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]