Kimberly LaFave

D'var Torah: Tazria-M'tzora

April 14, 2010

This week, we have two Torah portions, referred to collectively as the Tazria-M’tzora. Each of the chapters in the Book of Leviticus, address different ways in which people and items can become ritually impure, and therefore a potential pollutant of the sacred realm, which centered on the holy areas governed by the priests. We were first introduced to the concept of becoming “ritually impure” last week, in Leviticus, Chapter 11, by exposure to the carcasses of dead animals, or by eating permissible animals that have died in a manner other than slaughter.

Now we are introduced to additional circumstances of ritual impurity: the birth of a child; the appearance of Tzara’at, or various forms of eruptions that appear on skin, fabric, or areas inside a person’s home; and a variety of emissions of the genitals – anything from menstrual flow to semen, to infectious discharge. Each of these impurities is described and discussed in graphic detail, along with specific instructions as to how to become cleansed and pronounced ritually clean. My first reaction to reading this Torah portion, was, quite frankly, “alrighty then”! 

Just reading the chapters made me itchy!

This evening, I would like to draw your attention to Leviticus, Chapter 12, which focuses on the ritual impurity surrounding the birth of a child:

 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixy-six days.

On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. He shall offer it before the Lord and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female. If however, her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean.

This is, of course, assuming both mother and child survive the delivery. It is hard for us, in this age of modern medical miracles that allows the majority of infants born up to 3 months premature to survive… in an area of the world where access to safe drinking water, sanitation, nutritious food and primary health care… greatly reduce the risk and anxiety of infant and maternal mortality, to fully appreciate the experiences of ancient peoples around childbirth.

The Women’s Commentary refers to this experience as being at “the nexus of life and death.” (637) And, it most certainly was for ancient people, as it continues to be for millions of people living in subsistent conditions around the world. The most joyous of moment in a woman’s life could be driven to catastrophe without warning.

As I looked through my daughter’s baby album, pondering this week’s reading, I was struck by the pictures taken of her right after her delivery, bloody and covered in a grayish substance. Twenty-five hundred years ago, I probably would have died, as a c-section was required to deliver her 10-pound frame. I remember how terrified I was 24 hours after my water broke and the doctors began to prep me for surgery. How much more terrified would the 13-year old Hebrew girl have been, having lost siblings, perhaps sisters, and maybe her own mother in childbirth? And, yet, this process is so fundamental and necessary to life itself.

Even in ancient times, menstrual flow, semen, and the messy process of childbirth were all seen as fundamental to life’s very existence. They were not bad, or wrong, or evil. But, yet, contact with these flows were considered “impure” or “unclean”.  We are called to procreate and be co-creators with God, but our ways are not His ways. When we get involved, things get messy. This is a fact of life.

Bringing this reading into focus for us today is challenging, even in my research, one Rabbi admitted that she realized she had managed to skip this portion two years in a row!  So I decided to consider the practical implications of the stages of impurity surrounding the birth of a child. First, I could find no scholarly rational for the difference in length of impurity after a daughter versus a son.  One person suggested that since girls were less desirable, perhaps they were more vulnerable. Allowing extra bonding time with the mother might give them a better chance of being cared for. A thought that occurred to me is that their might be some postpartum depression after the birth of a girl, and being surrounded by other women, rather than her husband, for a few extra weeks might give a woman more strength and joy in order to celebrate the birth of her daughter.

For the women of today, perhaps we can take from this reading a sense of honoring the rhythms of our bodies, at whatever stage we are in, as we honor the seasons and cycles of the year. There are times for going forth, and opportunities for meditation and solitude. There are times for being with our spouses, and times for celebrating in the company of women. For men, perhaps there can be a sense of the special needs of women in relation to their bodies. Instead of bemoaning those “times of the month” as something negative; rather an opportunity to be gentle and give space… an opportunity to explore other mitzvot, knowing the embrace of your wife is around the corner.

 

D'var Torah: Shemini

This week’s Torah Reading, the Sh’mini, continues the Book of Leviticus, Chapters 9-11. In previous readings, we have learned about the offerings of sacrifices that are to be conducted at the Temple, and the establishment of the priests to oversee the Temple and conduct such sacrifices. Now, on the eighth day of their ordination – thus the “Sh’mini”, Hebrew for Eighth – we are witness to the commencement of these activities. Further on in the reading, Moses clarifies who will eat each offering and how it is to be eaten. This is followed by a delineation of the dietary laws for the Israelite people.

I have chosen to focus our attention on the portion of the Torah reading that pertains to the two eldest sons of our newly appointed High Priest, Aaron. The initial offerings have been made at the Temple; the Israelites have received their first blessings from Aaron; and the Presence of the Lord has appeared before them with a fire that leaps forth and consumes the burnt offering. You can imagine the electricity that is in the air! The people have witnessed the spontaneous appearance of the Lord their God, experienced a miracle in the consumption of the offering, and fallen on their faces in awe and fear.

What happens next, we read in Chapter 10, verses 1-7:

Now Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered before Adonai alien fire, which had not been enjoined upon them. And fire came forth from Adonai and consumed them; thus they died at the instance of Adonai. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what Adonai meant by saying: Through those near to Me I show Myself Holy, And gain glory before all the people.’ And Aaron was silent.

Moses called Mishael and Elzapan, sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, and said to them: ‘Come forward and carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp.’ They came forward and carried them out of the camp by their tunics, as Moses had ordered. And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Do not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community. But your kin, all the House of Israel, shall bewail the burning that Adonai has wrought. And so do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die, for Adonai’s anointing oil is upon you.’ And they did as Moses had bidden.

What are we to make of this sudden and unexpected tragedy in the midst of such excitement and wonder? Imagine this: It is January 20, 2009. Barack Obama has just been sworn in as the first African American President of the United States of America. The crowds in Washington DC are thick. People across the country and the world are riveted to their television sets, soaking in each auspicious moment. Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery has just given the benediction; the National Anthem is about to be sung, when unexpectedly, Aretha Franklin, in a sudden frenzy of emotion, flings herself at the president. The sunlight refracts from the large diamond rings on her fingers, producing flashes of light. Just as quickly and unexpectedly, a single shot is fired. Aretha Franklin falls dead at the feet of the President.

Unrealistic? Perhaps. Tragic, certainly. Possible? Yes. Secret Service agents are trained to protect the President with single-minded focus. The people surrounding the president, the people in that inner circle, are made aware of the decorum with which they must act. When this decorum is violated, response and reaction becomes unpredictable.

So, now we know that people close to the president need to listen with open ears to the security briefings, and priests had better read the procedures manual for the temple very, very carefully. But, what does this passage say to us?

I was raised in a very loving, practicing Christian home. My grandfather, whom I adored, was a minister. One day, when I was in the sixth grade, he and my grandmother were visiting my family. My mother and I had become embroiled in a heated argument, probably over clothing, and I had mouthed off to her. My grandfather, who had overheard, called me aside and chastised me, “Kimberly, that is not the way Christian’s behave.” A slap to my face would have been less painful.

I was horrified. My faith was so important to me, and my intention was not to transgress God, but merely to be permitted to wear jeans. How dare he be so harsh! But, that simple statement of fact: “The teachings of my faith prohibit such behavior” stayed with me.  I have mulled over those words in countless ways, many times angrily asking, “Why me? Everyone else around me gets to do whatever he or she want without guilt or repercussion! Why am I stuck with these words in my head that cause me such consternation?

“Through those near to Me, I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people.” And Aaron was silent.

What more is there to say than that? With each step we take to gain intimacy with the Power that created the universe and all that is in it, we are more vulnerable and exposed. We are more accountable - held to a higher standard. We are called to use our knowledge, experience, insight of and passion towards the Divine as a “light unto the nations.”

Even as Aaron grieves the death of his beloved sons, he is reminded that he must maintain his decorum. He is, first and foremost, the High Priest of the Temple of the one and only God. Moses, however, has compassion for Aaron’s suffering. He takes charge of the bodies. He gives Aaron specific instructions, recognizing that Aaron is in the midst of extreme crisis. He reminds Aaron that ALL the people of the House of Israel will be mourning Nadab and Abihu on his behalf. But, as for Aaron, he is reminded:

    “Through those near to Me, I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people. 

Although this verse applies very specifically to the priests, Moses later reiterates the relative importance of acting in accordance with one’s closeness to God when he ends his instruction regarding the dietary laws with the following:

“For I, Adonai, am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am Holy… For I, Adonai, am the One who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God: you shall be holy, for I am holy.”

As we move forward on our journey towards Judaism, as we delve more deeply in what it means to be a member of the Jewish community, or as we simply learn more about how God is revealed to the Jewish people, let us recognize the value of this sacred path and allow it to touch our hearts and lives and make us more holy too.

Blagojevich: Criminal or Crazy?

Blagojevich: seriously, this man has real issues! 

Is mental illness going to remain the "dirty little secret" of politics and religion? I am not in any way, shape or form qualified to make a diagnosis of mental illness on behalf of any individual, nor am I intending to... but there are people who can. What happens with a leader (hypothetically) of an organization, company, church, town, state or country exhibits clear indications that a mental health evaluation would possibly be a more effective approach to addressing their issues than, say, speculation or impotent rage. When I hold a newspaper article depicting Blagojevich's strange behavior over the past two weeks (I refuse to watch him on television and chastise the media for pandering to him when he had someplace else he should have been.) in one hand and a copy of the DSM-IV on Personality Disorders in the other hand... I just say to myself, "Hmmmmm..."  Should we be sympathetic or outraged? And where does the blame lie? At what point can we just say, "Gee, dude, you need to get some help for that..."

What happens when it becomes increasingly clear that a person who is in authority over us -  or simply has the power to adversely affect the functioning of the entities to which we belong - is simply not operating within the same sphere of reality as anyone else? Criminal Charges? If warranted, of course. Impeachment? True, but at what cost? Is it possible to - at least some of the time - address these issues in a way that becomes a "win-win" for both the individual and the community before both spiral out of control? How can we prevent situations such as happened in Illinois... long before they reach this point? Surely there were signs...

Inauguration Thoughts

I saw it on television. I read the newspapers, magazines. I watched the post-inaugural dissecting, commentating. But, what I can't get over is the possibility that TWO MILLION people can converge into one small space with no arrests and no major incidents. To the best of my research, this is unprecedented and speaks volumes to the impact this election process has made on the goodwill of the American people towards one another. It has been spoken before that we must ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country. For the first time, I sense that it might actually have been heard. And even more powerful that we have stood together and listened carefully to the words of  an African American man and looked towards him as the FACE of hope, and the possibility of personal integrity, successful leadership and peaceful resolutions to conflict. The young people... and young black boys and men of our country surely need it too. But, in the end, it really is up to us. As individuals, how do we conduct our relationships, manage our finances and contribute our services to the community? Effecting long-term change in these areas will be the true measure of this new era.

Homeland Security

My HOMELAND is the Kingdom of God; My SECURITY is in the message of Jesus.

I came up with this statement a couple of years ago after I became tired of the rhetoric of the non-discretionary pro-war, anti-immigration, trickle down, Christian groups that seem to have forgotten that the Kingdom of God has no borders and is NOT secured by weapons of mass destruction or otherwise. The message of Jesus was NOT the message of war, or even of self-protection. The United States is NOT a Christian nation, regardless of its religious majority, nor was it founded on uniquely Christian principles by orthodox Christian leaders. It was founded on the principle that domination by one particular group (or religion) inevitably leads to corruption, oppression and absolutism. However, I am a follower of Jesus and as such engage from that perspective. Maybe my next quote will address the people who critize that I have any beliefs at all!  Anyway, I welcome others interested in moving beyond the rhetoric to join me at the kitchen table. Let's chat!

Reading "Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America"

This post is simply a compilation of notes and thoughts that I have had reading Gustav Niebuhr's book, Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America. It is NOT a well-crafted essay! It does include material to which Niebuhr only alludes in his book. It is my intention to present this to a small group from my church on Wednesday evening. If it is fruitful, I will add notes from that meeting.

In his Preface, Niebuhr credits his appreciation for religious diversity and interfaith communication on his upbringing and personal encounters he and his family had with the ugliness of intolerance. I sum up his understanding of what this means as a value in his beautiful description of people "possessing a genuine spaciousness with regard to others."¹ (xi)

How do we all live together in a world where "faith" is so often equated with conflicting dogma and the "golden ring" is immaterial and ambiguous, even among those who closely identify with one another. In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ""To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings... I cannot reason otherwise" (August 20, 1820) ² While Niebuhr certainly acknowledges and embraces the immaterial, at the same time, he suggests that in order to move towards peaceful coexistence, we must move the interfaith conversation to the material. What can be certainly known?  The value and dignity of the individual person created in God's own image! He quotes a sociologist, Mark Juergensmeyer, "It is difficult to belittle and kill a person whom one knows and for whom one has no personal antipathy." (xix)

This is also the premise of an organization with whom I have learned and conducted workshops since 1995, the National Coalition Building Institute.³ The focus of this organization is to bring people together to share their personal stories and make connections with one another across differences into a shared humanity. Niebuhr quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. in claiming, "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." (xx) To put it bluntly, we are all in it together. We can either use our convictions towards the loving, compassionate support of the dignity and worthiness of all people, or we can degrade into a lethal "corner-claiming" conflict of self-righteousness.

The reality is that we cannot function as a society currently exceeding 300 million people⁴ in a world of 6.7 billion⁵, 84% of whom claim to represent thousands of major and minor faith-based institutions and denominations⁶, without a willingness to accept one another and acknowledge our partnership to "forge a community with a hope for the future" (xxvi) across religious lines.  Whereas, Thomas Jefferson would say that we cannot reasonably speak of the "immaterial" in civic discourse, Nieburh suggests that acknowledging that there is "ultimate truth" hidden in immaterial realms which is sought by believers of all faiths may provide for valuable dialog between them. He states that our distinctive beliefs should not keep us "from listening carefully and respectfully to others and collaborating with them." (xxx) In fact, he quotes his great-uncle, Reinhold Niebuhr, "The solution requires a very high form of religious commitment. It demands its highest insights while yet preserving a humble and contrite recognition of the fact that all actual expressions of religious faith are subject to historical contingency and relativity." (xxxi)

In his book, Neibuhr refers to a sermon that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City. I would like to quote the entire section to which Neibuhr alludes:

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.⁷

Neibuhr warns that there are believers who eschew interfaith communication.  It is my interpretation that they do so because: 1. they don't think it will make any lasting difference; 2. they are afraid exposure to other religions will endanger their (or their children's) commitment to their own beliefs; or 3. they believe that all engagement with people of other beliefs should be for evangelistic purposes.

How did the events of 9/11/2001 influence religious dialogue? On the one hand, we became engaged in a politically charged "war on terror" that failed miserably to distinguish the true perpetrators of those attacks, instead, engaging in broadly sweeping villanizing that has required obfuscation and outright lies to maintain. On the other hand, many Americans came to define themselves more openly to outwardly and compassionately embrace and protect Muslims and people of Middle Eastern ethnicity in their communities. For some, this was the first communication they had with their neighbors. Neibuhr insightfully proclaims, "fear as a continual, cultural state is deeply corrosive to society as a whole." (9)

In order to appreciate the need for interfaith dialog as central to civic dialog as we seek common ethics and social values, we can look back into United States history. James Madison, preceding the writing of the First Amendment text, was supported in his understanding that "religious diversity equals religious freedom." Otherwise, one group, one sect gains power to "oppress and persecute the rest." (13) If we wait until times of stress to engage one another, history suggests that violence is more likely than peaceful discourse. Niebuhr shares that during the International Prayer for Peace at Georgetown University in April, 2006, prominent Shi'a Muslim leader, Imam Sayid Hassan al-Qazwini, stated, "Dialogue challenges all men and women to see the best in others and to be rooted in the best of themselves." (22) 

Neibuhr makes the point that interfaith dialog serves very real and practical purposes beyond the simple value of people getting to know one another as neighbors. Service workers, including but not limited to medical workers, emergency personnel, educators, legal representatives, judges, all have an obligation to know, understand and respect the needs and convictions of those whom they serve. In an open market economy, we serve ourselves by knowing and responding to our market. People will choose to learn from others for many different reasons, but the hope is that the practice will lead to greater peace.

There is a particular point of contention that I have with Niebuhr. It is his premise that the word "tolerance" equates to "forbearance", and as such is hardly a laudable aspiration. He says, "Simply tolerating people is not likely to make you know them any better." My argument here is that while common usage might imply such a definition, it is hardly comprehensive and lacks its original flavor and spirit. Niebuhr fails to point out that many people insist on using the term as a way of preserving its original meaning and intent. Niebuhr refers specifically to the Museum of Tolerance, a branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization (42), but implies in his discussion of the word that they chose their title poorly. Another group that has chosen specifically to raise awareness of the true meaning of "tolerance" is the Southern Poverty Law Center, originally founded to provide much needed legal backing for legal issues relating to civil rights and racial inequality, is now well-known for is education program "Teaching Tolerance", offered free to school teachers, youth leaders and places of worship.⁸ 

Niebuhr is correct, though, in pointing out that just putting up with one another, rather than getting to know each other, is a formula for undercurrents of unspoken resentment and hostility that eventually overboil. If tolerance is seen as forbearance, than in fact, that is merely an act of self-discipline which gives the forbearer the seat of power and the possibility of withholding forbearance, either voluntarily or through lack of discipline, in times of stress.

Niebuhr lifts up a Norman Rockwell painting, Freedom of Worship, as a strong statement of a picture of the United States that favors religious diversity. It is one of four pieces Rockwell painted in response to FDR's "Four Freedoms" Speech in 1941. (53)

 

Neibuhr refers at length to the 1893 World Parliament of Religions, and its influence on interfaith dialogue and the activism of contemporary individuals such as Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core. Neibuhr retells a poignant and pointed interaction between Patel -  a Muslim - and a young Christian member of his organization. She confessed concern to him that she believed her faith in Jesus as Lord to be uniquely true. Patel responded by saying, "I sure hope you think its true, because otherwise there would be no reason to stay committed to it. I think my religion is true, too. So let's make a deal. We can both believe our religions are true, we can even privately hope the other converts, and we can work together in this organization to serve others." (83)

He talks about the devastating effects that can occur when good people do nothing. He doesn't mention it, but it reminds me of the well-known poem by Martin Niemoller, which is often translated:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.⁹

Neibuhr's suggestion of the scriptural ideal of "hospitality towards the stranger" (who is really your neighbor, and might just be God or an angel in disguise) as a foundation for interfaith discussion reminds me of the metaphor of the kitchen table as the nexus of hospitality. Whereas the living room or parlor is where we formally receive and entertain guests, it is around the kitchen table that we really gather and share ourselves with one another. The kitchen is often entered through the back door. Maybe friends and neighbors don't even need to knock... just a nod through the plated window will do. The kitchen table is where the peas get snapped, the potatoes mashed and the batter stirred. Coffee is shared, along with joys and heartbreaks. Stories and memories are told there, too. Hospitality, in this chapter, refers to the kind that invites a stranger through the back door, into the kitchen and offers hot coffee or sweet tea and a listening ear. Neibuhr says, "In his book I And Thou, [Martin] Buber writes that in intimate interactions with a stranger, not only does that person become less strange, but one may actually glimpse the divine. To be invited into one's home for the first time is to cross a threshold. To be invited into another's house of worship is to take part in an act of spiritual intimacy." (105)

No relations are more in need of repair and nurturing than those between Christians and Jews. During the past 60 years, Christians have had to reflect on the contribution of Christian theology and Christian as individuals toward the circumstances that led to genocide of the Jewish people. Whereas silence led to complicity during those terrifying years, voices began to surface as early as 1947 in opposition to what happened as a way of ensuring that it would never happen again. Niebuhr refers specifically to the meeting between Holocaust survivor, Jules Isaac, and 70 Christians. The outcome of that meeting was a Ten-Point Declaration that has served as a foundation for Christian-Jewish dialogue. These 10 points are as follows:

          1. Remember that One God speaks to us all through the Old and the New Testaments.

2. Remember that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother of the seed of David and the people of Israel, and that His everlasting love and forgiveness embraces His own people and the whole world.
3. Remember that the first disciples, the apostles and the first martyrs were Jews.
4. Remember that the fundamental commandment of Christianity, to love God and one's neighbour, proclaimed already in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, is binding upon both Christians and Jews in all human relationships, without any exception .
5. Avoid distorting or misrepresenting biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity.
6. Avoid using the word Jews in the exclusive sense of the enemies of Jesus, and the words 'the enemies of Jesus' to designate the whole Jewish people.
7. Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon all Jews or upon Jews alone. It was only a section of the Jews in Jerusalem who demanded the death of Jesus, and the Christian message has always been that it was the sins of mankind which were exemplified by those Jews and the sins in which all  men share that brought Christ to the Cross.
8. Avoid referring to the scriptural curses, or the cry of a raging mob: "His blood be upon us and our children,"without remembering that this cry should not count against the infinitely more weighty words of our Lord: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
9. Avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jewish people are reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering.
10. Avoid speaking of the Jews as if the first members of the Church had not been Jews.¹⁰

For Americans, and indeed, all democratic societies, collaboration between individuals and groups exercising their freedom to believe "according to the dictates of his own conscience" is an absolute requirement for constructive governance "of the people, by the people, for the people". As our religious identities are often at least as important to us as our secular ones, in order to truly seek the heart of common ground, we must "go there". For Christians, this means avoiding the tendency, as Niebuhr puts it, to "supercessionism" in our understanding of Biblical Text (135). He means by this that we must acknowledge the validity of the Tanakh (First or Old Testament in Christian Bibles) as it was read prior to and by Jesus as the final text of the Jewish people. In fact, when Jesus referred to scripture, he was referring specifically and only to this pre-existing collection of texts!

However, this is not to undermine the power of Jesus' message for Christians as preaching beyond Judaism to incorporate the world's community according to their faith. Niebuhr lifts up the point raised in a book of essays published by the Institute for Christian and Jewish Relations that "the differences between [Christianity and Judaism] were in fact irreconcilable... If differences could be reconciled, then those differences would be dispensable." (156) The challenge of interfaith communication is to refine and strengthen our own faith and identity through questioning, considering and clarifying; while at the same time, learning about the faith and identities of others through listening with the intent of clarifying and understanding as well. In democratic society, the goal is to uncover needs and commonalities in order to make policy decisions that are inclusive. More importantly perhaps is the side-effect of forging relationships with people whom we might not otherwise reach out, therefore building stronger communities with appreciation for common values, a "spirit of collaborating for a common good." (174)

Each of the major religions has teachings about the importance of hospitality and specific instructions on how to receive a stranger. Many of these teachings suggest that mysterious circumstances surround the acceptance of the stranger or the traveler into our presence. For Christians, this is perhaps most pointedly addressed in the scripture, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2 NRS) Thomas Merton, a well-respected Trappist Monk was active engaging the stranger. He traveled world-wide to dialogue with leaders and followers of many faith traditions. Brother Paul Quenon says about Merton, "He was always looking for the fullest, deepest meaning of the sacred. I think his interreligious interests came from his quest for God." (163) The effect of forging relationships with people whom we might not otherwise reach out, is multifaceted and diverse as we are as individuals, but the hope for all in a democracy such as our is the possibility of building stronger communities with appreciation for individual needs, group distinctives and common values, a "spirit of collaborating for a common good." (174)

FOOTNOTES

1. Niebuhr, Gustav. Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America. Viking: 2008.  All future references will just indicate page number embedded in the posting.

2. [http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl262.htm]

3. [http://www.ncbi.org]

4. [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html]

5. [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html]

6. [http://www.adherents.com]

7. [http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm]

8.[ http://www.splcenter.org/center/tt/teach.jsp]

9. [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller]

10. [http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=983]