“There is nothing cozy, huggy and smiley about peace...” Terrorism survivor- turned peace maker, Gill Hicks told me with steel and restrained fury in her voice [1]. Gill is a double amputee who lost both legs in the London bombing and has made heroic efforts to build peace. It is necessary to face the hard realities of living with difference.
This week, at a mountain-side Catholic school retreat, 150 teenagers and the Together For Humanity team explored some of the uncomfortable aspects of living with diversity. Participants, in groups of 8, were challenged to lower a thin long stick that rested on their outstretched fingers. Many failed to complete the task that required them to be completely in sync with their peers. When reflecting on their failure, students suggested that it was the differences in height or ways of thinking that was the reason they couldn’t complete the task. One student suggested a harsh solution: to simply remove those who were out of step with the rest of the team. It would be tempting to dismiss that option, but I would prefer to explore it instead.
I told the students that only an hour earlier I was reading the Torah. Abraham acted according to the students’ suggestion when he chose separation in response to conflict [2]. The shepherds employed by Abraham and his nephew got into a values based argument about grazing their sheep on others’ properties. Lot’s (Lut) people, presumably taking their cue from their boss [3], valued maximising wealth over ethical concerns but Abraham’s employees prioritised avoiding theft [4]. Abraham could have managed the conflict and reduced its intensity, but he wanted to avoid even the low level of tension that would inevitably remain [5]. For this reason Abraham parted ways from Lot. This separation from Lot was very upsetting to Abraham [6]. Lot was Abraham’s nephew, and when Lot was orphaned he became like a step son to Abraham [7].
Despite the fact that, sometimes, apparent values conflict is a function of prejudice, this is not always the case. In some cases the conflict is actually caused by an accurate understanding of the other! Our values are formed in our own cultural context and function as a set of norms that enable members of the group to get along [8]. Rapid migration and social change coupled with conservative pushback against change leads to people being confronted with strongly held divergent values and norms. For Abraham, it was only when he was free from the spiritually stifling presence of Lot that his spiritual capacity was restored and he was able to receive prophecy [9].
During our program at the retreat, my Muslim colleague, Mrs Calisha Bennet, talked with the students about situations where she as a Muslim woman is meets men and is expected to shake his hand. While some orthodox Jews and Muslims choose to shake hands despite traditions in both faiths to the contrary, for Calisha this is a matter of being authentic and true to her principles. She explained that she chooses not to compromise her principles, instead opting for sensitively putting her hand on her heart in greeting, feeling empathy for the man with his rejected extended hand and sharing the awkwardness experienced by the aborted handshake.
Michaela Launerts, a teacher at the retreat told us that she shifted from her previous support for constraints on free speech to avoid causing offense to now prioritising robust dialogue about our differences. Michaela pointed out how we live in an age of ‘outrage culture’ where every deviation from one’s own norms is met with howls of indignation, and attempts to shut down opposing views. Instead, Michaela suggested that we should sit with the discomfort for a while and try to understand our opponents perspectives. She insists that most of the things that are important in life involve conflict and robust discussion. Any kind of growth requires one to be challenged, theologically, politically and philosophically.
In spite of the need to face values conflict, it is vital that there is solidarity between communities. Peace depends on goodwill being shown toward those who believe differently and have divergent values. Returning to the story of Abraham, we see that despite Lot’s rejection of Abraham’s norms and his way [10] when Lot needs help and is taken captive in a war Abraham took up arms to rescue him [11].
As neighbours we must care about each other’s pain and do our part to alleviate suffering, regardless of our disagreements. This sometimes feels wonderful, but this warm feeling is an occasional bonus in this work. We must also show up for the awkward moments. Denial of disagreement is a fragile basis for coexistence. Forced unions can be oppressive and draining. This can be seen in toxic marriages, workplaces and political parties. In those cases emulating Abraham’s offer to Lot – if you go right, I will go left, if you left I will go right – would be far more productive and healthy, provided that communities are always there for each other despite our differences.
Notes
1 https://youtu.be/_MtmLFtb5WM
2 Genesis 13:5-14
3 Genesis 13:10-13, Lot’s observation regarding the fertile nature of the Sodom area appear more important to him than the fact that the Sodomites were very sinful.
4 Rashi on Genesis 13:7
5 Toras Hachida, Genesis, Lech Lcha, 32, p. 75,
6 Toras Hachida, Genesis, Lech Lcha, 36, p. 77, see also Ohr Hachayim to Genesis 12:1
7 Genesis 11:27-28, 12:4
8 Greene, J. (2014) Moral Tribes, Emotion, Reason And The Gap Between Us And Them, Atlantic Books, London
9 Rashi to 13:14
10 Rashi to Genesis 13:11
11 Genesis 14:12-16
No comments:
Post a Comment