I came across two quotes recently that I found interesting in that they seem to encourage a culture of discovery, discussion, respect and scholarship. I'm sure I could find all sorts of quotes that encourage such a culture, but what struck me about these quotes is that they actually are already rooted in a culture: Judaism.
Pertaining to Biblical studies, the saying shiv'im panim la-Torah, "The Law has seventy faces," is a reminder that Torah can be interpreted many ways.
In other words, just because it's plain as day to me that such and such means THIS, that doesn't mean that everyone else is seeing with the same eyes. And just because their perspective is different doesn't mean they're wrong. We should explore our difference of opinion. Maybe there's information that colors our understanding that would be helpful to share. Perhaps there's experiences or details that, while not changing our mind, might help us to graciously accept and understand why the other person thinks differently. Perhaps we can stop thinking that we are always right.
For those who undertake the study of more than five centuries of rabbinical thought--the Talmud--another maxim applies: elu va-elu divrey Elohim khayim ("both are the words of the living God"). This means that interpretations which are contrary to one another may both be acceptable.
The endless debates regarding free will vs. predestination immediately jump to mind. (As do several political debates that seem to polarize the church as well as the nation.) If all things are predestined, then how can we be responsible for anything we do, whether good or bad? But if all relies upon free will, then aren't we negating God's sovereignty and his will? But why does it have to be only one way or the other? Can't we be fully culpable for our actions and can't God also be fully in control? Isn't is possible that both are accurate interpretations of the scriptures? (The example of Pharaoh comes to mind.)
If we are ever to see unity within the church, we need to start by listening to one another. And we need to realize that *I* am not the final arbiter of what is right or wrong. God is. And he has placed us in a community, not for us to antagonize each other, but for us to learn from each other and encourage and exhort one another.
- - - - -
The quotes were taken from the book Hebrews through a Hebrews Eyes by one of my former pastors, Stuart Sacks.
I'm smiling...
ReplyDeletebecause I'm Jewish and I know how we love having a good, lively debate... unlike the brits amongst whom I live, who are culturally conditioned to avoid conflict and not to express disagreement...
but also because of what you said about not thinking we're always right, which isn't really what I see in most of our debates - the general attitude I see amongst my own people is of being really happy to engage in a good debate and stating your opinions loud and clear, not so much listening to what the other person has to say, and not a lot of openness to the possibility that you might have something to learn from the other person...
a wonderful exception to this is what I experienced at one the messianic conferences I've attended. we had a session on the subject of whether or not messianic jews should keep Torah, a subject that people tend to have very very strong views about, one way or the other. we had two speakers, one talking from the "yes" perspective and one from the "no" perspective. we then had an open discussion. there were about 100 of us in the room, and the atmosphere throughout was one of love and acceptance. I came out of there amazed and praising Jesus, because without him there is no way that 100 Jews in a room would have such a debate without yelling at each other and calling each other names.
I guess what would be ideal in the church is a combination of the love of Jesus with the Jewish love of debate...
I think people are sometimes scared of debate because they've never examined their points of view too closely and if anyone challenges them they're not sure they'd know how to back up their opinions...
And sometimes people don't see that it's okay to disagree and you can still be friends. There's the fear of rejection if someone finds out that you hold an opposing view. Which is why I so appreciate it when I find people who are robust enough to handle disagreement... like my mother-in-law, for example, despite all her britishness... or one of my messianic friends with whom I have endless banter about how surprised he's going to be when he's raptured (because he doesn't believe that's going to happen)... it's a huge relief to find people who can cope with this sort of thing.
sorry, I've gone on a bit... it's a subject I feel strongly about...
lol! are you apologizing for doing what the post encourages? ;-)I guess what would be ideal in the church is a combination of the love of Jesus with the Jewish love of debate...yes, exactly.
ReplyDeletewhen i think of "jewish debate" both the movie, yentl and chaim potok's books come to mind. i love the scholarship and intense debates they represent to me. but at the same time, these examples also revolve around a lack of openness (women can't be scholars or psychology is not an acceptable line of study). the irony only goes to show that even with a "culture of debate and discussion" people still cling to pride and self. openness is certainly not "the solution." as long as we're talking about sinful beings interacting, things aren't necessarily going to get any better.
but when we have an avenue of forgiveness and love that depends not on us but on christ, then it behooves us to make use of that freedom to step outside of our comfort zones and learn to love others, even when they think differently than us. so you're exactly right, the combination is critical.
yes - it's about stepping out of our comfort zones, definitely. but it's hugely freeing when we do it - otherwise you are forever walking around on tiptoes, not daring to bring up anything that might be... er... heaven forbid... controversial... so nobody gets to know what anyone else really thinks about anything other than the weather... and we don't learn from one another, and we miss out on sharpening our own thinking by discussing it with someone who disagrees...
ReplyDeleteI know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir here, which is actually the opposite of what this post is encouraging ;)
It has to be one way or the other because free will and predestination are absolutes and mutually exclusive. I think there's as much room for interpretation and opinion in that as there is for the value of 2: it's either one way or the other.
ReplyDeletesays the SJ. ;-)
ReplyDeletei am a member of a very SJ church, by the way. thankfully i'm not such a strong N that i can't understand and appreciate the ways of the S.
i think the challenge for the N is to not go so willy nilly on ideas that there are no truths. and the challenge for the S is not go be so uptight about right and wrong that they can't see the variations of gray where they exist.
I think I would love to sit and have discussions with Ss (I'm an N, right?) to explore different views. I know that's one of the things I really appreciate in you is that you make me think outside of my world view and consider what I wouldn't otherwise.
ReplyDeleteyou're a very strong S. so is Rob. so is Nathan. and my mom. and my dad. i'm surrounded by S's. i can't even escape them online.
ReplyDeletei'm an N. that's why i'm able to get you to think a bit more sideways than you otherwise would.
meg's quick rendition of N's vs. S's:
N's tend to have a rather flexible view of the world. rules were made to be broken, or at least bent a good deal. alternative methods of achieving something are exciting. we like to reinvent the wheel because it's quite possible that we'll come up with something even better. and if we don't, well we still have a wheel when we're done. we love to push boundaries, mix and match ideas, and think about the utterly impossible as though it were quite possible. there is very little black or white. the world is really a series of grays.
S's tend to have a more rigid view of the world. rules were made because there's an order to the world and it should be followed. if 1+1=2 then it will always equal 2. if there's a specific way to do something, then that's how it should always be done. boundaries exist. there's no sense in pushing them because they're already at the boundary. and if something is impossible then it might be interesting to think about (in a book or a movie) but it's not practical to spend time on it as though it could be real. most of the world is black or white. there is very little gray.
I'm totally confused now. I thought all that stuff about rules and flexibility was to do with the P/J bit and not the N/S bit - I thought the N/S bit was to do with how we take in information or come to conclusions, relying more on our intuition or more on our sensory perception.
ReplyDeletebut maybe it's just my post-3am muffled brain. apologies if I'm talking utter tosh.
*cough*I'm totally confused now. I thought all that stuff about rules and flexibility was to do with the P/J bit and not the N/S bit - I thought the N/S bit was to do with how we take in information or come to conclusions, relying more on our intuition or more on our sensory perception.i think N/S Does have to do with how we take in info. and how we come to conclusions. when an N takes in info, it's kinda like laying a bunch of pieces out on a table in no apparent order. the N then can rearrange those pieces of info. into new patterns and often sees connections that may not have been noticed before. then the N might make conclusions that are contrary to the way things have been done in the past (pushing the envelope). the S, on the other hand, will take in the information and, while taking it in, align it into some sort of order based on some predetermined rule (all X's get lined up like this. all Y's are to be treated this way. P's always go before V's). then a conclusion is drawn based on information that has been carefully aligned with certain norms. (just because an S follows "norms" doesn't mean they follow the same "norms" as everyone else. for example, you could have British norms and American norms and when a Brit follows Brit rules in America, they may look different or perhaps radical, but it's just because our norms are different.)
ReplyDeletei often think of P/J in terms of speed. a P (like rob) might go out for coffee at the cafe and leisurely sip it while enjoying conversation with friends. a J (like my mom) will finish her coffee quickly and be ready to move on to the next thing. or better yet, at our Easter brunch, the meal was to start at 9:30. we should be cleaned up by 10:30 so that we could switch places with the other congregation that shares our space between 10:30 and 10:45. but the other congregation is in the sanctuary until 10:30, so being done early doesn't make a lot of sense since there's no where we could go until they were out of there. but our very J set of folks were done eating by 9:50 or so. by 10 they were cleaning up (so that the gal and daughter who arrived late had little to eat because it was already put away) and the entire place was spick and span by 10:15 (so there was nothing left for anyone to do but stand around. even most of the chairs had been put away so we couldn't even sit and talk.) a P congregation, on the other hand, would probably have gotten so involved in hanging out that they'd be rushing at the last minute to get everything cleaned up in time for the service.
J's feel stressed when things aren't finished. P's feel stressed when they're expected to make a decision quickly. J's often view P's as being lazy. P's often view J's as being pushy.
lol... yup, I'm definitely a P and my mum's definitely a J then... a great combination :)
ReplyDeletebut of course coffee is to be sipped at a leisurely pace, especially if you're out at a cafe - what's the point otherwise? :)
ReplyDeleteanyway... I think one of these days I'll get my head round this stuff.
ReplyDeletewell, it's all made more confusing by the fact that we're not Just one thing or the other. we're a mix of P and J or I and E or whatever. and to make it even more complicated, our J-ness or P-ness might further be configured by our I-ness or E-ness (or S-ness or...).
ReplyDeletei've recently been contemplating times when i'm late to events. it's not very J of me, and yet i tend to be more J than P. it's not like i couldn't be on time. i could. there's something else going on that's pushing me to be on the late side. i'm not sure what it is yet, but i suspect it's a bit of "I" that doesn't want to have to go out and deal with people. so i'd rather be a bit late than get there early and end up sitting around not knowing what to say.
lol... this might be the point where it's relevant to mention that I am (seriously) in the process of writing a blog about procrastination, but... er... yes... haven't got round to finishing it quite yet :)
ReplyDeletelol!
ReplyDelete