At different moments in my life different passages have spiritually defined and pushed me to grow. In these days of nasty religious polarization and culture wars, the passage that most animates my life is a passage from the Talmud, the classic Jewish wisdom text, describing the intense debates between two ancient philosophers and theologians Hillel and Shammai, who lived during the time of Jesus.
Each had his own academy and approach, much like contemporary think tanks or schools that differ philosophically, religiously, and politically. The schools of Hillel and Shammai disagreed on just about everything – from how to ensure economic justice to the nature of our deepest, most committed and loving relationships, from how to treat the other to what it means to sincerely be part of a community, from how to transform ordinary time into sacred time to how to increase light and meaning in the world.
One might think that clear decisions would be necessary given the weightiness of these matters but rather than provide answers or simple rules to follow, the Talmud invites us into the debates and reveals the multiple and contradictory perspectives at the heart of all genuine disagreements.
In the large majority of cases when a decision was indeed reached, the decision would almost always go according to Hillel. But, amazingly, it wasn’t because Hillel was objectively correct. The Talmud says about both Hillel and Shammai’s opinions, in a passage I constantly try to keep in mind, “These and These are both the words of the living God.” In other words, contradictory positions -- both sides of passionate and honest disagreements -- are true from a spiritual perspective, or as I like to say, no one is so smart that he can be one hundred percent wrong. And yet if this is true why were the decisions rendered according to Hillel?
The Talmud explains that the reason for this is the method Hillel used to reach his decisions and to teach his wisdom. The practice of the school of Hillel was to always study and wrestle with Shammai’s opinions and to always teach Shammai’s positions before its own. Hillel understood and valued the partial truth of the other side. He used Shammai’s insights to inform his own views, to broaden his perspective, and to develop the most inclusive answer.
This passage reminds me that every truth is partial and even the opinions with which I most deeply disagree have the potential to lead me to a wider understanding of the issue being debated. Hillel understood that the intrinsic worth of every human implies that every idea has some sort of claim, however small, on the truth and therefore every opinion offers some deeper insight into the human mind and heart. By refracting and reframing our intensely held truths through the lens of the other person, it is not that we necessarily change our mind, more often than not we do not go over to the other side, rather it turns out that our own truths deepen.
Imagine if we were to embody this teaching, “These and These are both the words of the living God”, in our personal and public life when we engage those with whom we most passionately disagree. Imagine if liberals would argue and teach conservative positions and conservatives would argue and teach liberal positions before they fiercely fought for their own truth. Imagine if “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, “anti-war” and “pro-war”, traditionalists and New Agers, secular and religious, blue states and red states, Republicans and Democrats…would commit to really learning and exploring each others views before arguing their own.
At the very least our debates would be far more intelligent and substantive and at best we might even begin to see more clearly a different perspective on reality…maybe even a hint of God’s perspective: “These and These are both the words of the living God.”
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
