Volume 1. Issue 1, Fall 2007

Why is a Nobel laureate in economics writing about the “conceptual disarray” in contemporary theories of identity?

Reinterpretation of violent biblical texts fails both morally and practically in stemming the use of sacred scriptures to justify violence, argues Hector Avalos. Accordingly, he outlines a case for decanonizing biblical texts, using an explicit theological principle that any portrayal of a loving God as endorsing or committing violence must be understood as false. Although the author is a secular humanist, he demonstrates that a plea for decanonizing violent texts can be made within a Christian theological tradition. Avalos reviews historical examples of how Anabaptist and other Christian traditions have rethought the biblical canon, and he proposes that using nonviolence as a fundamental theological criterion for canonicity would yield a Bible more consistent with Christian pacifistic principles.

Contemporary Islamic-Western tensions are challenging scholars and practitioners of conflict resolution to engage more proactively with cultural and religious dimensions of peacebuilding. To be effective, however, responses to politicized religion need to recognize the complex and dynamic nature of contemporary identity conflicts, which are driven by a broad array of factors and not by religious ideas alone. Fundamentalism and religiously justified violence need to be understood as outcomes that have been reinforced by protracted confrontation and rivalry between identity groups, and not as autonomous phenomena abstracted from historical, cultural, political, or economic contexts. When informed by such an analysis, religious and cultural peacebuilding becomes a process through which the identity dynamics of conflict are transformed through dialogical engagement, activation of religious peace resources, and integration of religiously informed rationales for peacemaking with other forms of peace and justice advocacy. The essay concludes with a brief survey of priorities for Islamic-Western peacemaking and a call for heightened Canadian efforts to bridge cultural and religious divides.

To speak of “holy war” today is, at least in the West, to speak of Islam or Islamic fundamentalism. Yet, even a cursory glance at history reveals that at one time or another all of the world’s major religions have sacralized violence, at least under certain conditions. This article seeks to understand why, despite the great variety in doctrine and praxis, the world’s major religions have, and continue to, support warfare under such guises as “just war,” “jihad,” or “defense of the [Buddha] Dharma.” While recognizing the important role that doctrine, especially competing claims of exclusive truth, plays in religiously endorsed warfare, this article seeks to take a holistic look at the multiple causes of this phenomenon, including anthropological, sociological, economic, psychological and even evolutionary factors. A wide variety of historical examples from multiple faiths compliment the theoretical constructs, revealing that the elimination of holy war challenges believers to live up to the highest tenets of their respective faiths.