Leaving Kigali

Do not let the title of this pot confuse you, I am still in Kigali, but this week was the first chance that I had to leave the capital and see a few projects operating in a town called Kayonza, in the Eastern Province of Rwanda. We visited the parish pastor for the region and also saw the church building and met the youth from the Lutheran congregation in Kayonza. Although Kigali is a good city, with a lot to explore for this project, it was refreshing to get outside Kigali, both for the change of scenery, and to see the work of reconciliation in the field. Because Kigali is both the political and economic epicenter of the country, the work of reconciliation can sometimes be overshadowed by the booming development being seen in the city today. I was here one year ago, and while the city was clean, developed, and safe by all accounts, in a little over one year the city has gotten even larger, more developed, and more cosmopolitan. It is not uncommon to sit down in a café of bar and see Europeans, Americans, Africans, and Asians all sitting together.

This week has been a challenge for the research, but has provided some good offerings. We failed to reach the critical mass of interviews required for this week to be considered successful, but I am beginning to think that does not matter. I think a change in the focus and process of this research will be required, but I think it will be for the better. At the moment I am pondering writing on the three approaches to reconciliation I see happening within the Protestant church community: an individual denomination approach, an interfaith approach, and an independent religious actor approach. In stead of fully embracing myself in one of these approaches, specifically the individual denomination approach, I think it will be good to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of all these approaches, and evaluate their overall effectiveness. This is influenced largely from the fact that I will not meet the required number of interviews, but I also feel there is much to learn from studying these approaches, even if I can only offer a cursory overview. If nothing else hopefully it will contribute to the conversation about religious peacebuilding, at least in the Rwandan context. In other news, I have not yet confirmed the assertion in last week’s post about the Catholic Church being absent from interfaith. My feeling is that is not correct, but I hope to confirm that this week.

Although this week lacked for quantity of research, the quality was vey high. One interesting insight this week came from several discussions concerning the role that projects with tangible results play in the reconciliation process. This may go without saying, but the purpose of the projects – such as building houses, building community center, making baskets, etc. – is not simply the tangible result, but rather the sense of community that arises from these interactions. For example, one organization doing some extraordinary work in Rwanda is called REACH, Reconciliation, Evangelism, and Christian Healing. REACH works with the government to reintegrate prisoners convicted through the gacaca courts back into their communities. The government forces these people to contribute a certain number of hours of community service as part of the reintegration process. What REACH does, with government approval, is to take some of these prisoners into the communities where they committed crimes, and help them build homes for the victims of their crimes.

Now, before going forward with this point I should say that it is my understanding that in order to be released from prison on this sort of work-release program, you must admit your crimes, ask for forgiveness, and sincerely feel remorse for their crimes. Many, though by no means all, of these people, the perpetrators, after reflecting on their actions, feel a great since of guilt and remorse, and desire to seek forgiveness. REACH helps the victims and the perpetrators down this journey of reconciliation and forgiveness by not only providing training and counseling to both groups, but by putting them in a position to build relationships. They do this through a work program where the perpetrators rebuild homes for victims whose properties were destroyed in 1994. The perpetrators are responsible for the manual labor, but the victims are also asked to help by providing water for drinking and bathing and preparing some meals. This interaction allows the victim some tangible reparation for their loss, and allows the perpetrator the opportunity to give back to those whom they harmed.

Now this is not a perfect system, by any means, but REACH has determined that this program is successful in building relationships between victims and perpetrators, and allows the process of healing, reconciling, and forgiving. The primary goal of REACH, in this instance, is not so much the construction of the house, but this process of building relationships.

The other part of my research that was inspiring to me, and which I think I have written on in previous posts, is the detailed understanding of process used by both the Lutheran Church of Rwanda, but especially by REACH. (This post is not meant to be an advertisement for REACH, but I am impressed with their methodology.) It is now some 15 years since the genocide occurred, and some people might think that sufficient time has passed and that Rwanda is now stable, growing, and no longer a concern. But for those working in the field of reconciliation, they know this to be a much longer process. As it was explained to mean, the process of reconciliation is two fold, first personal, then interpersonal and intergroup. By this I mean that for individuals to be open to reconciliation, they must first take the time to process their own actions, traumas, and experiences. This happens for both the victim and the perpetrators. Reconciliation is a two way street, and it requires both parties to approach each other. Depending on the individual and the crime either committed or endured, this personal process can take years to a lifetime. Most of the organizations and people I am meeting here understand and respect this, and develop their programs accordingly. This is impressive in an age of high-speed, tangible results, that these grassroots organizations remain focused on such a well understand process of long-term, sustainable reconciliation.

Next week should offer more opportunities to explore both the role of the Lutheran Church, and independent religious actors such as REACH. I am hoping to continue venturing out from Kigali and exploring the work being down in the provinces. Soon, we will receive government permission to move beyond the boundaries of the church, and we will begin to start our comparative work, evaluating the political and community leaders responses to these religious efforts at reconciliation.