|
|
Arabic:
تحليق الحمائم البيضاء
Hebrew:
ìä÷ú éåðéí ìáðåú
Interfaith dialog 1: Flight of White Doves
It is probable that the writer is talking about a trip to Israel and Palestine, though this is not
mentioned here for some reason.
Flight of white doves
Ephraim Borowski
GLASGOW – To be quite candid, I never expected our expedition to be met by flights of white doves bearing olive
branches, swords spontaneously turning into plough-shares, or lambs rushing into the embrace of lions.
We were a group of more than thirty Scots, from seven different faith communities, undertaking a joint Pilgrimage to
visit this land that is holy to so many. We did not come expecting peace to break out in our wake, but rather as people
of faith with a more limited aim: to understand one another better; to demonstrate that mutual respect is possible
without unanimity; and to prove that it is possible to disagree without coming to blows.
In that we had some success – most of the people we met were surprised and impressed by the enterprise itself, by the
diversity and cohesion of our group, and by the sense of common commitment to that purpose. Many, even those with long
experience of interfaith and intercommunal work, said we were unique in their experience, and expressed the hope that we
had started a trend. That itself is promising, and justifies the support of the Scottish Government, and our First
Minister's vision of "Scotland as a small country … as a peacemaker, providing the facilities and the opportunity for
conflict resolution."
Of course, peacemaking is a tall order! A more attainable aim is the biblical injunction to "pursue peace." The
difference is not just semantic — it measures the distance between idealism and realism. Very few of us are fated to
make peace, but none of us has any excuse not to pursue it. Even if we fail, the reward is in the trying.
So we were not here to make peace, but to promote the possibility of peaceful coexistence. We were constantly reminded –
from both within and without – of the fragility of the membrane that prevents suspicion degenerating into enmity. A wise
man once said that one can only make peace with one's enemies—with one's friends one doesn't need to. To do so, one must
see them as more than just enemies, but as people with their own attitudes, beliefs and ambitions. One does not have to
come to love them, or even to trust them, but only to engage with them, or at least with those beliefs, attitudes, and
ambitions. Only then can compromise emerge.
To reject compromise is to reject human nature. Obliterating the opposition may give temporary respite, but unless that
obliteration is literal, the remnant that remains will regroup with even greater determination, and so the vicious,
truly vicious, circle will continue to turn. That is not the way, and it was infinitely depressing to meet those who
either could or would see no alternative, no accommodation. Fortunately, that was far from the majority view. Of course,
no two of them would agree on precisely the compromise they favour, but that is less important than the underlying
aspiration.
Probably the most positive and fulfilling events were those at which the speakers recognised that what brought us
together as a group was faith, not ideology or affiliation, and addressed us in appropriately spiritual rather than
political terms. Of course our diversity created challenges too—what headgear is appropriate for what visit; what food
can we all eat? Sociologists (and theologians) make much of commensality, the importance of sharing food with one's
fellows, so I find it bizarre that there are interfaith activists who pride themselves on providing kosher and
halal meals separate from other participants (perhaps they would also like to label them with yellow stars, as one
airline actually did!).
Our group cracked it—on the first night kosher food was provided for the Jewish participants at one designated table,
and it was one of the Church leaders who suggested we collect our plates and sit amongst our fellows; and when that
proved impossible because of the utensils, we simply arranged for disposables, and we all shared kosher meals on
Shabbat. If only all our differences could be so easily resolved!
But this was also a reminder that we were an interfaith group, embodying the paradox that it was our very differences
that brought us together. These are differences that cannot be papered over by sharing platitudinous cups of tea; it is
of the nature of religion that each of us believes that others are in some deep, basic, and even metaphysically
self-deluding way, fundamentally wrong. And yet we can discuss these very differences with mutual respect; we can better
understand one another's beliefs, even if what we believe we are exploring is why they are wrong. This is the model that
we as a group tried to bring to bear on our political disagreements too, and I believe we succeeded, at least for
ourselves, and insh'Allah, im yirtse HaShem, as an example to others too.
Could that really have been a flight of white doves?
* Ephraim Borowski is the Director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, and is active in many interfaith and
inter-communal bodies in Scotland. He was awarded the MBE this year for his work on behalf of the Jewish Community. More
information about the Scottish Interfaith Pilgrimage can be found at:
www.scojec.org/events/2008/08vii_pilgrimage/menu.html. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews)
and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.
Source: Common Ground News, 21 August 2008,
www.commongroundnews.org.
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
|
