Learning to Live Well Together. Tom Wilson
may mean meeting and conversing with people from another faith community. It may be a simple practical exercise, such as a visit to a place of worship of another faith. One tool is something we call ‘speed faithing’, or a ‘round robin’, where groups of visitors spend 15 or 20 minutes in discussion with a person of a different faith tradition, before moving on to a second, third, fourth and even fifth encounter with difference. There are many different ways to facilitate encounter, but for the St Philip’s Centre such encounters must always be between people, not simply ideas or theories.
Within academia a distinction is sometimes drawn between ‘doctrinal’ and ‘lived’ religion. The former are the theoretical, formal teachings of a particular faith, and the latter relates to how people actually live out that faith in day-to-day reality. Thus, for example, within Christianity there is an important doctrinal teaching of Jesus that Christians should ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ (Matthew 5.43–48), and similarly the Apostle Paul instructs Christians to not take revenge (Romans 12.19). But the reality is that Christians do often hate others, plot revenge against them and so forth. A second example might be the prohibition within Islam against the consumption of alcohol. Whilst that is a clear doctrinal teaching, the lived faith of at least some who would self-identify as Muslims does include the consumption of alcohol, especially in the privacy of their own homes.
Such differences raise questions. Take the Jewish kashrut (religious dietary) laws as an example. There is a wide range of understanding within modern Judaism as to how to observe kashrut within daily life. For a non-Jew to understand the breadth of modern Judaism, encounter with a variety of Jews is crucial, as it is only through face-to-face engagement that it is possible to develop an understanding of how different people understand, interpret and live out a particular faith tradition.
The basic principles are fairly straightforward to explain:
1.Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh, organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals.
2.Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law.
3.All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is eaten.
4.Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten.
5.Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains can be eaten with either meat or dairy. (According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat.)
6.Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy, and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred while the food was hot.
7.Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten.
(Bard 1998)
For those Jews who wish to follow these rules, it is relatively simple to do so at home, after the initial organisation of ensuring there are separate spaces within the kitchen for the preparation of meat and dairy foods. The challenge comes when eating in restaurants or other people’s homes. Different Jews form different opinions as to what is the best way of observing the kashrut laws, including how restrictive they should be of engagement with public and civic life. For some Jews, the food must be prepared in a suitably certified and inspected kitchen; others are happy to eat any vegetarian food, to give two examples amongst the wide range of possible opinions. It is difficult, on paper, to give a clear account of how a particular individual’s choice in how to observe these laws is an expression of their Jewish cultural and religious identity. The only way to really understand these nuances is to have conversations with a number of Jews and understand their range of opinions. A few examples will illustrate the point.
For some Jews, the kashrut legislation has little impact on their daily life. It is unlikely to have no impact at all, as even the most non-observant Jews would probably abstain from eating pork products. Moreover, whilst a Jew might not observe the kashrut laws in day-to-day living, when it came to celebrating Pesach (Passover), they would be likely to clean their kitchen to remove all traces of leaven and avoid eating any products which contained leaven or yeast during the celebrations.
Personal circumstances also impact the type of observance. An Orthodox Jewish understanding of kashrut would mean that a kitchen should have two sinks, two sets of cutlery and crockery and so forth, one for meat products and one for milk products. However, this requires a reasonable-sized kitchen, and so moving to a smaller house might mean a conscious decision to stop eating any meat products rather than cross-contaminate by having utensils involved in the preparation of milk and meat products in the same sink. For those who wish to be very strict, and use entirely separate appliances during Pesach, this would require owning four dishwashers (one for milk for regular use, one for meat for regular use, one for milk for Pesach, and one for meat during Pesach). Being able to afford four dishwashers (and have the two kitchens, one for meat and one for milk) to accommodate them is not something most people could afford, and hence some sort of a compromise must be made. Certified kosher meat is more expensive than regular meat, because the cost includes paying the wages of those who inspect the slaughter process. Thus, pragmatic factors such as income levels can have a significant impact on the nature of observance of these laws.
The degree of religious observance is also crucial. Take cheese as an example. Rennet, crucial in cheese production, is often taken from the stomach of recently slaughtered newly born baby cows. If rennet is used in cheese production, then the cheese would no longer be kosher, and a strict Orthodox Jew would therefore not eat it. Some Jews would argue that the amount of rennet present in the cheese they eat in a sandwich is so small, it does not matter. They follow a ruling that if the proportion of non-kosher food present is smaller than an olive, then it does not contaminate the meal. Still others would think the whole debate was unnecessarily pedantic and against the spirit of the ruling entirely. It is important to remember that those who follow kashrut laws are not doing so because they are pedantic or awkward, but because they believe they are following divine commands. Devout Jews follow the dietary requirements of their faith because they believe that in doing so they are living out their calling to be set apart, holy, God’s chosen people, whose role is to be a blessing to the whole world. When you encounter difference, then building relationship which enables you to develop a nuanced understanding of motivation and lived faith is more important than memorising the details of lived religious practice.
Once we have encountered difference and begun to understand why people believe what they believe and live as they do, there is a real possibility that we can develop greater trust for each other. As the staff and trustees of the St Philip’s Centre debated this third value, we examined three other words, each of which were rejected for specific reasons. The notion of tolerance was rejected fairly quickly, because we understood tolerance to be a very limited virtue. Tolerance, we reflected, has connotations of begrudging acceptance; of allowing existence within clearly defined limits; of not really wanting the other to be there but not having the option of removing them. Some may think this an overly harsh rejection of the term. It is true that some people advocate tolerance from entirely positive motivations. But it remains limited; if we only tolerate the other, how far will we go in learning to live well together?
The second term that was rejected was ‘respect’. We recognise that respect is of greater significance than tolerance; that it is a further development of appreciation for the other. But respect does not necessarily imply close engagement with the other. It is possible to respect someone’s position without really knowing them as a person; indeed, the idea of respecting another can become a defence against the need to get to know them. The third term, honour, was rejected on similar grounds. One can honour the contribution of another without necessarily relating to them well.
Trust does not necessarily require agreement. Indeed, if we are to learn to live well together with those who are different from ourselves, then whilst it is important that we encounter them and understand them, it is vital that we do not insist we must agree. Attempts to develop lowest common denominator points of agreement do not lead to trust and co-operation, but to bland statements suitable for dissemination as the proceedings of conferences of the professional interfaith circuit. Trust is necessary