Bethlehem,24/08/०७, इन्तेर्विएव विथ रेव मित्री Raheb

Had a wonderful meeting with Mitri. He certainly did not feel that Sabeel should have any problems with raising and utilizing funds. The problem was how the funds were utilized, etc. He felt the priorities were different at Sabeel, the approaches were different. Sabeel was more concerned with advocacy work. He did not feel that there was anything to prevent Sabeel from doing what Mitri had achieved here in Bethlehem. The need in East Jerusalem was virtually the same. It was just a question of priorities and interests. Sabeel was always an advocacy organization with a pre-eminent pre-occupation with educating the West and Palestinian Christian people in general about the situation in Palestinian territories, etc. He also felt that it was pre-eminently a question of approach and the fact that Naim belonged to an older generation of theologians that were more comfortable in the approaches of decades ago. He spoke about the need to be more professional and systematic based, efficient than the ‘old’ system of Palestinian Non-Governmental Organisations. He felt the need to harness the creativity and the inherent talent of the people than to appeal in the old fashioned approach. Naim showed a blend of Anglo-Saxon theology as well as South American Liberation Theology. This he did not feel was relevant to the situation on the ground in the Territories. My approach is more contextual, taking a more liberal exegesis and blended with the contextual approach. He is not for the Orthodox Marxist approach, etc.

Mitri critiqued his old book of ten years ago saying much was written in an idealistic spirit and would be somewhat irrelevant today. However he stood by what he wrote, saying that as a contextual theologian, what he had written was final and that there was no going back on that. Today, the situation in the occupied territories had changed a lot and there was no more prospects for idealism, but for visions, these were important now. He had a particular vision for infrastructure and building institutions, implementing projects, many more were in the pipeline, etc. developing human resources thru arts and culture, etc

Mitri felt that Naim’s approach was very systematic, his was contextual and he had a problem with the systematic approach. His vision was with building up the Palestine of his dreams, not being bogged down with questions of the occupation, etc. He felt that there were enough obsessions with the occupation and a two or one state solution. Now was the time to build up the Kingdom of God. That was more important than anything else.

The context was important because that it is based on narratives. His book was very narrative. He was more comfortable with that kind of approach.

He did not feel that there was any space in Palestine for classical orthodox theologians. One must take notice of the uneducated people in Palestine. Most of the people did not care about theology. We should appeal to them thru practical policies.

Mitri did not believe in talking about inter-faith. He found that very boring, inter-faith dialogue. Most important was actually bringing people together without talking about the process. Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem and in Palestine had the same needs and some times different needs. The need of the hour was to provide for their needs.

He felt that in Germany, many people had a big problem with Naim’s theology. At the same time, in Anglo-Saxon countries, many people supported Naim’s approach, mainly in the US and UK.

Mitri said that he once felt more at home in al-Liqa. However he felt that the reason why he left al-Liqa and Sabeel was that they were caught up in a particular perspective which he felt was not enough. There must be movements on the ground, more innovations, etc. There should be new lands, approaches, probabilities. In his words, we need to be moving on and tackling new issues in theological dialogue.

In his Mind, he felt inter-faith very boring. He felt that Naim,s approach was very important and that more people should be doing that.

He felt that the emphasis of Naim and al-Liqa was to produce papers and newsletters which were very important, academic wise that would appeal to a particular segment of educated people but that was not his method at the ICB. Here we emphasize the importance of building infrastructure and human resources.

If you emphasize on the context in any particular situation, then you cannot be very systematic or concentrate on the systematic approach.

He again and again emphasized that he felt Naim’s approach to be too Anglo-Saxon and radical liberation theology oriented for comfort.

Its interesting to note that most of Mitri’s helpers, supporters, etc come from the Lutheran world, and in particular Germany and Scandinavia. There seemed to be little ‘real’ Lutherans in Sabeel, with the exception of the triple R.

He also mentioned that in Germany, many people had a problem with Naim’s approach, indeed that it was not quite correct or good theology.

On the other hand, lots of people supported Naim in the Anglo-Saxon West, so it all seemed to be a question of approach.

With all the institutions built up by Naim, the importance is to show a taste of new life. That is very important. It is important not to be so focused on the occupation but to think beyond it. That’s what carries weight. This approach is very philosophical and probably cannot be understood by many people at once. Theology must be translated into infrastructure, people and ultimately onto the streets.

At al-Liqa and Sabeel, there were always good meetings, talks, debates, publications, glossy newsletter, etc and then what was the ultimate effect. Again base-superstructure question.

The practice of faith is very important and that practice should make maximum impact to the majority of people. That alone carries weight and value.

Mitri felt that it was important to include Muslims in all projects, indeed sometimes more work must be done for Muslims than for Christians, as true liberation will not be achieved for Christians without the Muslims as well. Liberation for Palestinians has to be wholistic, or not at all. Christians are a small minority in a Muslim sea, etc

All Mitri’s outreach activities are a theologically speaking a fore-taste of understanding the concept of the Kingdom of God.

This is a very important issue for Mitri, the whole concept of the Kingdom of God.

We must work for a Palestinian state, but it cannot be something that take’s up all our attention. People have been talking about the Palestinian state for so long and what has been the result. We are not so much concerned about that here. We are really concerned about the Kingdom of God here. Very philosophical. The end of the occupation is not the goal. For us the goal is liberation, yes but also liberation of the soul, etc.

Sabeel is much more politicized, yes all activities in general in Palestine is politics. It is obviously very difficult to divorce politics from action. Politics is all encompassing in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The ICB has a contextual, service oriented approach.

Mitri decided last year not to accept any invitation to speak outside that did not concern his own organization directly as well as its development.

He believed that as Christians, we were just shooting ourselves in the leg if we did not care about our fellow Muslims and their welfare.

We cannot live in our own isolated worlds.

Al-Liqa was very much about inter-faith issues, etc. Infact one of the criticisms of Sabeel about al-Liqa was just that it was too pre-occupied with these issues.

He felt that it was just boring.

Christians and Muslims must come together without having the necessity to speak about coming together. He said he would prefer to see Christians and Muslims swimming and walking and going on tours and painting together than anything else as well as going on tours to the states together, etc.

He felt that what he was doing at the ICB was actually doing more to bring Muslims and Christians, the youth together than any conferences and talks.

A very ground based approach. It should happen very naturally Christian-Muslim unity, not something imposed from above or talked thru in talks.

Christian-Muslim unity should be achieved by emphasizing the unity of people. And the potential of the people.

Development can only be wholistic which is certainly different from Sabeel’s approach. We must develop both parties. Mitri acknowledges that many Christians in Palestine have problems with me because of this wholistic approach.

My theology is definitely influenced by Lutheran theology, tho not classical Lutheran Orthodox theology. I do not feel I have anything to do with that and there is no relevance for that in this country. Mitri feels that Luther as well was a contextual theologian. He translated the Bible into German, re-wrote German folklore and sayings as well as tried to reach the masses. This is just what any contextual theologians will do. Luther did this in the situation he was in the later Middle Ages in Germany.

I feel the same situation applies here in the Middle East today where you have the same disturbed situation where Islamic society is in some sort of disturbance. The Islamic world is in a crisis just as Middle Ages in Europe were. The Middle East is just waiting to defeat the sunnah, the Sharia in the name of God. He is referring to Islamic fundamentalism here. It cannot be defeated by the forces of secularism, and nationalism. This approach has failed completely. We can only defeat Islamic fundamentalism with the power of God.

It’s a question of understanding the two kingdoms. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom on Earth. As Palestinians, we always seem to talk about the world as we would like it. This is the case at Sabeel as well as al-Liqa. Mitri acknowledges that he was very much associated with al-Liqa, etc in the 1980s and early 1990s, but now his emphasis has changed completely. Sabeel and al-Liqa talk about the world around them as it should be hopefully.

At Mitri, we are concerned more with visions amd actually modeling the world that we want. In this sense, Lutheran theology which is my heritage is more realistic. We are trying to create the kingdom of God here, replay, and manifest the kingdom of God in our souls and in our lives.

Academically I suppose I subscribe to a Lutheran, liberal, contextual theological approach.

He felt that Naim’s Christological, Christ centred hermeneutic is fine as it appeals to the Palestinian Christian people. The purpose of Naim’s book is to relate to mainly western Christians, in that sense his theology is anti-Palestinian as the majority of the Palestinian people are non-Christian or even if Christian do not focus so much on theological issues.

Over the last ten years a big change has taken place in my theological approach and much of what I wrote in the book is dated but I do not take back anything of what I wrote.

Now I’m mainly concerned with visions. Visions to make things happen. One state or two states is not so important anymore. One needs to be bold in one’s vision: The kingdom of God, which is a bold vision.

One needs to think boldly in Palestine today, or else nothing will really happen. We actually have to deal with an Apartheid state, instead of a one or two state solution.

Mitri feels very much that his approach is very much at the beginning. He told me of secret plans in the pipeline which he hoped would be great for Bethlehem and the Christians and Muslims of this land. He feels that his so called contextual approach has proved itself effective. As an academic, he feels that it should be sufficient to say that approaches, practical hands on as well as advocacy, theoretical have their good points. Indeed he feels that more people in Palestine, ministers should act like Naim does in advocacy work. That would be great.

He feels that one should show the potential one is capable of in the pipeline.

He talked about Diyar, what it was, etc.

Diyar had been arranged to get rid of structural problems in the conceiving of various projects. There must be no more structural problems. Our structures must be modern and must run professionally. That was the need of the hour in Palestine.

This is much better than traditional Palestinian NGO’s.

There is a question of age in the approaches of both organizations. Diyar is an umbrella organization. It is just the structure. There are three separate entities under this structure, The ICB, the health and wellness centre and the College. Its also a question of vision, leadership and funding.

He referred to the name, Dar, Diyar, plural of home. All his organizations are homes. Homeland- Really about belonging. We at Dar al-Kalima are concerned about the building of the homeland and belonging to it.