. Being good person and full of kindness to this guy adalah jalan yang tepat yang senantiasa harus saya perjuangkan, walaupun memang tidak mudah (so...please pray for me guys!) Seperti apa yang diteladankan oleh Sr. Teresa dari Liseux dalam menghadapi orang yang menyebalkan dan merugikan orang lain. Dia memilih untuk terus berjuang untuk menerima orang lain apa adanya dan menjadi pribadi yang baik bagi orang tersebut, bahkan berjuang untuk mencintai orang tersebut, mendoakannya, walaupun dia memang harus bergulat melawan dirinya sendiri untuk tidak mengimplementasikan kehendaknya sendiri (untuk tidak menerima orang itu apa adanya dan mementingkan dirinya sendiri dan bertindak bdk. naluri), melainkan kehendak Allah. Sr. Teresa berusaha mengeluarkan ‘sisi baik’ dari orang ini dengan sikap yang hangat dan penuh kasih terhadapnya, bukan dengan memancing sisi buruknya dengan menolak dan menghukumnya. Sr. Teresa sangat menyadari bahwa hanya kasih yang bisa membawa orang ini kembali pada jalur yang benar, bukan dengan penolakan dan penghukuman. Inilah kehendak Allah.
Setiap orang memang memiliki naluri (seperti halnya hewan) untuk cenderung protektif terhadap diri sendiri, tidak menyukai dan menyerang (balik) pihak yang dirasa membahayakannya, namun sebagai manusia kita diperlengkapi oleh akal budi yang bisa mempertimbangkan mana yang baik dan mana yang tidak baik, mana yang etis dan sesuai kehendak Allah dan mana yang tidak. Dalam hal ini, apakah kehendak Allah itu? Seperti halnya Allah menerima kita apa adanya dan memancing ‘sisi baik’ kita bukan dengan penghukuman, melainkan dengan Hadiah terindahnya bagi manusia dalam pribadi Sang Putera, itulah kehendak Allah bagi kita untuk kita lakukan terhadap sesama. Akal budilah yang menimbulkan kesadaran demikian dalam diri Sr. Teresa dan seharusnya kesadaran bagi kita semua. Akal budilah yang membedakan manusia dengan hewan. Jadi bagaimana kita berusaha untuk menjadi manusia (seutuhnya) - dengan berpikir, bersudut pandang dan bertindak tidak hanya berdasarkan naluri, melainkan – terutama – dipengaruhi oleh akal budi & hati kita yang diterangi Roh-Nya - itulah tantangan kita, perjuangan kita, karena dengan mewujudkannya, maka kehendak Allah akan terwujud sepenuhnya.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Allah adalah Nahkoda Hidupku
Ketika kuhadapi kehidupan ini
Jalan mana yang harus kupilih
Kutahu ku tak mampu Kutahu ku tak sanggup
Hanya Kau Tuhan tempat jawabanku
Akupun tahu ku tak pernah sendiri
Sebab Engkau Allah yang menggendongku
TanganMu membelaiku CintaMu memuaskanku
Kau mengangkatku ke tempat yang tinggi
JanjiMu sperti Fajar pagi hari
Dan tiada pernah terlambat bersinar CintaMu sperti sungai yang mengalir Dan kutahu betapa dalam kasihMu...
Friends,
sebenarnya saya sudah kenal lama dengan lagu ini, but saya pikir nothing special inside it, karena memang sudah sewajarnya seperti itu.
But, in last few days, saya sangat mengamini itu. I feel so blessed singing that song...
Ada saat saya merasa memiliki masalah yang berat, bahkan terberat di dunia bagi saya, sampai-sampai saya menuduh Tuhan itu ndak adil dan hidup itu rasanya sia-sia. Padahal saya sudah mendoakannya berkali-kali, tetapi saya ndak habis pikir mengapa pada kenyataanya, saya seringkali kecewa karena ndak mendapatkan apa yang benar-benar saya harapkan.
Saat itu saya sempat kehilangan kepercayaan terhadap-Nya. Saya punya masalah, dan Dia berdiam diri saja melihat saya menderita? Saya sungguh ndak tahu apa yang harus saya lakukan. Saya kecewa terhadap Tuhan, kecewa terhadap orang lain, dan juga terhadap diri sendiri. Mengapa saya ndak bisa seperti orang lain yang memiliki hal-hal yang membahagiakan dan hampir sempurna? Saya sempat ndak bisa terima diri saya apa adanya, dan tidak bisa mengampuni kekurangan diri. 'Coz karena kekurangan itu, saya ndak bisa mendapatkan apa yg saya inginkan.
Friends, do all of you know what I'm talking about? Honestly, it's about finding a soul mate. Hehe..
Everyone deserves to get the best for him/her self. But, bagaimana dengan saya? Saya merasa tahu apa dan siapa yang terbaik buat saya, dan saya berusaha untuk mendapatkannya. But, finally, saya terbangun dan sadar bahwa mungkin saya keliru. Saya menganggap seseorang terbaik buat saya, tapi bukankah itu pikiran yang egois? Saya lupa menanyakannya dan sibuk dengan diri sendiri, dan kekeliruan yang terbesar adalah saya lupa menanyakan pada Tuhan soal pendapat-Nya,kehendak-Nya atas saya!
Saya sibuk dengan diri sendiri dan tidak memperdulikan yang lain. Saya benar-benar mengidolakannya, menganggapnya begitu berarti dan menganggap bahwa dia yang terbaik dan memandang rendah 'yang lain', artinya ndak ada yang lebih baik dari dia. Tetapi benarkah? I've been so blinded by my mind...
Saat keadaan baik-baik saja, menjalani apa yang saya anggap benar dan sudah seharusnya itu terasa sama sekali tidak salah. But, ketika datang saat-saat yang tidaksaya harapkan, sungguh kekecewaan, bahkan keputusasaan itu tidak terelakkan lagi menghampiri. Terbayang kan, gimana sakitnya, saat orang yang kita sukai 'bepaling'? Dunia kayak mo runtuh! Hehe...
But, finally, saya sadar kesalahan terbesar saya adalah berusaha mengemudikan 'kapal' saya sendiri, bahkan saya berusaha mengendalikan semua seperti keinginan saya. Fool things to do, right? Saya ndak menyadarinya, sampai satu saat saya kecewa dengan keadaan, dengan orang-orang yang pernah saya anggap merebut kebahagiaan saya dengan segala kelebihan-kelebihannya, bahkan dengan diri saya sendiri.
Saya seperti kehilangan segalanya. Percaya atau tidak, hal yang kelihatannya ndak besar ini sempat membuat saya down dan kehilangan percaya diri. Sampai pada saatnya Tuhan menegur saya.
Dia menyatakan kesalahan saya yang sok tahu mengendalikan 'kapal' saya sendiri. Memutuskan pilihan-pilihan saya sendiri tanpa pertimbangan dari-Nya. Dan seringkali ini mendatangkan kekecewaan. Pada awalnya sulit rasanya mengikuti keinginan-Nya untuk menyerahkan segalanya, tanpa terkecuali ke dalam tangan-Nya. Membiarkan Dia menjadi nahkoda dalam hidup, termasuk soal finding soul mate itu...:p
Saya sempat khawatir kalau Dia akan mengambil yang saya inginkan dengan sangat itu, coz saya pikir kalau saja Dia berkehendak mengambilnya dari saya, apakah satu saat saya akan menemukan orang yang paling tidak, sama seperti dia yang sangat berarti buat saya itu? Dan pada akhirnya saya menyadari itu hal yang terbodoh yang pernah saya pikirkan. Bagaimana mungkin Pribadi yang paling mengasihi saya melakukan hal itu? Dia toh Pencipta segalanya, dan tidak ada yang tidak mungkin untuk memberikan lebih dari apa yang saya harapkan.
Allah yang maha baik itu membuat saya mengerti hanya Dia yang paling mengerti diri saya. Apa yang saya lakukan dengan usaha keras adalah sia-sia tanpa melibatkan-Nya. Saya toh tidak bisa mengubah segala-galanya seperti keinginan saya, dan tidak ada gunanya saya bersikeras untuk mempertahankan apa yang saya inginkan, tanpa terlebih dahulu menanyakan kehendak-Nya.
Friends, Dia meminta saya untuk menyerahkan segalanya pada-Nya, hanya bersandar pada-Nya. Dia sungguh ingin menjadi Raja dalam hidup saya, karena Dia yang paling mengerti saya, Dia yang tahu apa terbaik, dan Dia tahu pasti apa yang harus dilakukan-Nya untuk itu. Tidak ada hal yang patut saya pertimbangkan untuk tidak mempercayai-Nya.
Saat saya membaca sebuah buku "When God Writes", ada dua hal yang sangat menyentuh:
"Diberikatilah orang yang tidak memiliki pilihan selain bersandar kepada Allah, karena dengan menyadari kebutuhannya akan Allah, dia akan sungguh masuk dalam kebesaran kuasa kasih dan kebaikan-Nya.
Diberikatilah orang yang direnggut miliknya yang paling berharga, karena dengan demikian, dia akan mudah direngkuh oleh Pribadi yang paling berharga baginya." (Matius 5:3-5, parafrasa)
"Saat kamu siap menyerahkan segalanya kepada-Nya, Dia akan menjadi segalanya yang kau harapkan dari-Nya" (Oswald Chambers)
Dia membuat saya begitu tenang. Dia meredakan kegalauan dan menghapus segala duka. Saat ini, saya percaya, Dia menginginkan hal yang sama terhadap diri teman-teman. Penyerahan yang total di dalam tangan-Nya, membiarkan Dia menjadi Nahkoda dalam kapal kehidupan teman-teman, dan sungguh meraja dalam segala hal.
Saat kita tidak tahu harus bagaimana. Saat kita kehilangan arah untuk terus berjalan ke arah yang benar, hanya Tuhan-lah tempat jawaban kita. Sungguh, kita tidak pernah sendiri melalui segalanya, bahkan dalam hal terkecilpun, Dia senantiasa memperhatian dan menyertai kita, perduli dan tidak pernah meninggalkan kita.
Dia senantiasa menopang kita, dan sungguh tidak pernah terlambat melakukan hal yang selalu terbaik buat kita semua. Allah mamang sungguh amat baik. Amin???
God bless you all!!
Jalan mana yang harus kupilih
Kutahu ku tak mampu Kutahu ku tak sanggup
Hanya Kau Tuhan tempat jawabanku
Akupun tahu ku tak pernah sendiri
Sebab Engkau Allah yang menggendongku
TanganMu membelaiku CintaMu memuaskanku
Kau mengangkatku ke tempat yang tinggi
JanjiMu sperti Fajar pagi hari
Dan tiada pernah terlambat bersinar CintaMu sperti sungai yang mengalir Dan kutahu betapa dalam kasihMu...
Friends,
sebenarnya saya sudah kenal lama dengan lagu ini, but saya pikir nothing special inside it, karena memang sudah sewajarnya seperti itu.
But, in last few days, saya sangat mengamini itu. I feel so blessed singing that song...
Ada saat saya merasa memiliki masalah yang berat, bahkan terberat di dunia bagi saya, sampai-sampai saya menuduh Tuhan itu ndak adil dan hidup itu rasanya sia-sia. Padahal saya sudah mendoakannya berkali-kali, tetapi saya ndak habis pikir mengapa pada kenyataanya, saya seringkali kecewa karena ndak mendapatkan apa yang benar-benar saya harapkan.
Saat itu saya sempat kehilangan kepercayaan terhadap-Nya. Saya punya masalah, dan Dia berdiam diri saja melihat saya menderita? Saya sungguh ndak tahu apa yang harus saya lakukan. Saya kecewa terhadap Tuhan, kecewa terhadap orang lain, dan juga terhadap diri sendiri. Mengapa saya ndak bisa seperti orang lain yang memiliki hal-hal yang membahagiakan dan hampir sempurna? Saya sempat ndak bisa terima diri saya apa adanya, dan tidak bisa mengampuni kekurangan diri. 'Coz karena kekurangan itu, saya ndak bisa mendapatkan apa yg saya inginkan.
Friends, do all of you know what I'm talking about? Honestly, it's about finding a soul mate. Hehe..
Everyone deserves to get the best for him/her self. But, bagaimana dengan saya? Saya merasa tahu apa dan siapa yang terbaik buat saya, dan saya berusaha untuk mendapatkannya. But, finally, saya terbangun dan sadar bahwa mungkin saya keliru. Saya menganggap seseorang terbaik buat saya, tapi bukankah itu pikiran yang egois? Saya lupa menanyakannya dan sibuk dengan diri sendiri, dan kekeliruan yang terbesar adalah saya lupa menanyakan pada Tuhan soal pendapat-Nya,kehendak-Nya atas saya!
Saya sibuk dengan diri sendiri dan tidak memperdulikan yang lain. Saya benar-benar mengidolakannya, menganggapnya begitu berarti dan menganggap bahwa dia yang terbaik dan memandang rendah 'yang lain', artinya ndak ada yang lebih baik dari dia. Tetapi benarkah? I've been so blinded by my mind...
Saat keadaan baik-baik saja, menjalani apa yang saya anggap benar dan sudah seharusnya itu terasa sama sekali tidak salah. But, ketika datang saat-saat yang tidaksaya harapkan, sungguh kekecewaan, bahkan keputusasaan itu tidak terelakkan lagi menghampiri. Terbayang kan, gimana sakitnya, saat orang yang kita sukai 'bepaling'? Dunia kayak mo runtuh! Hehe...
But, finally, saya sadar kesalahan terbesar saya adalah berusaha mengemudikan 'kapal' saya sendiri, bahkan saya berusaha mengendalikan semua seperti keinginan saya. Fool things to do, right? Saya ndak menyadarinya, sampai satu saat saya kecewa dengan keadaan, dengan orang-orang yang pernah saya anggap merebut kebahagiaan saya dengan segala kelebihan-kelebihannya, bahkan dengan diri saya sendiri.
Saya seperti kehilangan segalanya. Percaya atau tidak, hal yang kelihatannya ndak besar ini sempat membuat saya down dan kehilangan percaya diri. Sampai pada saatnya Tuhan menegur saya.
Dia menyatakan kesalahan saya yang sok tahu mengendalikan 'kapal' saya sendiri. Memutuskan pilihan-pilihan saya sendiri tanpa pertimbangan dari-Nya. Dan seringkali ini mendatangkan kekecewaan. Pada awalnya sulit rasanya mengikuti keinginan-Nya untuk menyerahkan segalanya, tanpa terkecuali ke dalam tangan-Nya. Membiarkan Dia menjadi nahkoda dalam hidup, termasuk soal finding soul mate itu...:p
Saya sempat khawatir kalau Dia akan mengambil yang saya inginkan dengan sangat itu, coz saya pikir kalau saja Dia berkehendak mengambilnya dari saya, apakah satu saat saya akan menemukan orang yang paling tidak, sama seperti dia yang sangat berarti buat saya itu? Dan pada akhirnya saya menyadari itu hal yang terbodoh yang pernah saya pikirkan. Bagaimana mungkin Pribadi yang paling mengasihi saya melakukan hal itu? Dia toh Pencipta segalanya, dan tidak ada yang tidak mungkin untuk memberikan lebih dari apa yang saya harapkan.
Allah yang maha baik itu membuat saya mengerti hanya Dia yang paling mengerti diri saya. Apa yang saya lakukan dengan usaha keras adalah sia-sia tanpa melibatkan-Nya. Saya toh tidak bisa mengubah segala-galanya seperti keinginan saya, dan tidak ada gunanya saya bersikeras untuk mempertahankan apa yang saya inginkan, tanpa terlebih dahulu menanyakan kehendak-Nya.
Friends, Dia meminta saya untuk menyerahkan segalanya pada-Nya, hanya bersandar pada-Nya. Dia sungguh ingin menjadi Raja dalam hidup saya, karena Dia yang paling mengerti saya, Dia yang tahu apa terbaik, dan Dia tahu pasti apa yang harus dilakukan-Nya untuk itu. Tidak ada hal yang patut saya pertimbangkan untuk tidak mempercayai-Nya.
Saat saya membaca sebuah buku "When God Writes", ada dua hal yang sangat menyentuh:
"Diberikatilah orang yang tidak memiliki pilihan selain bersandar kepada Allah, karena dengan menyadari kebutuhannya akan Allah, dia akan sungguh masuk dalam kebesaran kuasa kasih dan kebaikan-Nya.
Diberikatilah orang yang direnggut miliknya yang paling berharga, karena dengan demikian, dia akan mudah direngkuh oleh Pribadi yang paling berharga baginya." (Matius 5:3-5, parafrasa)
"Saat kamu siap menyerahkan segalanya kepada-Nya, Dia akan menjadi segalanya yang kau harapkan dari-Nya" (Oswald Chambers)
Dia membuat saya begitu tenang. Dia meredakan kegalauan dan menghapus segala duka. Saat ini, saya percaya, Dia menginginkan hal yang sama terhadap diri teman-teman. Penyerahan yang total di dalam tangan-Nya, membiarkan Dia menjadi Nahkoda dalam kapal kehidupan teman-teman, dan sungguh meraja dalam segala hal.
Saat kita tidak tahu harus bagaimana. Saat kita kehilangan arah untuk terus berjalan ke arah yang benar, hanya Tuhan-lah tempat jawaban kita. Sungguh, kita tidak pernah sendiri melalui segalanya, bahkan dalam hal terkecilpun, Dia senantiasa memperhatian dan menyertai kita, perduli dan tidak pernah meninggalkan kita.
Dia senantiasa menopang kita, dan sungguh tidak pernah terlambat melakukan hal yang selalu terbaik buat kita semua. Allah mamang sungguh amat baik. Amin???
God bless you all!!
How to Love
Teman-teman,
Kesaksian ini mungkin bukan suatu hal yang 'wow', but di sini saya dikuatkan dengan sungguh. It's about how to love...
Sebagai pengikut-Nya, kita diminta untuk melaksanakan hukum-Nya yang paling mendasar yang bahkan akan disebut sebagai ciri orang Kristen, yakni hukum Kasih.
Seringkali orang berpikir bahwa kasih adalah melulu soal perasaan, dan keluar dari kemampuan kita semata, tetapi benarkah demikian?
Buku "Aku Percaya akan Kasih Allah" oleh St. Theresia de Liseux memberikan gambaran mengenai itu. Kasih adalah bukan soal perasaan, namun lebih kepada perbuatan, tindakan. Dan kasih itu akan terimplementasi secara sempurna - seperti apa yang dikehendaki Allah - hanya jika kita bergantung penuh pada-Nya, melekat kuat pada-Nya. Karena saat kita mengasihi, sesungguhnya, Allahlah yang memampukan kita. St. Theresia menyatakan bahwa semakin erat hubungannya dengan Allah, semakin dia mencintai suster-susternya. Begitupun dengan kita, semakin dekat kita dengan Allah, semakin menyatu kita dengan-Nya, semakin mampu kita mengasihi sesama.
Dalam hidup, kita - tidak mungkin tidak - seringkali atau paling tidak pernah menjumpai, dan berurusan dengan orang yang tidak cocok dengan kita yang kadang kala membuat kita kesal, bahkan tidak ingin sekedar melihat wajahnya. Well, itu manusiawi. But saya pikir, kemanusiaan kita seharusnya tidak kita biarkan menjadi penghalang untuk melaksanakan kehendak Allah. But masalahnya, mampukah kita?
Hal itu seringkali menjadi pergumulan saya sebelum saya menyadari kedua hal penting yang diungkapkan oleh St. Theresia de Liseux di atas.
Saya pun ndak menyangkal bahkan diri saya sendiri mungkin menjadi batu sandungan bagi orang lain dalam hal mengasihi ini (saya mohon didoakan agar Allah mengampuniku).
Apa yang dialami oleh St. Theresia de Liseux saat menghadapi hal serupa? Di masa hidupnya, dia memiliki seorang suster yang sebenarnya tidak berkenan di hatinya, dan rasanya sulit sekali St. Theresia untuk mengasihinya. Tetapi oleh hikmat Allah, dia mengetahui bahwa mengasihi bukanlah sekedar soal perasaan, tapi perbuatan! Setiap kali dia bertemu dengan susternya ini, dia selalu bersikap ramah dan selalu mendoakannya, walaupun kadang kala hatinya tidak sejalan. Dia pun mengakui kadang dia harus melarikan diri disaat kemanusiaannya tidak sanggup untuk mengasihi susternya ini. Tetapi saat dia ber'jumpa' kembali dengan Kristus, dia dikuatkan untuk selalu berbuat kasih terhadap susternya ini dan menyangkal dirinya sendiri.
Puji Tuhan, Allah memaklumi kekurangan kita semua. Dia menyediakan diri-Nya sebagai kekuatan kita dalam mengasihi sesama kita. Sungguh, kita tidak dapat mengasihi secara sempurna dari diri kita sendiri, walaupun kita berpotensi untuk mengasihi sesama kita, walaupun benih kasih sudah ada di dalam hati kita, but, kita tidak memiliki power untuk tetap menghidupkan cinta kasih itu karena kelemahan kita, keegoisan kita, kepahitan hidup, ketidakmampuan mengendalikan diri dan ketidakmampuan selalu berpikir bijaksana.
Yesus pernah berkata, kalau Dia adalah Pokok Anggur dan kita ranting-rantingnya (Yoh.15: 1-5):
1. Akulah pokok anggur yang benar dan Bapa-Kulah pengusahanya.
2. Setiap ranting pada-Ku yang tidak berbuah, dipotong-Nya dan setiap ranting yang berbuah, dibersihkan-Nya, supaya ia lebih banyak berbuah.
3. Kamu memang sudah bersih karena firman yang telah Kukatakan kepadamu.
4. Tinggallah di dalam Aku dan Aku di dalam kamu. Sama seperti ranting tidak dapat berbuah dari dirinya sendiri, kalau ia tidak tinggal pada pokok anggur, demikian juga kamu tidak berbuah, jikalau kamu tidak tinggal di dalam Aku.
5. Akulah pokok anggur dan kamulah ranting-rantingnya. Barangsiapa tinggal di dalam Aku dan Aku di dalam dia, ia berbuah banyak, sebab di luar Aku kamu tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa.
See friends? Kebenarannya adalah di luar Dia, kita tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa. Dia adalah kekuatan kita dalam mengasihi sesama. Dia telah memberikan perintah baru yang sempurna, tentunya Dia menyediakan kekuatan yang memampukan kita melakukan itu, yakni Dia sendiri.
Marilah dengan memohon rahmat kekuatan-Nya, kita senantiasa menyediakan diri untuk mengasihi sesama kita sebagai wujud nyata kasih kita kepada-Nya. Marilah kita berdoa: "Father, give us Your heart so we can love everyone the way You love us."
Amin.
Kesaksian ini mungkin bukan suatu hal yang 'wow', but di sini saya dikuatkan dengan sungguh. It's about how to love...
Sebagai pengikut-Nya, kita diminta untuk melaksanakan hukum-Nya yang paling mendasar yang bahkan akan disebut sebagai ciri orang Kristen, yakni hukum Kasih.
Seringkali orang berpikir bahwa kasih adalah melulu soal perasaan, dan keluar dari kemampuan kita semata, tetapi benarkah demikian?
Buku "Aku Percaya akan Kasih Allah" oleh St. Theresia de Liseux memberikan gambaran mengenai itu. Kasih adalah bukan soal perasaan, namun lebih kepada perbuatan, tindakan. Dan kasih itu akan terimplementasi secara sempurna - seperti apa yang dikehendaki Allah - hanya jika kita bergantung penuh pada-Nya, melekat kuat pada-Nya. Karena saat kita mengasihi, sesungguhnya, Allahlah yang memampukan kita. St. Theresia menyatakan bahwa semakin erat hubungannya dengan Allah, semakin dia mencintai suster-susternya. Begitupun dengan kita, semakin dekat kita dengan Allah, semakin menyatu kita dengan-Nya, semakin mampu kita mengasihi sesama.
Dalam hidup, kita - tidak mungkin tidak - seringkali atau paling tidak pernah menjumpai, dan berurusan dengan orang yang tidak cocok dengan kita yang kadang kala membuat kita kesal, bahkan tidak ingin sekedar melihat wajahnya. Well, itu manusiawi. But saya pikir, kemanusiaan kita seharusnya tidak kita biarkan menjadi penghalang untuk melaksanakan kehendak Allah. But masalahnya, mampukah kita?
Hal itu seringkali menjadi pergumulan saya sebelum saya menyadari kedua hal penting yang diungkapkan oleh St. Theresia de Liseux di atas.
Saya pun ndak menyangkal bahkan diri saya sendiri mungkin menjadi batu sandungan bagi orang lain dalam hal mengasihi ini (saya mohon didoakan agar Allah mengampuniku).
Apa yang dialami oleh St. Theresia de Liseux saat menghadapi hal serupa? Di masa hidupnya, dia memiliki seorang suster yang sebenarnya tidak berkenan di hatinya, dan rasanya sulit sekali St. Theresia untuk mengasihinya. Tetapi oleh hikmat Allah, dia mengetahui bahwa mengasihi bukanlah sekedar soal perasaan, tapi perbuatan! Setiap kali dia bertemu dengan susternya ini, dia selalu bersikap ramah dan selalu mendoakannya, walaupun kadang kala hatinya tidak sejalan. Dia pun mengakui kadang dia harus melarikan diri disaat kemanusiaannya tidak sanggup untuk mengasihi susternya ini. Tetapi saat dia ber'jumpa' kembali dengan Kristus, dia dikuatkan untuk selalu berbuat kasih terhadap susternya ini dan menyangkal dirinya sendiri.
Puji Tuhan, Allah memaklumi kekurangan kita semua. Dia menyediakan diri-Nya sebagai kekuatan kita dalam mengasihi sesama kita. Sungguh, kita tidak dapat mengasihi secara sempurna dari diri kita sendiri, walaupun kita berpotensi untuk mengasihi sesama kita, walaupun benih kasih sudah ada di dalam hati kita, but, kita tidak memiliki power untuk tetap menghidupkan cinta kasih itu karena kelemahan kita, keegoisan kita, kepahitan hidup, ketidakmampuan mengendalikan diri dan ketidakmampuan selalu berpikir bijaksana.
Yesus pernah berkata, kalau Dia adalah Pokok Anggur dan kita ranting-rantingnya (Yoh.15: 1-5):
1. Akulah pokok anggur yang benar dan Bapa-Kulah pengusahanya.
2. Setiap ranting pada-Ku yang tidak berbuah, dipotong-Nya dan setiap ranting yang berbuah, dibersihkan-Nya, supaya ia lebih banyak berbuah.
3. Kamu memang sudah bersih karena firman yang telah Kukatakan kepadamu.
4. Tinggallah di dalam Aku dan Aku di dalam kamu. Sama seperti ranting tidak dapat berbuah dari dirinya sendiri, kalau ia tidak tinggal pada pokok anggur, demikian juga kamu tidak berbuah, jikalau kamu tidak tinggal di dalam Aku.
5. Akulah pokok anggur dan kamulah ranting-rantingnya. Barangsiapa tinggal di dalam Aku dan Aku di dalam dia, ia berbuah banyak, sebab di luar Aku kamu tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa.
See friends? Kebenarannya adalah di luar Dia, kita tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa. Dia adalah kekuatan kita dalam mengasihi sesama. Dia telah memberikan perintah baru yang sempurna, tentunya Dia menyediakan kekuatan yang memampukan kita melakukan itu, yakni Dia sendiri.
Marilah dengan memohon rahmat kekuatan-Nya, kita senantiasa menyediakan diri untuk mengasihi sesama kita sebagai wujud nyata kasih kita kepada-Nya. Marilah kita berdoa: "Father, give us Your heart so we can love everyone the way You love us."
Amin.
"Siapakah saudara-Ku?"
Tetapi Ia menjawab mereka: "Ibu-Ku dan saudara-saudara-Ku ialah mereka, yang mendengarkan firman Allah dan melakukannya." (Lukas 8: 21)
Bacaan minggu Adven kedua ini (Lukas 8:19-21) sungguh membantu saya untuk merefleksikan bagaimana saya hidup di tengah komunitas basis sehari-hari. Menjadi saudara..ya, apakah saya sungguh telah menjadi saudara bagi Yesus melalui sesama saya? Menjadi saudara bagi-Nya adalah menjadi saudara bagi sesama saya seperti yang Dia kehendaki.
Ndak bisa disangkal, kecondongan untuk memperhatikan dan mementingkan keinginan sendiri dan bersikap kurang perduli terhadap sesama kadang kala masih mendominasi cara berpikir dan bertindak saya. Walaupun saya tahu kebenarannya, sebagai pengikut Yesus dituntut untuk meneladani-Nya, mengikuti-Nya secara total dan sungguh-sungguh, menjadi pelaku Firman di tengah-tengah sesama. Well, yang saya sadari, kelemahan kemanusiaan memang terkadang menjadi batu sandungan untuk tetap setia mengikuti-Nya. Dan hanya dengan tetap melekat pada-Nya, kita dimampukan untuk tetap berjalan dalam kehendak-Nya.
Berbicara soal Firman-Nya terkait dengan persaudaraan, pikiran saya langsung connect ke soal kasih. 'Coz semua hubungan “saya dan sesama” idealnya memilikinya sebagai dasar dan tujuan. Sebagaimana Yesus telah datang dan mengasihi semua orang, demikian pun Ia berharap para murid untuk bersaudara dengan datang dan melayani semua orang seperti yang telah Ia teladankan. Menurut saya, kunci utama untuk meneladani-Nya dibangun oleh pemahaman bahwa dasar dari segala pikiran dan tindakan-Nya di dunia ini adalah kasih dan solidaritas total terhadap sesama, tanpa terkecuali.
Menjadi ‘saudara’ - bagi saya - berarti melayani sesama di dalam Allah berdasarkan kasih, menjadi ‘terang’, ‘garam’ dalam kehidupan bersama sesama. Menjadi ‘tangan Allah’ yang selalu terbuka untuk menerima, melayani, mengasihi sesama tanpa terkecuali dengan sungguh. Mencoba menjadi berarti dalam hubungan dengan sesama. Melakukan hal baik dan tidak membiarkan yang tidak baik tetap ada. Tidak lagi mempertanyakan “apa yang baik buat saya”, tetapi memikirkan “apa yang baik buat sesama saya”.
Sabtu lalu, dalam ibadat adven di lingkungan kerja saya, banyak sekali kesaksian yang disharingkan soal bagaimana seorang ‘saudara’ seharusnya memperlakukan saudaranya. Betapa mengharukan dan sungguh membahagiakan menerima kebaikan orang lain yang telah bersikap sebagai ‘saudara’ bagi kita. Hampir semua kesaksian menyatakan ‘saudara saya’ adalah orang yang terdekat dengan ‘saya’, orang-orang dalam komunitas basis yang ‘saya’ tinggali, yang bisa membantu ‘saya’ sewaktu-waktu, yang perduli dengan saya baik saat senang, terlebih di saat susah. Betapa indahnya mendengarkan kesaksian-kesaksian tersebut. Memang menyenangkan menyadari bahwa ada orang-orang yang bersedia menjadi saudara bagi kita dengan tulus hati, tetapi pernahkah kita menyadari apakah kita telah sungguh menjadi saudara bagi orang lain? Apakah kita mau memberikan kebahagiaan yang sama, bahkan lebih seperti yang telah kita terima dari orang lain?
Seorang bapak menceritakan usahanya untuk menjadi saudara yang baik bagi sesama. Dia mencoba menjadi ‘garam’ di tengah-tengah lingkungannya, membantu sesamanya yang membutuhkannya, memancing ‘sisi positif’ kawan-kawannya yang pada awalnya terlihat pasif dan kurang ‘keluar’ untuk menjadi saudara bagi orang lain. Ini sungguh mengagumkan bagi saya. Dia telah memberikan sentilan kecil buat saya. Selama ini saya seringkali memikirkan diri saya sendiri, menilai baik-buruk perlakuan orang lain terhadap saya, dan memikirkan bagaimana saya seharusnya diperlakukan, seperti saya memperlakukan orang lain (yang saya rasa cukup baik). Dia telah mengubah arah berpikir saya, tidak lagi ke ‘dalam’, tetapi mencoba ke ‘luar’. Tidak lagi sibuk dengan diri saya sendiri, tapi mencoba sibuk untuk orang lain, perduli dengan orang lain, tidak perduli bagaimanapun perlakuan mereka terhadap saya, seperti Yesus. Ya…seperti Yesus!
Well, saya berpikir, idealnya, kita bisa menjadi saudara bagi orang lain setelah kita telah menjadi saudara untuk orang lain. Kalaupun tidak, kita seharusnya tetap berusaha menjadi saudara untuk orang lain. Ini adalah hakekat dari kasih, memberikan yang terbaik buat sesama tanpa pamrih. Inilah yang Yesus kehendaki dan telah diteladankan-Nya dalam kemanusiaan-Nya kurang lebih 2000 tahun yang lalu.
Memang terasa sulit untuk menjadi saudara bagi orang yang menolak kita, bagi orang yang seringkali menyakiti kita. Ada dua kasus mengenai ini. Dalam ibadat adven tersebut, ada seorang kawan yang menceritakan masa kecilnya yang menderita karena dipisahkan dengan kawan sepermainannya hanya karena orang tuanya bermusuhan. Setelah sekian lama, orang tua kawan saya itu mempertahankan kebencian, ada satu saat di mana Allah mengubahkan kekerasan hatinya, yaitu saat kawan saya itu mengalami kecelakaan. Tanpa diduga sebelumnya, orang tua kawannyalah yang pertama kali memberikan bantuan dan menyelamatkan nyawa kawan saya itu. Di sini, kasih telah menghancurkan kebencian, sikap persaudaraan yang dilandasi kasih telah meruntuhkan kekerasan hati orang tua kawan saya itu. Air tuba telah dibalas air susu! Inilah yang saya rasa dikehendaki Yesus, tetap mengasihi saat orang lain membenci kita. Tetap menjadi ‘saudara’ bagi orang lain yang menolak dan menyakiti kita. Sebenarnya kasus kedua adalah kasus yang belum terselesaikan, kecuali yang mengalaminya menyadari hikmah dari kejadian yang dialami kawan saya ini. Hm…dalam kasus kedua ini, ada seorang kawan lain yang mengeluhkan perlakuan orang lain dalam menanggapi sikap persahabatannya. Dia kehilangan kepercayaan terhadap orang lain, dan mungkin merasa sulit untuk tetap mengasihi dan menjadi ‘saudara’ kalau dia tetap menerima perlakuan yang tidak mengenakkan. Dia merasa orang yang telah diperlakukannya sebagai saudara, yang dia percayai dengan sungguh seringkali menyia-nyiakan kepercayaannya, mengkhianati sikap persahabatannya. Hmm…saya tidak bisa memberikan saran atau nasehat kepadanya, karena saya tahu dia sudah memiliki nasehat itu di dalam dirinya, dan telah diteguhkan oleh kesaksian kawan saya yang lain. Saya hanya bisa berdoa, semoga dia dan saya, kita semua senantiasa menyadari dan diingatkan-Nya bahwa kasih “menutupi segala sesuatu, percaya segala sesuatu, mengharapkan segala sesuatu, sabar menanggung segala sesuatu.” (I Kor. 13:7)
Friends, marilah kita senantiasa melekat pada-Nya, mohon kekuatan dan hikmat-Nya untuk menyadari kehendak-Nya dan melakukannya dengan segenap hati, jiwa dan akal budi kita, seperti yang Dia kehendaki dari setiap kita.
God bless us always!
Bacaan minggu Adven kedua ini (Lukas 8:19-21) sungguh membantu saya untuk merefleksikan bagaimana saya hidup di tengah komunitas basis sehari-hari. Menjadi saudara..ya, apakah saya sungguh telah menjadi saudara bagi Yesus melalui sesama saya? Menjadi saudara bagi-Nya adalah menjadi saudara bagi sesama saya seperti yang Dia kehendaki.
Ndak bisa disangkal, kecondongan untuk memperhatikan dan mementingkan keinginan sendiri dan bersikap kurang perduli terhadap sesama kadang kala masih mendominasi cara berpikir dan bertindak saya. Walaupun saya tahu kebenarannya, sebagai pengikut Yesus dituntut untuk meneladani-Nya, mengikuti-Nya secara total dan sungguh-sungguh, menjadi pelaku Firman di tengah-tengah sesama. Well, yang saya sadari, kelemahan kemanusiaan memang terkadang menjadi batu sandungan untuk tetap setia mengikuti-Nya. Dan hanya dengan tetap melekat pada-Nya, kita dimampukan untuk tetap berjalan dalam kehendak-Nya.
Berbicara soal Firman-Nya terkait dengan persaudaraan, pikiran saya langsung connect ke soal kasih. 'Coz semua hubungan “saya dan sesama” idealnya memilikinya sebagai dasar dan tujuan. Sebagaimana Yesus telah datang dan mengasihi semua orang, demikian pun Ia berharap para murid untuk bersaudara dengan datang dan melayani semua orang seperti yang telah Ia teladankan. Menurut saya, kunci utama untuk meneladani-Nya dibangun oleh pemahaman bahwa dasar dari segala pikiran dan tindakan-Nya di dunia ini adalah kasih dan solidaritas total terhadap sesama, tanpa terkecuali.
Menjadi ‘saudara’ - bagi saya - berarti melayani sesama di dalam Allah berdasarkan kasih, menjadi ‘terang’, ‘garam’ dalam kehidupan bersama sesama. Menjadi ‘tangan Allah’ yang selalu terbuka untuk menerima, melayani, mengasihi sesama tanpa terkecuali dengan sungguh. Mencoba menjadi berarti dalam hubungan dengan sesama. Melakukan hal baik dan tidak membiarkan yang tidak baik tetap ada. Tidak lagi mempertanyakan “apa yang baik buat saya”, tetapi memikirkan “apa yang baik buat sesama saya”.
Sabtu lalu, dalam ibadat adven di lingkungan kerja saya, banyak sekali kesaksian yang disharingkan soal bagaimana seorang ‘saudara’ seharusnya memperlakukan saudaranya. Betapa mengharukan dan sungguh membahagiakan menerima kebaikan orang lain yang telah bersikap sebagai ‘saudara’ bagi kita. Hampir semua kesaksian menyatakan ‘saudara saya’ adalah orang yang terdekat dengan ‘saya’, orang-orang dalam komunitas basis yang ‘saya’ tinggali, yang bisa membantu ‘saya’ sewaktu-waktu, yang perduli dengan saya baik saat senang, terlebih di saat susah. Betapa indahnya mendengarkan kesaksian-kesaksian tersebut. Memang menyenangkan menyadari bahwa ada orang-orang yang bersedia menjadi saudara bagi kita dengan tulus hati, tetapi pernahkah kita menyadari apakah kita telah sungguh menjadi saudara bagi orang lain? Apakah kita mau memberikan kebahagiaan yang sama, bahkan lebih seperti yang telah kita terima dari orang lain?
Seorang bapak menceritakan usahanya untuk menjadi saudara yang baik bagi sesama. Dia mencoba menjadi ‘garam’ di tengah-tengah lingkungannya, membantu sesamanya yang membutuhkannya, memancing ‘sisi positif’ kawan-kawannya yang pada awalnya terlihat pasif dan kurang ‘keluar’ untuk menjadi saudara bagi orang lain. Ini sungguh mengagumkan bagi saya. Dia telah memberikan sentilan kecil buat saya. Selama ini saya seringkali memikirkan diri saya sendiri, menilai baik-buruk perlakuan orang lain terhadap saya, dan memikirkan bagaimana saya seharusnya diperlakukan, seperti saya memperlakukan orang lain (yang saya rasa cukup baik). Dia telah mengubah arah berpikir saya, tidak lagi ke ‘dalam’, tetapi mencoba ke ‘luar’. Tidak lagi sibuk dengan diri saya sendiri, tapi mencoba sibuk untuk orang lain, perduli dengan orang lain, tidak perduli bagaimanapun perlakuan mereka terhadap saya, seperti Yesus. Ya…seperti Yesus!
Well, saya berpikir, idealnya, kita bisa menjadi saudara bagi orang lain setelah kita telah menjadi saudara untuk orang lain. Kalaupun tidak, kita seharusnya tetap berusaha menjadi saudara untuk orang lain. Ini adalah hakekat dari kasih, memberikan yang terbaik buat sesama tanpa pamrih. Inilah yang Yesus kehendaki dan telah diteladankan-Nya dalam kemanusiaan-Nya kurang lebih 2000 tahun yang lalu.
Memang terasa sulit untuk menjadi saudara bagi orang yang menolak kita, bagi orang yang seringkali menyakiti kita. Ada dua kasus mengenai ini. Dalam ibadat adven tersebut, ada seorang kawan yang menceritakan masa kecilnya yang menderita karena dipisahkan dengan kawan sepermainannya hanya karena orang tuanya bermusuhan. Setelah sekian lama, orang tua kawan saya itu mempertahankan kebencian, ada satu saat di mana Allah mengubahkan kekerasan hatinya, yaitu saat kawan saya itu mengalami kecelakaan. Tanpa diduga sebelumnya, orang tua kawannyalah yang pertama kali memberikan bantuan dan menyelamatkan nyawa kawan saya itu. Di sini, kasih telah menghancurkan kebencian, sikap persaudaraan yang dilandasi kasih telah meruntuhkan kekerasan hati orang tua kawan saya itu. Air tuba telah dibalas air susu! Inilah yang saya rasa dikehendaki Yesus, tetap mengasihi saat orang lain membenci kita. Tetap menjadi ‘saudara’ bagi orang lain yang menolak dan menyakiti kita. Sebenarnya kasus kedua adalah kasus yang belum terselesaikan, kecuali yang mengalaminya menyadari hikmah dari kejadian yang dialami kawan saya ini. Hm…dalam kasus kedua ini, ada seorang kawan lain yang mengeluhkan perlakuan orang lain dalam menanggapi sikap persahabatannya. Dia kehilangan kepercayaan terhadap orang lain, dan mungkin merasa sulit untuk tetap mengasihi dan menjadi ‘saudara’ kalau dia tetap menerima perlakuan yang tidak mengenakkan. Dia merasa orang yang telah diperlakukannya sebagai saudara, yang dia percayai dengan sungguh seringkali menyia-nyiakan kepercayaannya, mengkhianati sikap persahabatannya. Hmm…saya tidak bisa memberikan saran atau nasehat kepadanya, karena saya tahu dia sudah memiliki nasehat itu di dalam dirinya, dan telah diteguhkan oleh kesaksian kawan saya yang lain. Saya hanya bisa berdoa, semoga dia dan saya, kita semua senantiasa menyadari dan diingatkan-Nya bahwa kasih “menutupi segala sesuatu, percaya segala sesuatu, mengharapkan segala sesuatu, sabar menanggung segala sesuatu.” (I Kor. 13:7)
Friends, marilah kita senantiasa melekat pada-Nya, mohon kekuatan dan hikmat-Nya untuk menyadari kehendak-Nya dan melakukannya dengan segenap hati, jiwa dan akal budi kita, seperti yang Dia kehendaki dari setiap kita.
God bless us always!
Friday, June 08, 2007
In the Beginning: God and Science
By Lance Morrow
Sometime after the Enlightenment, science and religion came to a gentleman’s agreement. Science was so real world: machines, manufactured things, medicines, guns, moon rockets. Religion was for everything else, the immeasurable: morals, sacraments, poetry, insanity, death and some residual forms of politics and statesmanship. Religion became, in both senses of the word, immaterial. Science and religion were apples and oranges. So the pact said: render unto apples the things that are Caesar’s, unto oranges the things that are God’s. Just as the Maya kept two calendars, one profane and one priestly, so Western science and religion fell into different conceptions of the universe, two different vocabularies.
This hostile distinction between religion and science has softened in the last third of the 20th century. Both religion and science have become self-consciously aware of their excesses, even of their capacity of evil. Now they find themselves jostled into a strange metaphysical intimacy. Perhaps the most extraordinary sign of that intimacy is what appears to be an agreement between religion and science about certain facts concerning the creation of the universe. It is the equivalent of the Montagues and Capulets collaborating on a baby shower.
According to the Book of Genesis, the universe began in a single, flashing act of creation; the divine intellect willed all into being, ex nihilo. It is not surprising that scientist have generally stayed clear of the question of ultimate authorship, of the final “uncaused cause.” In years past, in fact, they held to the Aristotelian idea of a universe that was “ingenerated and indestructible,” with an infinite past and an infinite future. This was known as the Steady State theory.
That absolute expanse might be difficult, even unbearable, to contemplate, like an infinite snow field of time, but the conception at least carried with it the serenity of the eternal. In recent decades, however, the Steady State model of the universe has yielded in the scientific mind to an even more difficult idea, full of cosmic violence. Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation that it came to be in a vast fireball explosion 15 or 20 billion years ago. The shrapnel created by that explosion is still flying outward from the focus of the blast. One of the fragments is the galaxy we call the Milky Way—one of whose hundreds billions of stars is the earth’s sun, with its tiny orbiting grains of planets. The so-called Big Bang theory makes some astronomers cutely uncomfortable, even while it ignites in many religious minds a small thrill of confirmation. Reason: the Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.
Science arrived at the Big Bang theory through its admirably painstaking and ideologically disinterested process of hypothesis and verification—and, sometimes, happy accident. In 1913, Astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Ariz., discovered galaxies that were receding from the earth at extraordinarily high speeds, up to 2 million m.p.h. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble developed Slipher’s findings to formulate his law of an expanding universe, which presupposes a single primordial explosion. Meantime, Albert Einstein, without benefit of observation, concocted his general theory of relativity, which overthrew Newton and contained in its apparatus the idea of the expanding universe. The Steady State idea still held many astronomers, however, until 1965, when two scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, using sophisticated electronic equipment, picked up the noise made by background radiation coming from all parts of the sky. What they were hearing, as it turned out, were the reverberations left over from the first explosion, the hissing echoes of creation. In the past dozen years, most astronomers have come around to operating on the assumption that there was indeed a big bang.
The Big Bang theory has subversive possibilities. At any rate, in a century of Einstein’s relativity, of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (the very act of observing nature disturbs and alters it), of the enigmatic black holes (“Of the God who was painted as a glittering eye, there is nothing now left but a black socket,” wrote the German Romantic Jean Paul), science is not the cool Palladian temple of rationality that it was in the Enlightenment. It begins to seem more like Prospero’s island as experienced by Caliban. Some astronomers even talk of leftover starlight form a future universe, its time flowing in the opposite direction from ours. A silicon-chip agnosticism can be shaken by many puzzles besides the creation. Almost as mysterious are the circumstances that led, billions of years ago, the creations of the first molecule that could reproduce itself. That step made possible the development of all the forms of life that spread over the earth. Why did it occur just then?
A religious enthusiasm for the apparent convergence of science and theology in the Big Bang theory is understandable. Since the Enlightenment, the scriptural versions of creation or of other “events,” like the fall of man or the miracles of Jesus Christ, have suffered the condescension of science; they were regarded as mere myth, superstition. Not the faithful are tempted to believe that science has performed a laborious validation of at least one biblical “myth”: that of creation.
But has any such confirmation occurred? Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has published a small and curious book called God and the Astronomers, in which he suggests that the Bible was right after all, and that people of his own kind, scientists and agnostics, by his description, now find themselves confounded. Jastrow blows phantom kisses like neutrinos across the chasm between science and religion, seeming almost wistful to make a connection. Biblical fundamentalists may be happier with Jastrow’s books than are his fellow scientists. He writes operatically: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Sometime after the Enlightenment, science and religion came to a gentleman’s agreement. Science was so real world: machines, manufactured things, medicines, guns, moon rockets. Religion was for everything else, the immeasurable: morals, sacraments, poetry, insanity, death and some residual forms of politics and statesmanship. Religion became, in both senses of the word, immaterial. Science and religion were apples and oranges. So the pact said: render unto apples the things that are Caesar’s, unto oranges the things that are God’s. Just as the Maya kept two calendars, one profane and one priestly, so Western science and religion fell into different conceptions of the universe, two different vocabularies.
This hostile distinction between religion and science has softened in the last third of the 20th century. Both religion and science have become self-consciously aware of their excesses, even of their capacity of evil. Now they find themselves jostled into a strange metaphysical intimacy. Perhaps the most extraordinary sign of that intimacy is what appears to be an agreement between religion and science about certain facts concerning the creation of the universe. It is the equivalent of the Montagues and Capulets collaborating on a baby shower.
According to the Book of Genesis, the universe began in a single, flashing act of creation; the divine intellect willed all into being, ex nihilo. It is not surprising that scientist have generally stayed clear of the question of ultimate authorship, of the final “uncaused cause.” In years past, in fact, they held to the Aristotelian idea of a universe that was “ingenerated and indestructible,” with an infinite past and an infinite future. This was known as the Steady State theory.
That absolute expanse might be difficult, even unbearable, to contemplate, like an infinite snow field of time, but the conception at least carried with it the serenity of the eternal. In recent decades, however, the Steady State model of the universe has yielded in the scientific mind to an even more difficult idea, full of cosmic violence. Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation that it came to be in a vast fireball explosion 15 or 20 billion years ago. The shrapnel created by that explosion is still flying outward from the focus of the blast. One of the fragments is the galaxy we call the Milky Way—one of whose hundreds billions of stars is the earth’s sun, with its tiny orbiting grains of planets. The so-called Big Bang theory makes some astronomers cutely uncomfortable, even while it ignites in many religious minds a small thrill of confirmation. Reason: the Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.
Science arrived at the Big Bang theory through its admirably painstaking and ideologically disinterested process of hypothesis and verification—and, sometimes, happy accident. In 1913, Astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Ariz., discovered galaxies that were receding from the earth at extraordinarily high speeds, up to 2 million m.p.h. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble developed Slipher’s findings to formulate his law of an expanding universe, which presupposes a single primordial explosion. Meantime, Albert Einstein, without benefit of observation, concocted his general theory of relativity, which overthrew Newton and contained in its apparatus the idea of the expanding universe. The Steady State idea still held many astronomers, however, until 1965, when two scientists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, using sophisticated electronic equipment, picked up the noise made by background radiation coming from all parts of the sky. What they were hearing, as it turned out, were the reverberations left over from the first explosion, the hissing echoes of creation. In the past dozen years, most astronomers have come around to operating on the assumption that there was indeed a big bang.
The Big Bang theory has subversive possibilities. At any rate, in a century of Einstein’s relativity, of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (the very act of observing nature disturbs and alters it), of the enigmatic black holes (“Of the God who was painted as a glittering eye, there is nothing now left but a black socket,” wrote the German Romantic Jean Paul), science is not the cool Palladian temple of rationality that it was in the Enlightenment. It begins to seem more like Prospero’s island as experienced by Caliban. Some astronomers even talk of leftover starlight form a future universe, its time flowing in the opposite direction from ours. A silicon-chip agnosticism can be shaken by many puzzles besides the creation. Almost as mysterious are the circumstances that led, billions of years ago, the creations of the first molecule that could reproduce itself. That step made possible the development of all the forms of life that spread over the earth. Why did it occur just then?
A religious enthusiasm for the apparent convergence of science and theology in the Big Bang theory is understandable. Since the Enlightenment, the scriptural versions of creation or of other “events,” like the fall of man or the miracles of Jesus Christ, have suffered the condescension of science; they were regarded as mere myth, superstition. Not the faithful are tempted to believe that science has performed a laborious validation of at least one biblical “myth”: that of creation.
But has any such confirmation occurred? Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has published a small and curious book called God and the Astronomers, in which he suggests that the Bible was right after all, and that people of his own kind, scientists and agnostics, by his description, now find themselves confounded. Jastrow blows phantom kisses like neutrinos across the chasm between science and religion, seeming almost wistful to make a connection. Biblical fundamentalists may be happier with Jastrow’s books than are his fellow scientists. He writes operatically: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Passion of the Pope
With his blunt talk on Islam, Benedict XVI is altering the debate between Muslim world and the West. On the eve of his visit to Turkey, TIME looks at the roots of the Pope’s views—and how they may define his place in history.
By David Van Biema and Jeff Israely/Rome
For the traveling Pontiff, it was not a laid-back Turkish holiday. The citizens of the proud, predominantly Muslim nation had no love of Popes. To the East, the Iranian government was galvanizing anti-Western feeling. The news reported that an escaped killer was on the loose, threatening to assassinate the Pontiff when he arrived. Yet the Holy Father was undaunted. “Love is stronger than danger,” he said. “I am in the hands of God.” He fared forward—to Ankara, to Istanbul—and preached the commonality of the world’s great faiths. He enjoined both Christians and Muslims to “seek ties friendship with other believers who invoke the name of a single God.” He did not leave covered garlands, but he set a groundwork for what would be years of rapprochement between the Holy See and Islam. He was a uniter, not a divider.
That was 1979 and Pope John Paul II. But when Benedict XVI travels to Turkey next week on his first visit to a Muslim country since becoming Pope last year, he is unlikely to cloak himself in a downy banner of brotherhood, the way his predecessor died 27 years ago. Instead, Benedict, 79, will arrive carrying a different reputation: that of a hard-knuckle intellect with a taste for blunt talk and interreligious confrontation. Just 19 months into his tenure, the Pope has become as much a moral lightning rod as a theologian; suddenly, when he speaks, the whole world listens. And so what takes place over four days in three Turkish cities has the potential to define his papacy—and a good deal more.
Few people saw this coming. Nobody truly expected Benedict to be a mere caretaker Pope—his sometimes ferocious 24 year tenure as the Vatican’s theological enforcer and John Paul’s right hand suggested anything but passivity. But this same familiarity argued against surprises. The new Pontiff was expected to sustain John Paul’s conservative line on morality and church discipline and focus most of his energies on trimming the Vatican bureaucracy and battling Western culture’s “moral relativism.” Although acknowledged as a brilliant conservative theologian, Benedict lacked the open-armed charisma of his predecessor. Moreover, what had initially propelled John Paul to the center of the world stage was his challenge to communism and its subsequent fall, a huge geopolitical event that the Pope helped precipitate with two exhilarating visits to his beloved Polish homeland. By contrast, what could Benedict do? Liberate Bavaria?
Well, not quite. But this year he has emerged as a far more compelling and complex figure than anyone had imagined. And much of that has to do with his willingness to confront what some people feel is today’s equivalent of the communist scourge—the threat of Islamic violence. The topic is extraordinarily fraught. There are, after all, a billion or so nonviolent Muslims on the globe, the Roman Catholic Church’s own record in the religious-mayhem department is hardly pristine, and even the most naïve of observers understands that the Vicar of Christ might harbor an institutional prejudice against one of Christianity’s main global competitors. But by speaking out last September in Regensburg, Germany, about the possible intrinsic connection between Islam and violence, the Pontiff suddenly became a lot more interesting. Even when Islamic extremists destroyed several churches and murdered a nun in Somalia, Benedict refused to retract the essence of his remarks. In one imperfect but powerful stroke, he departed from his predecessor’s largely benign approach to Islam and discovered an issue that might tract even the most religiously jaded. In doing so, he managed (for better or worse) to reanimate the clash-of-civilizations discussion by focusing scrutiny on the core question of whether Islam, as a religion, sanctions violence. He was hailed by cultural conservatives worldwide. Says Helen Hull Hitchcock, a St. Louis, Missouri lay leader who heads the conservative Catholic organization Women for Faith and Family: “He has said what needed to be said.”
But Benedict now finds himself in an unfamiliar position as he embarks on the most important mission of his papacy. Having thrust himself to the center of the global debate and earned the vilification on the Muslim street, he must weigh hard options. Does he seize his new platform, insisting that another great faith has potentially deadly flaws and daring it to discuss them, while exhorting Western audiences to be morally armed? Or does he back away from further confrontation in the hope of tamping down the rage his words have already provoked? Those who know him say he was clearly shocked and appalled by the violent reaction to the Germany speech. Yet it seems unlikely that he will completely drop the topic and the megaphone he has discovered he is holding. “The Pope has the intention to say what he thinks,” says a high-ranking Vatican diplomat. “He may adjust his tone, but his direction won’t change.”
APPOINTMENT IN ANKARA
If the test of a new act is to see how well it plays in a tough room, Benedict has certainly booked himself into a doozy. In the racial memory of Western Europe, the Turks were the face of militant Islam, besieging Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and for centuries thereafter representing a kind of stock bogeyman. In 2002, after nearly a century of determinedly secularist rule, the country elected a moderate Islamic party. For many in the West, that makes Turkey simultaneously a symbol of hope (of moderation) and fear (of Islamism).
The Pope’s original invitation came in 2005, from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which represents a nervous 0.01% of the country’s population. The Turkish government, miffed that as a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger had opposed Turkey’s urgent bid to join the European Union, finally issued its own belated offer for 2006. But even now, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has discovered a previous engagement that will take him out of the country while Benedict is in it. Although modest, sales of a Turkish novel subtitled Who Will Kill the Pope in Istanbul? (the book finger everyone but Islamists) have increased as his trip approaches. The country is expected to place about 22,000 policemen on the streets of Istanbul while he is there. “This is a very high-risk visit,” says Cengiz Aktar, a Turkish political scientist. “There is a vocal nationalist movement here, and there is the Pope, a man who likes to play with fire.”
Actually, Benedict will probably try to stay away from matches during his successive stops in Ankara, Ephesus and Istanbul. Speculation about what the Pope will say and do on this visit has consumed Rome for weeks. Papal watchers say Benedict cannot out-Regensburg himself, but gauzy talk about the compatibility of Christianity and Islam isn’t likely either. Over the course of his career, Benedict has been averse to reciting multifaith platitudes, an aversion that has sharpened as he has focused on Islam. And that’s what could make his coming encounter with the Muslim world, says David Gibson, author of The Rule of Benedict, either “a step toward religious harmony or toward holy war.”
A BRIGHT-LINES KIND OF GUY
In 1986, Pope John Paul convened a remarkable multifaith summit in the medieval Italian town of Assisi. Muslims and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others, convened to celebrate their (distinct) spiritualities and pray for peace. It was a signature John Paul moment, but not everybody caught the vibe. “It was a disaster,” sniffs an observer. “People were praying together, and nobody had any idea what they were praying to.” The witness, whose view undoubtedly reflected that of his boss, was an aide to Cardinal Ratzinger.
Unlike John Paul, who had a big-tent approach, Ratzinger has always favored bright theological lines and correspondingly high walls between creeds he regards as unequally meritorious. His long-standing habit is to correct any aide who calls a religion other than Christianity and Judaism a “faith.” Prior to his papacy, the culmination of this philosophy was his office’s 1999 Vatican document Dominus Jesus, which described non-Catholics as being in a “gravely deficient situation” regarding salvation. The fact that this offended some of the deficient parties did not particularly bother him. Notes the same assistant: “To understand each other…. You have to talk about what divides.”
That approach includes Islam. In Ratzinger’s 1996 interview book Salt of the Earth (with Peter Seewald), he noted that “we must recognize that Islam is not a uniform thing. No one can speak for [it] as a whole. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice.” This sophisticated understanding however, did not keep Ratzinger from slapping down a bishop who wanted to invite peaceable Muslims to a papal ceremony in Fatima, Portugal, or in 2004, from objecting to Turkish E.U. entry on grounds that it has always been “in permanent contrast to Europe,” a contrast his other writings made clear had much to do with religion.
Islam played a particular role—as both a threat and a model—in the drama that probably lies closest to Benedict’s heart: the secularization of Christian Europe. In the same 1996 book, he wrote that “the Islamic soul reawakened” in reaction to the erosion of the West’ moral stature during the 1960s. Ratzinger paraphrased that soul’s new song: “We know who we are; our religion is holding its ground; you don’t have one any longer. We have moral message that has existed without interruption since the prophets, and we will tell the world how to live it, where the Christians certainly can’t.”
After Sept. 11, Ratzinger’s attitude toward Islam seems to have hardened. According to Gibson, the Cardinals in the conclave that elected Ratzinger made it clear that they expected a tougher dialogue with the other faith. After the London subway bombings in July 2005, the new Pope responded to the question of whether Islam was a “religion of peace”—as George W. Bush, among others, has always stressed—by saying, “Certainly there are also elements that can favor peace.” When we met with moderate German Muslims in the city of Cologne that August, Benedict delivered a fairly blunt warning that “those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations.” In Rome, he removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a relatively dovish to Islam expert as head of the Vatican’s office on interreligious dialogue and replaced an ongoing study of Christian violence during the Crusades with one on Islamic violence today. And he has stepped up the Vatican insistence on reciprocity—demanding the same rights for Christians in Muslim-majority countries that Muslims enjoy in the West.
All of this led observers to expect him to eventually make a major statement about Islam, although most assumed that it wouldn’t stray to far from John Paul’s fraternal tone. Nobody anticipated what happened in southern Germany.
THE POINT OF NO RETURN
On Sept. 12, 2006, the day after the world had marked the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Benedict threw himself into the maelstrom. The unlikely venue was his old teaching grounds, the University of Regensburg. His vehicle was a talk about reason as part of Christianity’s very essence. His nominal target was his usual suspect, the secular West, which he said had committed the tragic error of discarding Christianity as reason-free. But this time he had an additional villain I his sights: Islam, which he said actually he strongly suggested was consequently more inclined to violence.
To show that Islam sees God as so transcendent that reason is extraneous, Benedict cited an 11th century Muslim sage named Ibn Hazm. To establish the connection between this position and violence, he quoted a 15th century Christian Byzantine Emperor (and head of the Byzantine, or Eastern, Church) named Manuel II Paleologus. Paleologus criticized Muslims for “spreading [their faith] by the sword,” both because “God is not pleased by blood” and because true conversion depended on reason. “Show me just what the Muhammad brought that was new,” Paleologus said, in a passage quoted by Benedict, “and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”
It remains unclear whether Benedict was deliberately trying to raise the temperature. Many analysts, especially in Rome, think he knew exactly what he was saying and regard the Islamic section of the 35-min. speech as a brave and eloquent warning of Islam’s inherent violence and of a faithless West’s inability to offer moral response. Yet Benedict’s argument was slapdash and flawed. His sage, Ibn Hazm, turned out to have belonged to a school with no current adherents, and although reason’s primacy is debated in Islam, it is very much part of the culture that developed algebra. Paleologus’ forced-conversion accusation misrepresents the sweep of Muslim history, since more often than not, Islam has left religious groups in conquered territory intact, if hobbled. And assuming that a punctilious scholar like Benedict really wanted to engage on Islam and violence, why do it through the idiosyncratic lens of an embattled king in the 1400s who made his name partly for his efforts at drumming up enthusiasm for a new Crusade?
The reaction to the speech was intense. Small bands of Muslim thugs burned Benedict in effigy, attacked the churches in the Middle East and, on Sept. 17 murdered the nun in Somalia. Over the course of a month, Benedict issued a series of partial apologies and corrections unprecedented in the papacy. He expressed regret to those offended summoned a group of Muslim notables to make the point personally and disowned the “evil and inhuman” slur on Muhammad as Manuel’s sentiment but not his own. He even issued a second version of the speech to reflect those sentiments.
But he never retracted his more basic association of Islam with unreason and violence. Indeed, if he had, it would have caused considerable confusion—if only because the behavior of the extremists seemed, at least to some, to prove his point. No editorialist could express frustration with him or initiating the row without condemning the subsequent carnage—and a good many decided his only vault was in speaking truth. Says a high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome: “It was time to let the rabbit out of the can, and he did. I admire his courage. Part of the Koran lends itself to being shanghaied by terrorists, and he can do what politicians can’t.” In late October, Benedict received a different kind of validation in an open “Your Holiness” letter from 38 best-known names in Islamic theology. The missive politely eviscerated his Regensburg speech but went on to “applaud” the Pope’s effort to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life” and expressed a desire for “frank and sincere dialogue.” At a time when the credibility of Western political leaders in the Muslim world has sunk to new depths, the letter treated Benedict as a spokesman for the West.
Says a Vatican insider with a shrug: “Everyone’s asking, ‘Did the Pope make a mistake?’ It doesn’t really matter at this point.” Whether Benedict had actually intended Regensburg to be the catalyst, he had become a player.
THE PAPAL MEGAPHONE
After Regensburg, the mainstream Italian La Stampa ran the headline THE POPE AND BUSH ALLIED AGAINST TERROR. The association with the Iraq war and U.S. interrogation methods must have horrified the Pontiff, if only because it could undermine the church’s honest-broker role in regional conflicts. “It’s easy to say, ‘Go Benedict! Hit the Muslims!’“ Says Gibson, “But that’s not who he is. He is not a Crusader.” Shortly before Regensburg, Benedict had endured Western criticism for repeatedly demanding a cease-fire after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Angelo Cardinal Scola, a protégé of the Pope’s who edits Oasis, a church quarterly on dialogue on Islam can turn to violence does not mean we must respond with a crusade.
The Pope’s pursuit of his newfound calling as Islamic interlocutor will be tricky, theologically and politically. Unlike the holy books of Judaism and Christianity, the Koran and Hadiths contains verses precisely regulating the conduct of war and exhorting Muslims to wage against various enemies. The bellicosity of some Koranic passages owes much to the fact that they were written at a time when Muslims were engaged in almost constant warfare to defend their religion. But when suicide bombers today go to their fates with the Koran’s verses on their lips, it invites questions about Islam’s credentials as a religion that is willing to police its own claims of peace and tolerance. As conservative Catholic scholar Michael Novak points out, the Vatican’s pacifism gives Benedict unmatched moral standing to press this point. “Being against war, he can say tougher things… than any President or Prime Minister can. His role is to represent Western civilization.”
Perhaps so, but then he might have to represent his past as well, including all the historical violence done in Jesus’ name (despite the Gospels’ pacifism). Discussion of Christianity’s dark hours has not been his penchant. Moreover, the position Benedict took in Regensburg—that Islam and violence are indeed essentially connected—worked as an opening gambit but doesn’t leave much room for either side to maneuver. People asked to flatly renounce their Holy Writ generally don’t. And Benedict has little give—because first, he seldom says anything he is not prepared to defend to the bitter end and second, if he retreats now, he risks being accused of the same moral relativism that he rails against.
Still, many Catholics are rooting for him to come up with a way to engage without enraging. The widely read Catholic blogger Amy Welborn says, “I think there’s a pretty widespread fed-up-ness with Islamic sensitivity. I agree that elements of Islam that either explicitly espouse violence or are less than aggressive in combating it need to be challenged and nudged, [just as] I would like to see the Pope continue to challenge and nudge people of all different religions—Christian and non-Christian—to look at the suffering people.” She thinks that, given the heat he’s taking in parts of the Islamic world, his willingness to go through with his Turkish trip is “so brave.”
But what should he do while he’s there? John Esposito, a respected Islam scholar at Georgetown University, says the Pope can’t confine himself to meetings with Christian leaders. “He must address the Muslim majority.” Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor at George Washington University and one of the 38 signatories to the October letter to Benedict, says the Pope should deliver an “earnest expression of commonality”—even if it’s only the widely accepted observation that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim descent from the biblical figure of Abraham. Father Richard McBrien, a theologian at Notre Dame, says that “if he doesn’t bring up the issue of reciprocal respect for Christian minorities, he’s not doing his job,” but that he should avoid an absolutist, now-or-never stance.
High-ranking Vatican sources say Benedict will avoid repeating the Islam-and-violence trope in any form as blatant as Regensburg’s Instead, suggests Father Thomas Reese, a senior research fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington, an independent nonprofit institute at Georgetown, the Pope may take a less broad-brush approach to the issue by repeating his sentiment from Cologne: “He could say, ‘You like me, are concerned about terrorism’ and he would like to see Islamic clerics be more up front condemning it.” Once over the hump, happier topics should be easy to find. “Quite frankly,” says Reese, “the Pope and the Muslims are on the same page on abortion. They [agree on] relativism and consumerism, hedonistic culture, sex and violence, Palestinian rights.” Conceivably, like John Paul’s first journey back to communist Poland, Benedict’s simple presence in this Muslim land may speak louder than words.
Whether this is the way Benedict will choose to proceed remains to be seen. But whatever he does, bold or subtle, the explosiveness of the current relationship between Islam and the West will require him to become a diplomat as much as a scholar. As he strives to assume that role, holding out an olive branch to other religions while fiercely defending his own, the Pope may want to consider the story of a much earlier walker of the Catholic-Islamic tightrope. In the 13th century, during the middle of the Fifth Crusade, St. Francis of Assisi briefly departed Italy and journeyed to the Holy Land to evangelize the Muslims. According to Christian traditions, he preached the gospel to the Sultan, only to be told that Muslims were as convinced of the truth of Islam as Francis was of Christianity. At that, Francis proposed that he and a Muslim walk through a fire to test whose faith was stronger. The Sultan said he didn’t know whether he could locate a volunteer. Francis said he would walk through the fire by himself. Impressed with Francis’ devotion, the Sultan, while maintaining his own faith, agreed to truce between the two warring sides.
Francis’ precise methods may be a bit outdated. But 800 years later, his mixture of flexibility and tenacity could be useful paradigm for a frank and sincere dialogue in an ever turbulent religious world.
—With reporting by Jeff Chu/New York, Andrew Purvis/Berlin and Perlin Turgut/Ankara with other bureaus.
By David Van Biema and Jeff Israely/Rome
For the traveling Pontiff, it was not a laid-back Turkish holiday. The citizens of the proud, predominantly Muslim nation had no love of Popes. To the East, the Iranian government was galvanizing anti-Western feeling. The news reported that an escaped killer was on the loose, threatening to assassinate the Pontiff when he arrived. Yet the Holy Father was undaunted. “Love is stronger than danger,” he said. “I am in the hands of God.” He fared forward—to Ankara, to Istanbul—and preached the commonality of the world’s great faiths. He enjoined both Christians and Muslims to “seek ties friendship with other believers who invoke the name of a single God.” He did not leave covered garlands, but he set a groundwork for what would be years of rapprochement between the Holy See and Islam. He was a uniter, not a divider.
That was 1979 and Pope John Paul II. But when Benedict XVI travels to Turkey next week on his first visit to a Muslim country since becoming Pope last year, he is unlikely to cloak himself in a downy banner of brotherhood, the way his predecessor died 27 years ago. Instead, Benedict, 79, will arrive carrying a different reputation: that of a hard-knuckle intellect with a taste for blunt talk and interreligious confrontation. Just 19 months into his tenure, the Pope has become as much a moral lightning rod as a theologian; suddenly, when he speaks, the whole world listens. And so what takes place over four days in three Turkish cities has the potential to define his papacy—and a good deal more.
Few people saw this coming. Nobody truly expected Benedict to be a mere caretaker Pope—his sometimes ferocious 24 year tenure as the Vatican’s theological enforcer and John Paul’s right hand suggested anything but passivity. But this same familiarity argued against surprises. The new Pontiff was expected to sustain John Paul’s conservative line on morality and church discipline and focus most of his energies on trimming the Vatican bureaucracy and battling Western culture’s “moral relativism.” Although acknowledged as a brilliant conservative theologian, Benedict lacked the open-armed charisma of his predecessor. Moreover, what had initially propelled John Paul to the center of the world stage was his challenge to communism and its subsequent fall, a huge geopolitical event that the Pope helped precipitate with two exhilarating visits to his beloved Polish homeland. By contrast, what could Benedict do? Liberate Bavaria?
Well, not quite. But this year he has emerged as a far more compelling and complex figure than anyone had imagined. And much of that has to do with his willingness to confront what some people feel is today’s equivalent of the communist scourge—the threat of Islamic violence. The topic is extraordinarily fraught. There are, after all, a billion or so nonviolent Muslims on the globe, the Roman Catholic Church’s own record in the religious-mayhem department is hardly pristine, and even the most naïve of observers understands that the Vicar of Christ might harbor an institutional prejudice against one of Christianity’s main global competitors. But by speaking out last September in Regensburg, Germany, about the possible intrinsic connection between Islam and violence, the Pontiff suddenly became a lot more interesting. Even when Islamic extremists destroyed several churches and murdered a nun in Somalia, Benedict refused to retract the essence of his remarks. In one imperfect but powerful stroke, he departed from his predecessor’s largely benign approach to Islam and discovered an issue that might tract even the most religiously jaded. In doing so, he managed (for better or worse) to reanimate the clash-of-civilizations discussion by focusing scrutiny on the core question of whether Islam, as a religion, sanctions violence. He was hailed by cultural conservatives worldwide. Says Helen Hull Hitchcock, a St. Louis, Missouri lay leader who heads the conservative Catholic organization Women for Faith and Family: “He has said what needed to be said.”
But Benedict now finds himself in an unfamiliar position as he embarks on the most important mission of his papacy. Having thrust himself to the center of the global debate and earned the vilification on the Muslim street, he must weigh hard options. Does he seize his new platform, insisting that another great faith has potentially deadly flaws and daring it to discuss them, while exhorting Western audiences to be morally armed? Or does he back away from further confrontation in the hope of tamping down the rage his words have already provoked? Those who know him say he was clearly shocked and appalled by the violent reaction to the Germany speech. Yet it seems unlikely that he will completely drop the topic and the megaphone he has discovered he is holding. “The Pope has the intention to say what he thinks,” says a high-ranking Vatican diplomat. “He may adjust his tone, but his direction won’t change.”
APPOINTMENT IN ANKARA
If the test of a new act is to see how well it plays in a tough room, Benedict has certainly booked himself into a doozy. In the racial memory of Western Europe, the Turks were the face of militant Islam, besieging Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and for centuries thereafter representing a kind of stock bogeyman. In 2002, after nearly a century of determinedly secularist rule, the country elected a moderate Islamic party. For many in the West, that makes Turkey simultaneously a symbol of hope (of moderation) and fear (of Islamism).
The Pope’s original invitation came in 2005, from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which represents a nervous 0.01% of the country’s population. The Turkish government, miffed that as a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger had opposed Turkey’s urgent bid to join the European Union, finally issued its own belated offer for 2006. But even now, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has discovered a previous engagement that will take him out of the country while Benedict is in it. Although modest, sales of a Turkish novel subtitled Who Will Kill the Pope in Istanbul? (the book finger everyone but Islamists) have increased as his trip approaches. The country is expected to place about 22,000 policemen on the streets of Istanbul while he is there. “This is a very high-risk visit,” says Cengiz Aktar, a Turkish political scientist. “There is a vocal nationalist movement here, and there is the Pope, a man who likes to play with fire.”
Actually, Benedict will probably try to stay away from matches during his successive stops in Ankara, Ephesus and Istanbul. Speculation about what the Pope will say and do on this visit has consumed Rome for weeks. Papal watchers say Benedict cannot out-Regensburg himself, but gauzy talk about the compatibility of Christianity and Islam isn’t likely either. Over the course of his career, Benedict has been averse to reciting multifaith platitudes, an aversion that has sharpened as he has focused on Islam. And that’s what could make his coming encounter with the Muslim world, says David Gibson, author of The Rule of Benedict, either “a step toward religious harmony or toward holy war.”
A BRIGHT-LINES KIND OF GUY
In 1986, Pope John Paul convened a remarkable multifaith summit in the medieval Italian town of Assisi. Muslims and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others, convened to celebrate their (distinct) spiritualities and pray for peace. It was a signature John Paul moment, but not everybody caught the vibe. “It was a disaster,” sniffs an observer. “People were praying together, and nobody had any idea what they were praying to.” The witness, whose view undoubtedly reflected that of his boss, was an aide to Cardinal Ratzinger.
Unlike John Paul, who had a big-tent approach, Ratzinger has always favored bright theological lines and correspondingly high walls between creeds he regards as unequally meritorious. His long-standing habit is to correct any aide who calls a religion other than Christianity and Judaism a “faith.” Prior to his papacy, the culmination of this philosophy was his office’s 1999 Vatican document Dominus Jesus, which described non-Catholics as being in a “gravely deficient situation” regarding salvation. The fact that this offended some of the deficient parties did not particularly bother him. Notes the same assistant: “To understand each other…. You have to talk about what divides.”
That approach includes Islam. In Ratzinger’s 1996 interview book Salt of the Earth (with Peter Seewald), he noted that “we must recognize that Islam is not a uniform thing. No one can speak for [it] as a whole. There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice.” This sophisticated understanding however, did not keep Ratzinger from slapping down a bishop who wanted to invite peaceable Muslims to a papal ceremony in Fatima, Portugal, or in 2004, from objecting to Turkish E.U. entry on grounds that it has always been “in permanent contrast to Europe,” a contrast his other writings made clear had much to do with religion.
Islam played a particular role—as both a threat and a model—in the drama that probably lies closest to Benedict’s heart: the secularization of Christian Europe. In the same 1996 book, he wrote that “the Islamic soul reawakened” in reaction to the erosion of the West’ moral stature during the 1960s. Ratzinger paraphrased that soul’s new song: “We know who we are; our religion is holding its ground; you don’t have one any longer. We have moral message that has existed without interruption since the prophets, and we will tell the world how to live it, where the Christians certainly can’t.”
After Sept. 11, Ratzinger’s attitude toward Islam seems to have hardened. According to Gibson, the Cardinals in the conclave that elected Ratzinger made it clear that they expected a tougher dialogue with the other faith. After the London subway bombings in July 2005, the new Pope responded to the question of whether Islam was a “religion of peace”—as George W. Bush, among others, has always stressed—by saying, “Certainly there are also elements that can favor peace.” When we met with moderate German Muslims in the city of Cologne that August, Benedict delivered a fairly blunt warning that “those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations.” In Rome, he removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a relatively dovish to Islam expert as head of the Vatican’s office on interreligious dialogue and replaced an ongoing study of Christian violence during the Crusades with one on Islamic violence today. And he has stepped up the Vatican insistence on reciprocity—demanding the same rights for Christians in Muslim-majority countries that Muslims enjoy in the West.
All of this led observers to expect him to eventually make a major statement about Islam, although most assumed that it wouldn’t stray to far from John Paul’s fraternal tone. Nobody anticipated what happened in southern Germany.
THE POINT OF NO RETURN
On Sept. 12, 2006, the day after the world had marked the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Benedict threw himself into the maelstrom. The unlikely venue was his old teaching grounds, the University of Regensburg. His vehicle was a talk about reason as part of Christianity’s very essence. His nominal target was his usual suspect, the secular West, which he said had committed the tragic error of discarding Christianity as reason-free. But this time he had an additional villain I his sights: Islam, which he said actually he strongly suggested was consequently more inclined to violence.
To show that Islam sees God as so transcendent that reason is extraneous, Benedict cited an 11th century Muslim sage named Ibn Hazm. To establish the connection between this position and violence, he quoted a 15th century Christian Byzantine Emperor (and head of the Byzantine, or Eastern, Church) named Manuel II Paleologus. Paleologus criticized Muslims for “spreading [their faith] by the sword,” both because “God is not pleased by blood” and because true conversion depended on reason. “Show me just what the Muhammad brought that was new,” Paleologus said, in a passage quoted by Benedict, “and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”
It remains unclear whether Benedict was deliberately trying to raise the temperature. Many analysts, especially in Rome, think he knew exactly what he was saying and regard the Islamic section of the 35-min. speech as a brave and eloquent warning of Islam’s inherent violence and of a faithless West’s inability to offer moral response. Yet Benedict’s argument was slapdash and flawed. His sage, Ibn Hazm, turned out to have belonged to a school with no current adherents, and although reason’s primacy is debated in Islam, it is very much part of the culture that developed algebra. Paleologus’ forced-conversion accusation misrepresents the sweep of Muslim history, since more often than not, Islam has left religious groups in conquered territory intact, if hobbled. And assuming that a punctilious scholar like Benedict really wanted to engage on Islam and violence, why do it through the idiosyncratic lens of an embattled king in the 1400s who made his name partly for his efforts at drumming up enthusiasm for a new Crusade?
The reaction to the speech was intense. Small bands of Muslim thugs burned Benedict in effigy, attacked the churches in the Middle East and, on Sept. 17 murdered the nun in Somalia. Over the course of a month, Benedict issued a series of partial apologies and corrections unprecedented in the papacy. He expressed regret to those offended summoned a group of Muslim notables to make the point personally and disowned the “evil and inhuman” slur on Muhammad as Manuel’s sentiment but not his own. He even issued a second version of the speech to reflect those sentiments.
But he never retracted his more basic association of Islam with unreason and violence. Indeed, if he had, it would have caused considerable confusion—if only because the behavior of the extremists seemed, at least to some, to prove his point. No editorialist could express frustration with him or initiating the row without condemning the subsequent carnage—and a good many decided his only vault was in speaking truth. Says a high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome: “It was time to let the rabbit out of the can, and he did. I admire his courage. Part of the Koran lends itself to being shanghaied by terrorists, and he can do what politicians can’t.” In late October, Benedict received a different kind of validation in an open “Your Holiness” letter from 38 best-known names in Islamic theology. The missive politely eviscerated his Regensburg speech but went on to “applaud” the Pope’s effort to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life” and expressed a desire for “frank and sincere dialogue.” At a time when the credibility of Western political leaders in the Muslim world has sunk to new depths, the letter treated Benedict as a spokesman for the West.
Says a Vatican insider with a shrug: “Everyone’s asking, ‘Did the Pope make a mistake?’ It doesn’t really matter at this point.” Whether Benedict had actually intended Regensburg to be the catalyst, he had become a player.
THE PAPAL MEGAPHONE
After Regensburg, the mainstream Italian La Stampa ran the headline THE POPE AND BUSH ALLIED AGAINST TERROR. The association with the Iraq war and U.S. interrogation methods must have horrified the Pontiff, if only because it could undermine the church’s honest-broker role in regional conflicts. “It’s easy to say, ‘Go Benedict! Hit the Muslims!’“ Says Gibson, “But that’s not who he is. He is not a Crusader.” Shortly before Regensburg, Benedict had endured Western criticism for repeatedly demanding a cease-fire after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Angelo Cardinal Scola, a protégé of the Pope’s who edits Oasis, a church quarterly on dialogue on Islam can turn to violence does not mean we must respond with a crusade.
The Pope’s pursuit of his newfound calling as Islamic interlocutor will be tricky, theologically and politically. Unlike the holy books of Judaism and Christianity, the Koran and Hadiths contains verses precisely regulating the conduct of war and exhorting Muslims to wage against various enemies. The bellicosity of some Koranic passages owes much to the fact that they were written at a time when Muslims were engaged in almost constant warfare to defend their religion. But when suicide bombers today go to their fates with the Koran’s verses on their lips, it invites questions about Islam’s credentials as a religion that is willing to police its own claims of peace and tolerance. As conservative Catholic scholar Michael Novak points out, the Vatican’s pacifism gives Benedict unmatched moral standing to press this point. “Being against war, he can say tougher things… than any President or Prime Minister can. His role is to represent Western civilization.”
Perhaps so, but then he might have to represent his past as well, including all the historical violence done in Jesus’ name (despite the Gospels’ pacifism). Discussion of Christianity’s dark hours has not been his penchant. Moreover, the position Benedict took in Regensburg—that Islam and violence are indeed essentially connected—worked as an opening gambit but doesn’t leave much room for either side to maneuver. People asked to flatly renounce their Holy Writ generally don’t. And Benedict has little give—because first, he seldom says anything he is not prepared to defend to the bitter end and second, if he retreats now, he risks being accused of the same moral relativism that he rails against.
Still, many Catholics are rooting for him to come up with a way to engage without enraging. The widely read Catholic blogger Amy Welborn says, “I think there’s a pretty widespread fed-up-ness with Islamic sensitivity. I agree that elements of Islam that either explicitly espouse violence or are less than aggressive in combating it need to be challenged and nudged, [just as] I would like to see the Pope continue to challenge and nudge people of all different religions—Christian and non-Christian—to look at the suffering people.” She thinks that, given the heat he’s taking in parts of the Islamic world, his willingness to go through with his Turkish trip is “so brave.”
But what should he do while he’s there? John Esposito, a respected Islam scholar at Georgetown University, says the Pope can’t confine himself to meetings with Christian leaders. “He must address the Muslim majority.” Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor at George Washington University and one of the 38 signatories to the October letter to Benedict, says the Pope should deliver an “earnest expression of commonality”—even if it’s only the widely accepted observation that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim descent from the biblical figure of Abraham. Father Richard McBrien, a theologian at Notre Dame, says that “if he doesn’t bring up the issue of reciprocal respect for Christian minorities, he’s not doing his job,” but that he should avoid an absolutist, now-or-never stance.
High-ranking Vatican sources say Benedict will avoid repeating the Islam-and-violence trope in any form as blatant as Regensburg’s Instead, suggests Father Thomas Reese, a senior research fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington, an independent nonprofit institute at Georgetown, the Pope may take a less broad-brush approach to the issue by repeating his sentiment from Cologne: “He could say, ‘You like me, are concerned about terrorism’ and he would like to see Islamic clerics be more up front condemning it.” Once over the hump, happier topics should be easy to find. “Quite frankly,” says Reese, “the Pope and the Muslims are on the same page on abortion. They [agree on] relativism and consumerism, hedonistic culture, sex and violence, Palestinian rights.” Conceivably, like John Paul’s first journey back to communist Poland, Benedict’s simple presence in this Muslim land may speak louder than words.
Whether this is the way Benedict will choose to proceed remains to be seen. But whatever he does, bold or subtle, the explosiveness of the current relationship between Islam and the West will require him to become a diplomat as much as a scholar. As he strives to assume that role, holding out an olive branch to other religions while fiercely defending his own, the Pope may want to consider the story of a much earlier walker of the Catholic-Islamic tightrope. In the 13th century, during the middle of the Fifth Crusade, St. Francis of Assisi briefly departed Italy and journeyed to the Holy Land to evangelize the Muslims. According to Christian traditions, he preached the gospel to the Sultan, only to be told that Muslims were as convinced of the truth of Islam as Francis was of Christianity. At that, Francis proposed that he and a Muslim walk through a fire to test whose faith was stronger. The Sultan said he didn’t know whether he could locate a volunteer. Francis said he would walk through the fire by himself. Impressed with Francis’ devotion, the Sultan, while maintaining his own faith, agreed to truce between the two warring sides.
Francis’ precise methods may be a bit outdated. But 800 years later, his mixture of flexibility and tenacity could be useful paradigm for a frank and sincere dialogue in an ever turbulent religious world.
—With reporting by Jeff Chu/New York, Andrew Purvis/Berlin and Perlin Turgut/Ankara with other bureaus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)