Sunday
Jul152012

Dealing with Religion’s Messiness

Paul Louis Metzger & John W. Morehead

Interfaith Warts and All

Several years ago during a guest lecture on Islam, one of our Evangelical seminary students asked the president of a local mosque if Muslims did not feel any remorse over what al-Qaida had done on 9/11. He also wanted to know if Muslims did not cherish freedom and affirm human dignity. The mosque president immediately reacted to the student, pointedly calling to mind what he saw as American imperialistic policies that supported dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. The Muslim leader argued that America and Western Christianity had filth on its hands, too. The mud-slinging from both sides got us nowhere. It only exposed how messy our religions are.

There is a natural tendency for us to view our own religion in the most positive light. But with this often comes the corresponding tendency to view the religion of others in a negative light. This is best exemplified in our post-9/11 world in regards to Islam. On television, on the Internet, and in newspapers it is common to hear appeals by non-Muslims and Muslims alike as to what constitutes true Islam. This includes both those opposed to and supportive of terrorist acts like those that took place on 9/11.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield

In the context of 9/11 and the Twin Towers, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield offered important corrective thoughts to this tendency in the Frontline documentary Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero. He said, “A religion drove those planes into those buildings. And that’s upsetting, but that’s what happened. And this idea that somehow that’s not Islam, so we shouldn’t worry, it’s not only naïve, it’s stupid, it’s wrong. There’s a very rich tradition which they delved into to justify what they did. By the way, hating doing it and fighting against it ever happening again is also Islam. Just like within Jewish tradition, the guy who went into the mosque in the city of Hebron and murdered twenty-nine human beings didn’t do that out of the air. He had a deep connection to a tradition, a religious tradition in Judaism that pushed him there. Keeping him from doing it is also a serious religious tradition. You don’t sterilize these traditions and say ‘No, no they don’t do anything wrong.’”

Rabbi Hirschfield’s comments are a sobering reminder that violence is found within the sacred scriptures and histories of Islam as well as Judaism. But the third of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity, must also grapple with this problematic element. Each of these religions is messy. Each of them has blood on its hands in its use of its sacred writings as justification for violence and failures to pursue its highest ideals in the past and present.

Getting Beyond Denial

Philip Jenkins

In his book Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses, Philip Jenkins reminds us that the Bible includes many troubling passages that endorse violence and genocide. It’s a messy book, and all three traditions noted in this essay share portions of this book and a vast array of its stories and commands. All too often, we Christians fail to account for this book’s fascinating and troubling trajectories in various directions. In particular, as Christian witnesses, we grieve the frequent failure of Christians to recognize this and to come to grips with the dark side of the biblical tradition; it’s almost as if we – especially those of us who are conservative Christians – treat the Bible as a collection of sanitized Sunday school stories and sweet little bedtime tales.

Jenkins labels this failure to come to grips with the troubling features of the Bible as a form of “holy amnesia.” If we Christians are to have a mature and informed faith, especially one engaging Islam that is wrestling with its violent aspects, we must also come to grips with similar aspects in our tradition, and how this has been used in the past as well as more recently as justification for acts of violence in the name of Christianity. We Christians have to come to the table of reconciliation personally as open books, critically aware of our own scriptures’ complexities and problematic histories, just as we are critical of others.

The Christian tradition includes the teachings of Jesus who in his Sermon on the Mount provided a Christian ethic. Jesus used restricted vision as a means of bringing out one element of his teaching. He warned his followers that before they worry about removing the piece of obstruction from the sight of the other they should be ready to remove the piece of debris from their own eye. In application to the tensions between Christianity and Islam, if Christians are going to be able to adequately address the messiness of religion and move beyond it toward peace, then they must draw upon a self-critical posture.

Hospitality is Central

Having abundant food available whenever strangers visit is an ancient Middle Eastern tradition. Photo: Arab Resources

As Christian scholars and practitioners, we have found that the best way to deal with the messy business of engaging the complexities of interfaith dialogue is through hospitality and table fellowship. Cleaning up our homes and bringing foods to share help prepare us to sit down and enter into painful and messy conversations regarding our religious histories and traditions. Long after we clean up dishes and hands after sharing finger foods and treasured delicacies, we will still be talking, exposing ourselves and covering one another through newfound friendships.

In past encounters with those of other faith traditions, we have found that hospitality is the best way to address hostilities. Most if not all major religious traditions prize hospitality. Among other things, hospitality helps us move beyond simply seeing ideas and categorizing people in terms of “isms” and ideologies. The lack of face-to-face encounters keeps us locked up and isolated from one another and from honestly addressing the complexities and messiness of our faith communities. Within the Abrahamic religions, our respective heritages’ emphasis on hospitality can help us move beyond building fences that isolate us further from one another and instead build trust where we live transparently with one another. So, let’s learn to keep the welcome mat out and keep the doors open.

Of course, this won’t be easy. Like every family, there are rooms in our ancestral homes we would like to keep locked and members of our respective faith communities who we wish we could ignore and keep away from others. But these uncles and aunts and cousins are still our family members, and they are often present at meals and at festive gatherings. Those providing hospitality must acknowledge them and try to incorporate them into the mix, no matter how messy and tension-filled the air might be. If we fail to acknowledge them, ignore them, or fail to invite them, we only aggravate matters further. When this happens, not only do we fail to be honest with our newfound friends, but also we keep these family members from moving past their ideological barriers that so often create further damage.

Muslim and Christian “extremists” are these isolated family members. Both are guilty of placing ideas above human beings. As a result, they discount a large portion of the human race that doesn't agree with them and which they treat inhumanly. The worst thing we can do is ignore and isolate them. All that leads to is further ignorance, isolation, and outrage. So, Christians, Muslims and Jews working to resolve the messiness of religion must acknowledge our respective family members who tend to embarrass us and invite them into the conversation in search of their humanity and in search of honesty with other faith communities about our respective acts of inhumanity which these family members have committed.

In like manner, we must also acknowledge the messy stories in our respective traditions that are often used to foster such inhumanity. Furthermore, we must draw attention to other scriptural resources and traditions that would lead us to value people of other perspectives and ways of life, as well as our own family members whose messy lives often embarrass us. We can all point to various texts and historical events that put the other group(s) in a negative light. We need to go in search of texts and interpretations of texts that affirm one another’s humanity, seeking first and foremost common ground before we focus on what distinguishes us in the pursuit of shared civic life. Such transparency and an emphasis on seeking common ground bound up with hospitality will help us clean up our messes and together build the beloved community that is pure and whole.

 

Reader Comments (1)

Hi,

Ezra, the Babylonian priest/scribe Jew REWROTE most of the Old Testament, added books of Myth i.e. Book of Esther etc, corrupted the Books of the Prophets (see Jeremiah ch 7; 8:8) got the Pharisees to collate & canonize the Jewish Bible, added the Oral Traditions (Babylonian Talmud) & created the Zoroastrian/Jewish religion, known to us as Talmudic Judaism, WHICH Jesus of Nazareth CONDEMNED all through the Gospels (Matthew ch 5 to ch 7; Matthew ch 15; Matthew 19; Matthew 23 & John 8:43-47).

Talmudic Judaism-Romanism-Mohammedanism are 3 jihadic Babylonian Cults, that have their roots in Zoroastrianism.

Ignorance of the Babylonian Talmud by Christians, has allowed total confusion to reign through the centuries.

THE HOLY BABYLONIAN TALMUD?

The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

"My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in "Judaism on Trial," quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

"Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible ... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own ... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

The Talmud (and not the Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.


Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1

Yebamoth 60b,

Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as "halakah," or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b

Has Rabbi ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of
orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing
and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex

The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai's endorsement of pedophilia:

"How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?" 4

1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.

2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.

3 Sanhedrin 76a.

4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three
years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.

January 16, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPip Power

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>