Dialogue Group Junkie

Rabbi Melanie Aron

Saturday, February 26, 2005

I realized this week that I am a Dialogue group junkie. In preparing for a workshop I had been asked to lead on interfaith dialogue at the regional Reform movement biennial this weekend, I had sat down and counted all the different dialogue groups I had participated in over the years. My first experience with dialogue was actually in high school when a researcher from a local university brought together students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds to share perspectives on the meaning of life. It was a profound experience of getting to know each other in a deeper and more significant way than normal high school social contact, and also made a positive contribution to interracial relationships at the school.

A dialogue group is different than a committee or task force. In dialogue the process is the product. Though many of the groups I have participated in have had practical outcomes in terms of advocacy or programs, the most important goal is the understanding that is creating among the participants. I view dialogue as a profoundly religious venture, as it is an attempt to live Martin Buber’s I Thou relationships, to actualize the religious teaching of respecting the image of God which is implanted within each person.

Dialogue is not just about high fallutin ideas though. One of the most important lessons for participating in dialogue is my grandmother’s observation- there’s a reason God gave you two ears but only one mouth. Dialogue can’t work if it is just alternating monologues. There are times when debate is more appropriate than dialogue, when marshalling arguments is what’s needed. But I have also seen how often debate doesn’t achieve its goals. When the two sides are speaking from totally different points of reference, the arguments are really like ships passing through the night.

Dialogue is most powerful when there are conflicts and divisions, but of course that is when dialogue is most controversial. Earlier this year I participated in a one day dialogue on abortion as part of my work on a medical ethics committee. This is a topic on which different religious groups and individuals have very different and strongly held positions. Yet with facilitation we were able to listen to each other and have a much more nuanced conversation.

The two dialogue groups that we were exploring at the Biennial this weekend were Presbyterian –Jewish Dialogue and Arab-Jewish Dialogue.

As some of you may already know the national assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed four initiatives this summer that related to Jews and to Israel. One related to missionizing to the Jews, one to Christian Zionism and two to criticism of the State of Israel and divestiture from certain companies related to their actions in Israel. The Jewish community immediately responded with opposition to these initiatives and confrontations aimed at changing the Church’s actions.

Locally we have a long and positive history of Presbyterian Jewish relations and chose to initiate a dialogue between ministers and church leaders and rabbis and Jewish communal organizations. Through this dialogue the Jewish participants have gained a greater understanding of the dynamics within the Church, of the particular meaning of Christian Zionism, and of the genuine desire of Christian clergy to do something to promote peace in the Middle East. I believe the Presbyterian participants now more fully understand the deep meaning that a Jewish homeland has for most American Jews, and the degree of threat that divestiture represents in isolating Israel. That dialogue is ongoing as there is a desire for further understanding and an expansion of the dialogue to include members of our congregations as well.

Arab Jewish Dialogue was the second model presented at the Biennial, with four participants speaking about their experiences. A young Palestinian man who had been raised as a refugee in Lebanon talked about what a major step it was for him to visit a Jewish home for the first time. An Israeli American participant talked about how previous to this dialogue, his only experience of Arabs had been in employer, employee relationships and never in a personal way. Sharla Kibel, a member of the dialogue and of our congregation spoke about the challenges to successful dialogue and about how they are ongoing, even as a group has been meeting together for several years.

At different times I have been criticized for participating in Dialogue, particularly where there is controversy or relations are tense. Michael tells the story of having shlepped Shifrah to a meeting of the JCRC a few years ago. Someone got up to complain about a rabbi in town who was meeting with Palestinians. Shifrah caught on, and understood that it was her mom being discussed. People ask me, am I not siding with the enemy by listening to their stories? Doesn’t participating in a dialogue, reduce my effectiveness as an advocate?

I find support for my continued participation in the words of two important figures, one American and one Israeli. The American patriot, is Stephen Hopkins, representative of Rhode Island to the Continental Congress, who is reputed to have said: “In all my years I have never seen, nor heard, nor smelled an issue that was so damm dangerous that it couldn’t be talked about.” The Jewish figure of course, is Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister who shook hands with Arafat on the White House lawn, explaining to critics, “You don’t make peace with friends.”

May these Dialogues contribute to peace between peoples in our world, and, in developing our own relational skills, may they add to the peace in our homes and communities.