"Some are guilty, but all are responsible."
On Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel.
Krista Tippett interviews Arnold Eisen
Mr. Eisen: You know, I remember, if I can confess one of my own insufficiencies, I encountered Heschel several weeks after my interview with him in Washington, D.C., and I remember I didn't go up to him to say hello. And I'm embarrassed by this, to take a Heschelian word, I'm embarrassed by it. When I met him in Washington, D.C., and saw a tired, bedraggled Abraham Joshua Heschel, who had spent his day lobbying against the war in Vietnam, I felt that somehow it wasn't worth his dignity to knock on the doors of those congressmen. He should be in his study thinking great thoughts, writing great books. It was a total contradiction of what I had felt a few months earlier, but it was a sign of Heschel's greatness that he knew he should be in the study and he should be on the streets and life was too short to do all of them all the time, but he would do the best he could. And that taught me something I'll never forget.
Ms. Tippett: And on Vietnam, it was interesting for me to read, you know, he was also writing about it, and some of the things he was saying about why he was there knocking on doors are very provocative and challenging in our current context, I feel. I mean, he said, "It became clear to me that in regard to cruelties committed in the name of a free society some are guilty while all are responsible."
Mr. Eisen: One of Heschel's favorite lines: "Some are guilty but all are responsible." You know, we're not off the hook and if we live life with ultimate religious seriousness, we're aware every moment of the time just how many people's suffering and poverty goes into our ability to act, to enjoy, even to gather together and worship. And this could, if we let it, ruin life, on the other hand. As someone I know put it, "How can I enjoy a cup of coffee at Starbucks …
Ms. Tippett: Right.
Mr. Eisen: … when I know that people in much of the world can't earn in a month what that cup of coffee is costing me?" And is that supposed to mean that we never have the cup of coffee or is it supposed to mean that we exercise responsibly? The guilt can be paralyzing. The guilt can be paralyzing. And some are guilty and they have to be reminded of their guilt and they have to be stopped, but all are responsible. And so it's our job if we're going to sit down, for example, at a Passover Seder, to do what the rabbis instruct the Jews to do at the beginning of that Passover Seder, which is to open the doors to those who are hungry so that those people too can enjoy a meal. And this was quintessential Heschel.
I wonder how we apportion guilt sometimes. You know, I think, as it were, the civil rights movement was an easy call for him, that the analogy of Pharaoh to Jim Crow and racism was an easy one, but it couldn't have been so simple to draw the conclusion about Vietnam, particularly when some of his closest colleagues and some of his closest friends were supporting the war as necessary to stop the spread of communism.
Ms. Tippett: Mm-hmm.
Mr. Eisen: And I understand Heschel to have made a difficult calculation about suffering versus the possible good that might emerge from all that suffering. He made a calculation about justice and injustice, about the proper uses of power, and then he acted on the basis of that calculation and spoke in the name of God and Scripture from the point of view that he had adopted. As did King, who reached the same conclusion.
Program Web Site: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/heschel/
posted by mac | 9:27 AM
9 Comments:
Wish I had time to listen to this one...but don't right now. What exactly are they talking about? With this one statement...
"And some are guilty and they have to be reminded of their guilt and they have to be stopped, but all are responsible. And so it's our job if we're going to sit down, for example, at a Passover Seder, to do what the rabbis instruct the Jews to do at the beginning of that Passover Seder, which is to open the doors to those who are hungry so that those people too can enjoy a meal."
...it opens up to my mind many thoughts on what they might be talking about. Can you explain a bit more? If not, maybe I'll get around to listening to the whole broadcast one of these days. Sounds interesting.
While they're using some particular examples about Heschel's way of acting in the world, I think the important point of this portion of the discussion is in the last bit. How do we act in the face of injustice? any kind of injustice. What can we do to stop those who abuse power, whether they hold it either justly or unjustly? While the unjust and the abusers of power are the guilty, all of us are responsible for pursuing the right thing, i.e., stopping them. Regardless of any particular topic, this is the gist of the discussion.
The idea "Some are guilty, but all are responsible" seems at first to be a wise thought. But of course, ALL of us are guilty and ALL of us should be held responsible for usurping the authority of God. This in my opinion is the root of it all from the beginning.
Deut. 12:8 says; "You shall NOT do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his "own" eyes."
God didn't give man the right to choose how he treats his neighbor, but God's law was given to show us how to treat each other...as well as all God's law was given to lead us and teach us to live under His authority. Sadly, we usurp the authority of God and demand what is right in our own eyes.
By trying to demand change in those who are the "guilty" or stopping them...are we not again trying to overrule God? Scripture shows us that God places nations/people under horrible rulers as punishment for their rebellion. Change comes when we choose to live by God's law rather than man's and by our obedience, like Israel (David), we also got a King who rules UNDER the authority of God. Jesus was, is, the example of that perfect King who did nothing but what GOD required. In turn, as believers, we too are required to walk/live under God, His law, and His authority, and again, sadly we choose to ignore Jesus' authority and do things that are "right in our own eyes".
Well, let's argue about this just a little bit--for the sake of enrichment and a little fun. You write, "By trying to demand change in those who are the 'guilty' or stopping them...are we not again trying to overrule God?" I'll go partway with you on this and agree that we often usurp God's authority and make our own judgments about how this person or that person, this nation or that nation, ought to behave. But aren't there situations in our world in which some are guiltier than others? Even in a fallen world, can it never be the case that what God commands and what I see as right action are the same? Even in a fallen world, can it never be the case that I do the work of God--not usurp God--by stopping some injustice? Isn't my sense of what is good and right--and thus my actions in these directions--possibly from God? At least sometimes?
You write, "Scripture shows us that God places nations/people under horrible rulers as punishment for their rebellion." Does that suggest that Sadaam Hussein was God's chosen leader for Iraq? And by implication, did the United States usurp God's authority by removing him from power? The way the "war" and our national life are going, I'd be tempted to think we did the wrong thing and are now being punished for it (a second term for Bush, etc.).
And isn't the use of Deut. 12:8 a little bit of "proof-texting"--picking out an isolated piece of scripture to make a point that the piece of scripture isn't actually about in its context? That passage deals with where and how the people of Israel worshipped as they wandered before coming to the Promised Land. Eventually they would have a specific place to worship and wouldn't be able to choose someplace they considered right--someplace like home, for example, or a particular Methodist church.
I hope all is well with you and yours and your business, and I wish you could join us for our 4 O'clock Club meeting this Tuesday.
Wow, this is heavy stuff. But I thought I would add my simple thoughts to the discussion.
I thought that Jesus told us to love everyone, including our enemies. So, obviously, Sadaam Hussein was NOT following the advise of Jesus, and, in sending troops to kill Sadaam Hussein and his followers, the US government (representing the people of the 50 states of the union) were also NOT following the advise of Jesus.
Now, all wars can be covered by the same reasoning. But it SEEMS to me that WWII is NOT viewed in this way and nearly everyone was pleased with the outcome. What would Jesus say??
I'm back from a long day! This new space of NBTA is kicking my butt! So much work...
Okay, for fun.
Professor: "Even in a fallen world, can it never be the case that what God commands and what I see as right action are the same? Even in a fallen world, can it never be the case that I do the work of God--not usurp God--by stopping some injustice?"
Baseball nut: Yes...as long as we don't take it further than what God demands for the guilty.
Professor: " Does that suggest that Sadaam Hussein was God's chosen leader for Iraq? And by implication, did the United States usurp God's authority by removing him from power? The way the "war" and our national life are going, I'd be tempted to think we did the wrong thing and are now being punished for it (a second term for Bush, etc.).
Baseball nut: Yes! Yes! and Yes!
Professor: "And isn't the use of Deut. 12:8 a little bit of "proof-texting"--picking out an isolated piece of scripture to make a point that the piece of scripture isn't actually about in its context?
Baseball nut: No. It would take way too many scriptures and a whole lot of writing to show the context of why man tends to ignore God's law and creates new ones to overturn (usurp) the authority of God's laws. Israel wanted a king to rule, a place to worship, and be like everybody (like other nations) else. They (we) want to do what is right in our own eyes, rule ourselves our way...and with even the best of intentions, we
pull rank and do it our way.
To add to your thought on Bush...
After the first Bush, then Clinton, and then the second Bush, the punishment has been slow to come... just wait 'til the next one gets elected in should God have mercy on us through the end of this reign.
Good fun, amigo, even in the face of rising gas prices and questionable presidencies past and future.
As for NBTA--the place, not the blogger--keep in mind that you're over 50 now. Work hard but also know when to rest and how to treat yourself.
Thanks for reminding me how old I am!But after working around some young pups...you'd think they were that old and I was the young one! Kids these days...
Just to add another thought. I do believe we are at the end of the age. And as scripture points out, mankind has become so rebellious and so self righteous (including the church)that we are doing exactly what God said we would do and why we are doing it.
Our eyes are so blind that we actually think that there may be hope in the one that promises change in our nation and in the world. The only change he will bring, or any other candidate will bring, is the demise of a nation(s) who desires to "go back to Egypt" instead of desiring to follow God.
All are guilty. Including myself. I still haven't learned to love my neighbor and the Lord God with all my heart...nor have I desired to follow His laws or hear His voice. I too have wanted leaders to come and hold man responsible...but the reality is, only God can judge with mercy and righteousness, and bring about change. Real change that matters.
May He come quickly! and straighten my little *** out!
Post a Comment
<< Home