DRAWING LINES?
by John-Brian Paprock (c) 1998
About
a century or two ago, the Pope decide that all the Jews had to leave Rome. Naturally there was a big uproar from the
Jewish community. So the Pope made a deal.
He would have a religious debate with a member of the Jewish
community. If the Jews won, the Jews
would stay. If the Pope won, the Jews
would leave.
The
Jews realized that they had no choice.
They looked around for a champion who could defend their faith, but no
one wanted to volunteer. It was too
risky. So they finally picked an old
man named Moishe who spent his life sweeping up after people to represent
them. Being old and poor, he had less
to lose, so he agreed. He asked only
for one addition to the debate.
Not
being used to saying very much as he cleaned up around the settlement, he asked
that neither side be allowed to talk.
The Pope agreed.
The
day of the great debate came. Moishe
and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised
his hand and showed three fingers.
Moishe looked back and raised one finger. The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Moishe pointed to the ground where he
sat. The Pope pulled out a wafer and a
glass of wine. Moishe pulled out an
apple. The Pope stood up and said,
"I give up. This man is too good. The Jews can stay."
An
hour later, the cardinals were all around the Pope asking him what
happened. The Pope said: "First, I
held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was
still one God common to both our religions.
Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all round
us. He responded by pointing to the
ground, showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us from
our sins. He pulled out an apple to
remind me of the original sin. He had
an answer for everything. What could I
do?"
Meanwhile,
the Jewish community had crowded around Moishe, amazed that this old,
feeble-minded man had done what all their scholars had insisted was impossible!
"What happened," they asked.
"Well, said Moishe, "First he said to me that the Jews had
three days to get out of here. I told
him that not one of us was leaving.
Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Jews. I let him know that we were staying right
here." "And then what
happened?" asked a woman. "I
don't know," said Moishe, "He took out his lunch and I took out
mine."
(from
Steven & Susan Garrett over the internet)
The story illustrates, in a
wonderfully entertaining manner, how we bring our own interpretation, our own
priorities, to every discussion or debate. In these millennial days, it seems
that there are many drawing lines in the sand (spiritual and religious lines),
but on different beaches. This growing
factionalism is not restrained by belief system. On the contrary, it is appearing in nearly all beliefs, spiritual
and religious, political and personal.
And it is not just between groups, but the trend is also appearing
within groups. As a society, we seem to
be on the brink of devastating war or incredible peace. Not just between the nations, but within our
groups as well.
Leaders (and others, who
prefer less patriarchal terms) seem to be shoring up their groups with full
scale efforts of exclusivism or selective exclusivism. This level of separation
is usually associated with political parties and destructive cults of all
ilk. However, it is currently being
played out with millennial zeal in religious and semi-religious groups
everywhere. This exclusivism is being
tauted as religious doctrine, including the "anti-organized religion"
doctrine, and spiritual elitism.
There is no longer a group of
people gathering anywhere that does not seem to have these problems. Everyone
seems quite capable of discerning a political liberal from conservative, as
long as the words they use are consistent with what is already accepted as
liberal or conservative. This is also
true for those involved in Christianity, Buddhism or any other belief
system. There is a natural tension
between opposites (even if they creations of human intellect alone) and
everyone gets to be on a "side" that champions there particular cause
and against the "evil" that does not. It seems, however, that the greater the polarization, the more
similar the appearance. How many have
met the liberal "zealots" who watch people with the same scowl of
condemnation as the conservative "militia"?
In spiritual traditions, the
divisions have seemed, over the centuries, only to spark the emergence of new
factions, new denominations, or even new religions. One could easily see a continuum from conservative preservation
of the "ancient ways" to a more liberal theology that allows prayers
in languages other than the "ancient tongue" of the tradition. This is true for Islam (although less
obvious), Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism (or the Vedic Religion),
Sacred Earth Traditions (such as Native American) etc. In fact, there appear to be more
"Fundamentalists" and "Traditionalists" than ever before
(or, perhaps, they are more vocal). At
the same time, there is a real liberalism growing within these same traditions
that is tolerant, accepting and even inclusive. What makes this polarization so
ominous is that it appears to be mainly within religious and spiritual groups
with a real impact felt by other groups and society as a whole. The contemporary religious and spiritual
struggle is appearing as an internal struggle, not between light and dark, not
between "believers" and "heretics," but rather between
liberal and conservative views of the same doctrines, holy writings, traditions
and/or beliefs. Even within "orthodox"
groups, with deep mystical tradition and ancient ceremony, there is this
tension.
In the middle, somewhere, is a
growing interfaith effort, that emphasizes true dialogue and cooperative
activities between those of different faiths or belief systems (or even those
of the same faith or belief system), without the effort to convert or convince.
In interfaith activities, one is allowed the complete freedom to be
demonstrative of their conviction, knowing that others believe differently.
Not that contemporary society
has a choice. The problem of pluralism
has only grown throughout the world as global communication and travel has
become nearly effortless. In "God
and the World Religions," Thomas
Hick suggest that there are three religious/spiritual responses to a societal
diversity: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Exclusivism says, "We
have the Truth. If you don't follow our way (attitudes, practices, etc.), then
you will suffer (in one way or another)."
Inclusivism says, "We have the Truth and eventually everyone will
realize it, even if takes forever."
Pluralism says, "We have the Truth and so do they, even if we don't
understand how." Before the
"best" response can be selected, this is not intended as another
weapon to be used in "holier than thou" battles. It is only an
intellectual exercise, when applied with honest introspection, to see how easy
it is to respond in each manner, regardless of belief system.
"Can't we just all get
along?" That remains to be
seen. There is a lot of provocative
issues and rhetoric. Over the
centuries, a lot of lines have been drawn in the sand. And there is the other side. Bede Griffiths, a Catholic priest who was
greatly respected throughout the world for his interfaith activity, wrote before his death, "In spite of
extraordinary expansion of each religion [over certain regions through the
centuries], it is only today that different religious traditions are beginning
to mix freely all over the world and are seeking to relate to one another, not
in terms of rivalry and conflict, but in terms of dialogue and mutual
respect."
Which brings us back to the
Pope and Moishe and communication along spiritual and religious lines. What may have happened if they had talked?
John-Brian Paprock is the coordinator for the Madison Area Interfaith
Network, publisher of the Guide to Spiritual and Religious Resources for South
Central Wisconsin, and a member of the Association of Interfaith Ministers.
