Dialogue Dynamics

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen - Part three: We must first be a blessing to one another

2011-04-08T11:43:08Z

by Marguerite A. Peeters

- In 1948, it was possible to declare human rights universal because there was still some kind of consensus on the values that bound western societies together. This is no longer the case, and the new situation puts the concept of universality in crisis. Do you believe it is possible, realistic to think that we could reformulate an ethic for this now “global” era that is founded on what is universal and is therefore open to and rooted in divine transcendence? This is certainly not the case of the global ethic forged under the aegis of the UN after the Cold War: the UN has gone another way now.

And I don't think it is just the UN. If you look at the founders of the European idea, they were all people with profound religious backgrounds, and therefore with very profound, solid moral values, whereas I would say relativism is the norm now rather than the exception. So whether it is possible to achieve the ideal, I don't know. But I do know that there is enormous responsibility of religious institutions and religious people to be able to play that role and provide the moral stability, anchorage and compass for the well-being of humanity at large.

- Many of the challenges that we face today are of an anthropological nature: the loss of sense of conscience and incapacity to discern between good and evil, the use of reason for negating reality and so on. There is a trend among postmodern scientists to claim that the existence of the “laws of nature” is uncertain. They now prefer to adhere to so-called “consensus science” – a consensus among experts without certitude about the truth of their findings.

I think often these comments are made without adequate unpackaging. I understand what they
are saying. In fact in a sense, even their secular comment, which may be seen as an anti-religious comment, in a way can be seen as a religious comment, because it is acknowledging the limitations of our own human understanding, on the one hand. On the other, there are some obvious things that nobody is going to disagree with: nobody is going to disagree that there is a law of gravity, and therefore there are consequences if you jump off a building.

- But some today would even claim that our male or female body is a social construct.

Well, there are some areas definitely, but no side is going to say that there are no laws of nature.

- In one of your articles, you state that “It is no exaggeration to describe sustainable development as the Bible's mandate to us.” Sustainable development is a concept forged in the 1970s and 80s and adopted as a global norm in the 1990s. It is one of the key paradigms of the new global ethics. It has a traceable origin; this origin is purely secular and is, in my analysis, marred by pessimism. Global governance does not speak about creation, but about “the Earth”, generally capitalized, and the trend is to consider that human beings and other species come from the earth and return to the earth. This view distorts the relationship God established between human beings and the rest of creation. Neither pessimism nor secularism belong to your ethical approach. How should people of faith deal with this distortion? Is it wise to use the new, globally normative language?

This is a cardinal question that you raise. What is the preferred strategy by which to address this “Tower of Babel” that you have exposed? You may be right that the way to do it is through what amounts to a confrontational expose. An alternative is to try to “re-hijack” the secular language and reinvest it with religious meaning, values and teaching. This was what I was trying to do, but I am open to the critique that I may be doing more harm than good in this (or may be just naïve).

- God leads your personal life. He also leads the history of humanity. In your intervention at the Mideast synod last October, you said: “The relationship today between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people is a blessed transformation in our times”. More at large, how do you read the times we are in? What is your sense of where humanity is heading now?

It is such a big question that the question is whether one could give a comprehensive answer. And even if I take the little areas, like Israeli society for example in which I live, there are so many conflicting and divergent current trends, that it is very hard to have any comprehensive view. To take something very basic, some people say Israeli society is getting more religious, while others are saying Israeli society is getting more secular. They are both right, because both things are happening in different ways at the same time. So if we talk of our modern world at large, on the one hand, this is the most blessed of all times inasmuch as we have more knowledge, more education, more technological tools to be able to improve the condition of humanity. And yet this incredible growth in capacities has not been matched by a moral and spiritual growth. In certain respects, in some areas, it is even regressive. These are very perplexing and challenging contradictory realities in which we live all the time. To be able to have some kind of universal perspective is, I think, beyond human capacity, in the sense that it is asking us to be angelic. I can't even see where the Middle East is going tomorrow, let alone where our world is going. But I do know that if our world does not seek to at least try to catch up in terms of its moral and spiritual maturation with its technological and technical developments, we face a very serious crisis. And you already see that in many parts of the world, as to what's called lifestyles, the breakdown of family, the deracination, disorientation of people… Only a worldview that sees those structures as sacred, in other words as transcending interests and fluctuations and material concerns, is capable of providing the solidity, the stability, the anchorage and the moral compass that can ensure that the technical advantages and the technological advantages are blessings rather than curses.

- In this perspective, what do you expect of Jewish-Catholic reconciliation?

This is the direction in which we should be going. This should be the message now: after having addressed the terrible misunderstandings and errors that bedeviled our relationship, and now that to a large extent we have rediscovered our loving fraternity, we must address together, from the perspective of the “common patrimony” that we share, the challenges that we face in our world. Now our responsibility is to address the present and the future. My desire would be for a joint theological reflection. Unfortunately, because of the structure of the components that make up our Jewish-Catholic Liaison Committee that is meeting here at the moment, I am not sure whether this particular structure has the capacity to do that. But nevertheless, in terms also of the dialogue between the Holy See and the Chief Rabbinate - which is, I would say, on a more solid moral religious foundation, I think it is really important to produce joint positions on contemporary issues, which is what we have been doing since this bilateral commission was established, thanks to John Paul II.

- But you refer to an “asymmetry” in the Jewish-Christian relationship.

Right, but that is for our own self-understandings, and that's important in itself. But in terms of our responsibility for humanity, we have responsibility to address those challenges together. We can't do it entirely, because there are things that distinguish us, otherwise we wouldn't be the different faith communities that we are. But there are fundamental things that we share. As Martin Buber put it, “we share a book and a hope and that is no small thing”. And as John Paul II put it, we are called, as the children of Abraham, to be a blessing for humankind, and in order to be so, we must first be a blessing to one another. This is our métier, to be able to address the world together. Yes, we must address it separately, but we must address it together as well.

- How do you interpret this mutual blessing? How could it concretely take shape? How can Catholics be a blessing to Jews? What are your hopes and expectations? And how do you think Jews can be a blessing to Catholics? What are your intuitions?

This is a big question. I spoke about this very issue a few years ago at Fordham University. Rabbi Yitz Greenberg has described Judaism and Christianity as two Midrashim (homiletical expositions) on a common text – the Hebrew Bible. This appears to me to be a very useful formula – from a Jewish perspective – in our Jewish encounter with Christianity. One of the things it implies is that we can, and I believe should, be able to illumine one another in our own understanding of our own religious heritage and teaching. This has generally not been possible for us in the past as a result of the pain and burden of our tragic historic experience of Christianity, nurtured by rivalry, degenerating into contempt and persecution, which prevented us from being able to view Christian teaching or even the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth in a positive light. Being able to do so now (at least for those of us who are now able and desirous of doing so) enables us not only to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish brother and teacher, but also to re-emphasize fundamental values and teachings of our own that have often been muted as a result of the polemical encounter and competition with Christianity. Jesus' emphasis upon love and reconciliation; on being prepared to suffer humiliation rather than humiliate; the Christian use of personal prayer, for example; are all fundamental Jewish teachings and practices, but which as I say have often been underemphasized in the face of the polemic with Christianity. As we free ourselves of the shackles and heal ourselves of the wounds of past persecution and conflict, and as we enjoy the fruits of cooperation and mutual esteem, we can learn much from Christian teaching (albeit as opposed to much of the conduct of those who have claimed to be Christian); to recover, reaffirm and deepen our own understanding and expression of these fundamental Jewish concepts and teachings.

END

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen – Part two: what unites us divides us

2011-04-04T15:09:55Z

The Christian focus on faith and the Jewish focus on the law have produced theological distinctions between Christians and Jews, which have in turn led to distinctions, and at times disagreements, in their respective anthropological approaches and the way they understand the sacredness of life. Some of these distinctions appear in this second part of our dialogue with Rabbi David Rosen. Judaism tolerates theological disagreements, even over the nature of God, but requires the resolution of legal disagreements over how God wants us to behave in any given situation. For Judaism, the recognition of the Divine Image in the other must lead us to loving behavior, and this divinely revealed way of life must come from an inner certainty and not purely a socially imposed norm. Christian theology has led to the development of a Trinitarian anthropology and clarification of the content of the “image of God”. Beyond differences, the revelation of our being created in the Divine Image, sanctification as the purpose of human life, the divine commandment of love, the presence and action of God in the world and our lives and divine transcendence remain common to both traditions.

By Marguerite A. Peeters

- The postmodern cultural revolution has succeeded, to a significant extent, in culturally deconstructing or destabilizing what is given or intrinsic, not least our male and female identity: “male and female He created them”. Since we are created in the Divine Image, must we not know who God is in order to recover our lost identity? What does it mean - to be created in His image?

Well, one of the very important ironies of the Christian-Jewish relationship is that what unites us divides us. Our shared texts, our common patrimony to use the language of Nostra Aetate, is what unites us, but we understand it often in ways that divide us. Even terminologies and specific words divide us. An example would be the term “messiah”. The Hebrew word means “an anointed one” and was used to refer to a priest and especially to a king. Following the destruction of the first Temple and exile, the people were sustained by the expectation of restoration under the leadership of “an anointed one” from the house of David, i.e. a King. Accordingly the Jewish expectation of a “messiah” is, in keeping with Biblical prophetic literalism, of a human being who assumes a leadership role in a world where the people are no longer dispersed and persecuted but gathered in back to the land of Israel and free to live their lives in accordance with God's revealed will (the commandments). Moreover at the same time, there will be an era of universal peace. However the precise identity of the messiah is of little concern to a faithful Jew, and the messiah has nothing to do with my personal salvation – i.e. the state of my soul - and has nothing to do with the identity of God Himself. However for Christianity, messiahship means something very different and is inextricably related to the identity of God and personal salvation. Also, another factor is that Judaism is a far less theologically sophisticated tradition than Christianity. The Jewish imperative is primarily to understand what God wants of us to do, more than to understand what God wants us to believe. Therefore when it comes to the theological areas, there is enormous diversity within Judaism and often some radical disagreements that are not resolved. And we live, if you like, perfectly comfortably with this ideological diversity. For some, the reflection of the Divine Image is precisely in the intellect. But for the majority, I would say, of Jewish commentators, the Divine Image is understood in terms of the moral essence and capacities of the human person. And the moral essence is the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, between right and wrong. That is something that is unique to the human person and that is the reflection of the Divine. So precisely our capacity for moral judgment is the reflection of the Divine in the human person.

- Again, let me ask you the question about love. If God created us out of love, if He entered into a covenantal relationship with the Jewish people and with humanity out of love, if He is love, doesn't the Divine Image include the human being's disposition to love? After all, is there a greater good than love? And how about the capacity to recognize truth? Is God not also truth?

Again there is much debate in Judaism on such questions. Of course God is Truth because God is the essence of reality. But our human condition by definition reflects our subjectivity and even our knowledge of God is limited by that condition. Therefore it is perfectly possible for two litigants to each believe sincerely that Truth is on his side; and even the judge who rules can never know all the possible factors that might lead to a different Divine judgment based on the fullness of Truth. In the end the degree of our knowledge of Truth is the degree of our knowledge of what is right – i.e. moral. While the concept of love of God and love of neighbor are central to Judaism, the term love (perhaps like truth) is a bit vague. For Judaism an injunction like “love your neighbor as yourself” has to be translated into practicalities in order to make sense. That is why often the negative formula of Hillel the elder (1st century BCE) “that which is hateful to you, do not do to another” is preferred as reflecting the social moral essence of Judaism. The bottom line however, is that loving conduct must be the conduct of goodness rooted in the recognition of the Divine Image in the other which leads us to loving behavior (as mentioned above in the discussion between Akiva and Ben Azzai).

- Do you use words such as reason, conscience, the heart?

Well I would say that all these words, again, that are more sophisticated in terms of Christian usage are within Judaism reflections of our capacity for moral judgment. As I have mentioned, even love in a sense is a moral choice, is a choice born out of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil and between right and wrong.

- But isn't the heart a word that belongs to divine revelation? Isn't the law of God written in our hearts? And isn't this, precisely, the foundation of universality?

Of course you are right that there is a deeper level of understanding and commitment. It is in this sense that words like “in your heart” are used. The conviction about the Divinely revealed way of life should come from an inner certainty and not purely a socially imposed norm.

- You were mentioning the sacredness of life. What does that mean for you?

It means that on principle, life is inviolate. But there are situations of where, by definition, there is going to be a conflict of interest. The most dramatic one is situations of where life is threatened. And then, what is your response to that? While it can't be to take one innocent life for another, nevertheless, when life is directly threatened through an assault, from a Jewish ethical point of view, that threat undermines the claims of the source of the one that threatens. That means that when A is about to murder B and there is no other way to prevent him other than taking his life, we are obliged to save B by killing A. Accordingly, Judaism is not pacifist, and in a situation where one is attacked, one has an obligation to defend. And if the only way to defend oneself, e.g. in a war situation, is to take the lives of assailants, we are under moral compulsion to do so. This is relevant to many other ethical dilemmas including where there appears to be a profound distinction, maybe the biggest moral conflict between Catholicism and Judaism. And that is over the question of the attitude towards the unborn. There are obviously confluences. Judaism teaches reverence for life and certainly a fetus is life. But life and a human being are not the same thing for Judaism. Life becomes a human being only with birth. And therefore there is a transition from the one stage to the other. And while you may not take an innocent life in order to save another, and therefore once the child is born, there certainly cannot be any justification for any kind of violent action, if the presence of the embryo threatens the mother's life - even her mental health, then from the Jewish point of view, we are under obligation to end the life of that embryo because in fact it is an assailant, as it were, against the mother.

- No matter how taboo in our culture, it has become difficult, from a strictly scientific point of view, to deny that abortion does cause profound, but usually unexpressed, mental suffering and problems…

I have no doubt. However that damage might well pale before the consequences of bearing the product of rape for example.

- What you are saying here reflects the view of all Jews?

Yes. Because in the liberal trends of Judaism, there would be more latitudinal area, and I am expressing the view of Orthodox Jewish teaching. For example, you cannot choose for no reason to have an abortion, or for aesthetic or even economic reasons, but where there is a threat, that is different.

- The notions of secular and secularism have often come up in our conversation. At this stage it might be useful to know how you understand these concepts, as I am not sure we interpret them in the same way.

I think that is very important, again. One of the most important things of your work is urging us to be a little clearer in the kind of terminology that we use, to be able to define it and to unpackage it. And I think secular is being used in very different ways by different people, including probably between Catholics and Jews. And certainly, in different societies it is used in different ways. In Israeli society, it is very often simply used to mean people who are not fully Orthodox and define themselves as secular.

- People who do not abide by the law?

Right. Or who do not fully abide by the law, because everyone to some extent is abiding by something. And I actually think that if we take the word linguistically, semantically, secular is a very positive word, meaning affirming the world at large. And its real, more correct opposition would be monastic, rather than holy. The monastic approach is a legitimate choice, but the normative Jewish approach is to be engaged in the world, to be part of it and to sanctify the world: sanctifying the secular actually is the Jewish approach. The secular itself does not have a character. The sanctification is what gives it a character. Nevertheless the way it is used today very often means detached from spiritual content, and even opposed to spiritual content. And in that sense we, I think, need to be perfectly clear when we are using it in a positive way, or in a negative way, for example when it is used in opposition to religion. So every time in conversation I am having to define what I mean by secular.

- And sanctification means to follow the law?

I would say sanctification means to invest any aspect of the natural world with a sense of the Divine.

- A sense of God the Creator?

Of God the Creator, of God's presence. In fact it is very important that you are getting me to clarify this, because indeed when I am say “the Divine” I obviously mean God the creator, the guide, the Divine presence that is with us in our lives and in our world. Often “the divine” is used by other elements within our society to mean something that maybe of a higher degree of importance but is not in any essential way any different from any other aspect of the world. Well, there are two points regarding the religious understanding of the Divine presence. In one sense, everything is divine, inasmuch as everything is an intrinsic product of and reflects God's presence. But not everything can be seen in that way. From a religious perspective the vast majority of our world walks around to a greater or lesser degree in a state of blindness, and therefore sanctification is opening up one's eyes to God's presence in our world. Another understanding of sanctification – probably more normative in the Judeo-Christian tradition is to invest something with a special character that testifies to the Divine e.g. the Sabbath. Most Jewish thinkers would not contend that the seventh day is intrinsically different from other days of the week. However by setting it aside as a testament to the Divine Presence in the world and in history, we become more "God-conscious". For Judaism, the Mitzvot, the commandments, are a way in which we become God-conscious in our actions. So just now before I drank this cup of tea, I made a blessing. Now that blessing therefore is to mean that I am not just treating this as something to automatically respond to a physical need, but that I am aware of the Source, of God's presence that gives this gift to me. Therefore what it means is that I take nothing for granted. So that is really very important in terms of understanding what the Divine means. It means that nothing is to be taken for granted, the awareness that everything and every aspect of life is God's gift. This awareness is essential for the moral health of the individual and of society.

- The presence of God – do you experience God's guidance over your life? You made a blessing before drinking your cup of tea to put yourself in the presence of God, to acknowledge his presence – but does God manifest Himself to you, do you also feel Him guiding you, taking care of you?

This is very important. In our liturgy in Judaism, and indeed in terms of the Biblical texts, there are two names given for God in the Bible – one is Adonai, the Tetragrammaton, the four letters of the Name which we do not pronounce, God the immanent who is engaged in history, in our lives. And there is Elohim or El, which is God the transcendent, and that's the God of creation. In our prayers, in our liturgy when we pray to God three times a day, we refer to God in both terms. So God is to be seen in the cosmos around us and in the laws of nature – that's God's transcendence, but God is to be seen in the intimacy of our lives, of our encounters, of our lives' experiences, of those we love, of the relationships that we build – and of course, for the Jewish people, most intimately in our own history, because from our perspective, the covenantal relationship with God is reflected in history. How can you explain the survival of the Jewish people against all odds, as not to be found anywhere else in the course of human history? It can only be through Divine love and Divine presence. And that's why in all our prayers, indeed for the Sabbath, which is the crown of the Jewish week and the most important focus, it is both related to creation and to the exodus: the God of the universe, and the God of history. And history is not only collective history, it is also personal history. So if I may reduce it for me, the relationship with my wife, with my children, with my grand-children is itself the manifestation of the Divine presence in my life. I sense that! And also for me personally in terms of my history, everything that has happened to me hasn't actually been by any virtue of mine: I feel a very profound sense that everything that I have done has been guided by God's presence in my life.

- So you are not deistic.

Exactly. No Orthodox Jew can be that. Every Orthodox Jew is fundamentally theistic: God is not passive, but active in our world.

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen – Part one: the Divine Image

2011-04-04T14:52:33Z

Rabbi Rosen is the Director of the American Jewish Committee's Department for Interreligious Affairs. He is Honorary Advisor on Interfaith Relations to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, serves on its Commission for Interreligious Dialogue, and represents the Chief Rabbinate on the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land.

Rabbi Rosen draws his ethical guidance from the Bible. In this first part of our interview, he emphasizes the first social ethical teaching that comes out of the Bible - the affirmation that the human being is created in the Divine Image. The human being therefore derives his or her identity from God himself, and there cannot be any sustainable universal vision without appreciation of the sanctity of the human individual. Moreover, it is only through the love of God that we have genuine love of man.

Marguerite A. Peeters interviewed Rabbi David Rosen in Paris on March 3, 2011, at the end of the 21st session of the meetings between the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation and the Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism of the Holy See.

- M.P: You have stated that as a Jewish believer, you drew your ethical inspiration and guidance from the Bible. What is your view of universality, from the perspective of your Jewish tradition?

D. R.: I would say, first and foremost, that universality is rooted in an understanding of particularity. That sounds almost contradictory, but what do I mean by that? It means that it doesn't seem to me that there is any sustainable universal vision if it is not rooted in appreciation of the sanctity of the human individual. The first social ethical teaching that comes out of the Bible is the affirmation that the human being is created in the Divine Image. And it is only such a vision, I believe, that can legitimately claim that human life is sacred. Otherwise the concept that human life is sacred does not have any meaning. This does not mean that people who are not religious cannot appreciate the importance of human life, but it is precisely the religious tradition that gives the moral - not only foundation, but solidity to a universal vision that can talk of intrinsic human rights rooted in the nature of the human person. Otherwise, Peter Singer's arguments from a secular point of view are not illegitimate. Why do you prefer the human being over any other animal?

- Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation, who claims that all animals, including the human species, are equal…

Right. The only real argument to such a position is in the affirmation that the human being has something intrinsically sacred deriving from a higher source, from God who has created the human being in His Divine Image. Now beyond that, it is precisely the religious vision that can see not only the human particularity, but the collective particularity as being part of something that emanates from a higher order, from a higher source. Thus the identity of individuals, of peoples, of nations, and of course, before that, of families as being part of the natural structure of the cosmos is seen not purely as an anthropological reality but as something that has a moral imperative in its very nature. That can only come from a religious source. It is precisely religion that can offer the values of individuals, families, nations, the people, that is part of the universal collective, a moral logic that is compelling. The contemporary secular vision of universalism is very often simply nothing more than a reduction to the lowest common denominator, and that ultimately is not sustainable.

- But the “secular vision of universalism” is often secularist, in the sense that it denies, out of principle, the sanctity of the human being, the sacredness of life, our being created in the image of God, God's design over creation. How does one deal with such a collective negation - or sinful choice? What is the way forward to an authentically universal ethics? Surely, a “debate” - intellectual or democratic - would not suffice… What more is needed?

I don't know whether there are any satisfactory answers to these questions. In the end it is the responsibility of the religious adherent to “testify” to the Divine reality in the hope that that reality becomes evident to others. I do believe that whatever the degree of “sinfulness” in modern society may be, there are still overwhelming numbers of skeptics as well as believers who look to Religion for guidance.

- In my observation, the “new global ethic” is pessimistic: it is rooted in the problems of humanity, such as environmental degradation, poverty, inequality, violence against women, insecurity, war and so on. Addressing these problems makes up the essence of the new ethic, which radically lacks a positive view of reality – a view of praise, honor, glory, thanksgiving. Is it not important today to re-emphasize God's assessment of his creation – when He saw that it was good?

Absolutely. That is a very important corollary to what I was saying. So together what we are saying is that universal ethics purely brought out of a negative worldview, purely responsive to threats is not a sustainable moral worldview. It has to come from a positive value and from a positive impetus. Even therefore people who are not believers should be able to appreciate the role that religion can play, must play for the benefit of human society at large.

- Are you saying that only religion has the ability to provide that positive impetus? If so, can you further explain?

As indicated, I believe that only religion provides a rationale that refutes the argument against “speciesism” – i.e. that there is no moral logic to the preference of one species over another. Secondly, there are only two possible hypotheses about life. Either it proceeds from some intention, or it does not. Either we are all just part of an “accident” or we are the product of a higher Will. Of course it is possible for irreligious people to find meaning in their existence, but how can this compare to someone who recognizes her or himself as the creation of Divine Will? So I am saying that there is a profound qualitative difference between a religious ethic and a secular one.

- You use the word “individual”, then you use the word “person”. Do the two words have the same meaning for you?

I am utilizing them interchangeably and I suppose in a way, in my English language I am showing that I myself am being influenced by the secular discourse, because if I go back to Hebrew sources, there is no such word for “individual” nor is there any for “person”. There is the human being. The human being derives his or her identity from Creation itself and therefore from God himself. The Hebrew word for human being is Adam. Adam is not a proper name, in the sense that it is not a given name. Adam is the name that is used for male and female. In fact in Genesis, chapter 5, 6: “these are the generations of Adam in the day that God created Adam – male and female he created him” - or “it”, to be more specific in that sense. So the Bible, the Torah, the book of Genesis is very explicit that Adam is not a gender statement, but an affirmation of the human person created in the Divine Image.

- And this being created in the Divine Image is what makes up human dignity, right?

Exactly so. Human dignity is not used in the sense of human rights, but in the sense of the term K'vod ha'Adam which means “the honor, the dignity of the Adam, of the human person” - something that intrinsically affirms the value of the human being and thus should compel us to behave accordingly. There is a common statement that says that the Bible is not a document of rights but of duties. That's true, of course. However, if there is a duty to respect the property of another, it means that the other has some right to property. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that a religious worldview is not a worldview of demands but a worldview of responsibilities.

- The starting point in the history of human rights since the French revolution has been secular citizenship, not the recognition of our being created in the Divine Image. In practice secular citizenship has often been set in dialectical opposition with fatherhood, motherhood, the family, but also with faith. And now more than ever in contemporary culture, human rights have moved away from any religious reference. Likewise, human dignity has been destabilized and is used to justify agendas such as euthanasia and assisted suicide. The fact the modern notion of “rights” is not a Biblical one in the strict sense is indeed meaningful. Can you further spell out the conditions under which human rights are genuinely universal?

I assume that you mean “the conditions under which human rights are genuinely universal” from a Biblical perspective? I am not sure that I can do it any better than I have tried to do and seek to do below. The idea that we all are the children of One Father, all created in the Divine Image requires conduct that respects the life and dignity of all.

- Is a universal ethic possible without explicit reference to, or at least openness to divine revelation? What happens to ethics when it seeks autonomy and declares independence from divine revelation? Does it not become apparent today that the secular interpretation of ethics and of rights has led to unsustainable contradictions and the deconstruction of universality itself? As the failure of the secular ethic becomes apparent, does a return to God appear as the only solution?

Of course. However I would see the Divine Image reflected in human conscience as providing some moral orientation even for those who are not conscious of it within them. Thus as Jesus indicated, not everyone who speaks in the name of God behaves in a godly fashion and often godly behavior emanates from those who cannot even perceive His Presence. If one is conscious of God's presence and the moral imperative that follows therefrom, then one's conduct is likely to be all the more morally secure and profound. However the “right action” even without the “right conviction” is more important than the absence of the right action, even when the right conviction is affirmed.

- “A religious worldview is not a worldview of demands but a worldview of responsibilities.” And of love?

Of course. The most essential thing is the love of God. And it is only through the love of God that we have genuine love of man. Leviticus 19, 18 which says “love your neighbor as yourself” is not really quoted in full, because what it says is: “Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.” In other words there cannot really be true full love of your neighbor if it is not coming of that awareness of God's presence. There is a classical debate between rabbi Ben Azzai and rabbi Akiva, two great sages of the second century of the common era, as to what is the great principle in the Torah, and in that sense they are following on Jesus' teaching. But the interesting thing is that while Akiva says the most important principle is “love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord”, Ben Azzai says no, there is a greater principle, and that is that God created the human being in His Image. And basically what Ben Azzai is saying is that only if you understand that the human being is created in the Divine Image, you can genuinely love your neighbor as yourself. What does it mean? It means acknowledging that there is intrinsic value in the human person, regardless of your likes or dislikes.

Judeo-Christian dialogue on universality and ethics

2011-03-26T15:04:23Z

The way the West now interprets concepts such as human dignity, human rights, human nature, democracy, equality, freedom, love, fraternity, the family has changed dramatically as a result of the West's progressive cultural shift to postmodernity. But what used to be called “universal values” or “universal principles” in the age of modernity were already a mixed bag: they represented a temporary alliance of the values of western modernity, such as the absolute primacy culturally granted to reason, with those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The western cultural revolution has profoundly destabilized this alliance and the modern synthesis. With the advent of postmodernity, the “values” formerly regarded as “universal”, which used to have a defined and fairly stable content, have now become subject to diverse or even contradictory interpretations. In our analysis, this destabilization has an irreversible character: returning to the modern system is neither possible nor desirable, given the flaws and ideological abuses of modernity.

Consensus is the paradigm that culturally fills the vacuum left by the deconstruction of universality. Never have culture, humanity, global governance spoken more about consensus. Yet never, in reality, has the basis for genuine consensus been so thin – a flagrant paradox of our times. Such an unsustainable fragmentation of the West's contract of society is not unrelated to the secularization of western culture and its globalization. Alongside a religious revival observable in many parts of the world, a secular ethic coming from the West now surfs on the powerful wave of globalization, risking to rapidly transform from within cultures that have for centuries kept a sense of what is transcendent and sacred.

Yet reality does not change: every human being can recognize in his or her conscience, reason and heart what is real, true and good, what is genuinely consensual, what is universal. This capacity, this reality, this truth have a divine source. A reformulation of what is universal, reopening ethics to divine transcendence, appears necessary to disentangle it from the errors of both modernity and postmodernity. The state of the world challenges people of faith to collaborate, to the extent possible, in assisting humanity in this effort.

In this perspective, we have launched a Judeo-Christian dialogue on the theme of universality and ethics. This dialogue seeks to conform to the basic obligation of every human being, if only out of self-love, to search for what is real and true. It is open-ended – always ready to welcome new and greater lights on this path. It respects the identity and freedom of the interlocutor to express the message he or she has to convey. And last but not least, it seeks to build friendship. The work of rediscovering what unites us is most efficient when together we have regained a sense of our common filial brotherhood.

We are grateful to Rabbi David Rosen for his willingness to offer his specific contribution to this process.

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen - Part one: The Divine Image

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen - Part two: What unites us divides us

Interview with Rabbi David Rosen - Part three: We must first be a blessing to one another

Message à nos correspondants

2010-08-27T14:16:37Z

Fin 2022, l'Institut a terminé son travail de recherche académique sur l'Organisation des Nations-Unies et sa transformation pratique en régime de partenariats pluri-actionnaires (étatiques et non-étatiques) poursuivant des objectifs mondiaux. Tout en préparant ce travail à la publication, l'Institut reprend ses activités éducatives ordinaires et ses échanges interculturels en présentiel, temporairement interrompus durant la crise sanitaire.

- Accueil

Suggested rules of participation in our dialogues

2009-11-27T14:08:01Z

We wish our dialogue to give each person the liberty to express what he or she wants to say and to make our common discernment effort go forward.

These are the participation rules we would like to suggest:

Your contribution must not be longer than a page (3,000 characters).

Avoid being vague or general, your reflection should be specific. The purpose is not to write a synthetic text repeating what may have already been said.

Keep to the theme of the dialogue in question.

The most useful contributions are those that stem from your concrete human, professional or cultural experience and reflect your personal engagement.

Your contribution t may take several forms: comments, questions, suggestions, personal witness, information, reflections…

Dialogue Dynamics reserves the right not to publish all the contributions it receives.

Suggestions de règles de participation aux dialogues

2009-11-27T13:39:53Z

Nous souhaitons que notre dialogue donne à chacun la liberté d'exprimer ce qu'il veut dire et qu'il contribue à faire avancer notre effort commun de discernement.

Voici quelques règles de participation que nous vous proposons :

Votre contribution ne doit pas dépasser une page (3.000 signes).

Elle doit éviter les généralités, apporter des éléments de réflexion spécifiques au message que vous voulez communiquer. Il ne s'agit pas de rédiger un texte synthétique répétant ce qui a déjà pu être dit.

Elle doit rester dans le cadre thématique du dialogue en question.

Elle doit, autant que possible, partir de votre expérience humaine, professionnelle ou culturelle concrète et manifester votre engagement personnel.

Votre contribution peut prendre plusieurs formes : commentaires, questions, suggestions, témoignage personnel, informations, réflexions...

Dialogue Dynamics se réserve le droit de ne pas publier toutes les contributions que nous recevons.

La question agricole africaine

2009-09-04T13:16:01Z

Bernard Graciet travaille pour une multinationale d'agrofourniture et a rédigé cette note sur la question agricole africaine à notre demande. Il est ouvert à un dialogue sur ces thèmes, y compris sur les nouvelles technologies, notamment OGM (Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés).

Le Problème

Depuis la nuit des temps, l'homme a lutté pour arracher à la terre sa subsistance. Ce n'est qu'à partir du milieu du XXème siècle que l'ensemble du monde occidental a pu sans discontinuer, grâce à une meilleure connaissance de la biologie, atteindre puis dépasser l'auto suffisance alimentaire.

La révolution verte des années 70 a permis à l'Asie de produire suffisamment de nourriture grâce à une spectaculaire augmentation de la productivité des cultures de blé et de riz. Pendant ce temps, l'Afrique est globalement restée à l'écart et la production alimentaire locale n'a pu répondre à la demande croissante de produits de base tels que blé, riz, maïs, manioc, soja et autres cultures oléagineuses.

Malgré un vaste potentiel, 19 milliards de $ de nourriture sont importés chaque année sur ce continent, et plus de 200 millions d'africains, soit un cinquième de la population, souffrent de malnutrition (Organisation pour l'Agriculture et l'Alimentation/FAO).

Cette crise s'est aggravée en 2008 avec la pénurie mondiale de grain due à un plafonnement des rendements et à la sécheresse qui a sévi en de nombreuses régions du globe.

Ce brutal réveil de la « peur de manquer » dans les pays développés a fait prendre conscience au monde qu'il avait négligé de poursuivre les efforts de recherche et développement qui avaient, pendant 30 ans, assuré une progression régulière des rendements.

Depuis un an, beaucoup a été dit sur ce problème, mais en réalité peu a été fait, et il est clair que sans un effort massif d'augmentation de la production, la crise reviendra, durable et profonde, particulièrement dans les pays en voie de développement.

Selon la FAO, pour nourrir les 2,5 milliards d'habitants supplémentaires que le monde comptera en 2050, plus le milliard de mal nourris existant actuellement, la production agricole devra doubler. Ceci prend en compte l'augmentation du niveau de vie de grands pays asiatiques dont la demande en nourriture progresse rapidement.

Dans ce contexte, déjà en 2007 la FAO estimait que la population souffrant de malnutrition en Afrique subsaharienne était aux alentours de 200 millions de personnes. La situation en 2009 n'a pu qu'empirer, suite à la crise économique et financière.

L'Afrique agricole - état des lieux. Y a-t-il espoir ?

Nous pensons que l'Afrique a un potentiel de développement exceptionnel et qu'il n'y a pas de raison qu'elle ne puisse nourrir correctement sa population présente et future.

Avec 500 millions d'hectares cultivables, l'Afrique a un potentiel agricole plus important que la surface totale de l'Union Européenne. Par ailleurs beaucoup de ces terres sont encore peu ou pas exploitées, par exemple en Ethiopie et Tanzanie. Les réserves d'eau sont certes inégalement réparties, mais certains pays pourraient produire beaucoup plus en utilisant mieux leurs réserves hydriques.

Nous avons donc une vision très positive du potentiel de développement agricole du continent africain.

Pourquoi tant d'échecs ?

L'Afrique présente des situations très contrastées, de magnifiques exemples de réussite agricole sont notables, à côté de reculs significatifs. Certains pays qui étaient auto-suffisants en alimentation il y a 40 ans sont maintenant importateurs nets de nourriture.

Les causes principales du retard de certains pays africains en agriculture sont, à notre avis :

Les guerres, qui empêchent l'agriculture ou dévastent les récoltes.
Les politiques aberrantes qui peuvent transformer un grenier à grain en désert alimentaire (Zimbabwe).
Le manque de législation foncière, qui décourage l'investissement d'amélioration de la fertilité des sols, activité de long terme. Ceci est un problème majeur.
Le manque de structures, routes, moyens de transport, capacité de stockage des récoltes, accès au marché.
Le manque d'éducation de beaucoup de petits agriculteurs en matière technique.
Le manque d'accès aux intrants fondamentaux de la production agricole, semences de qualité, engrais, produits de protection des cultures. Sans cette chaîne de production, il n'y a pas de progrès possible.
Le manque d'accès à l'irrigation.
Dans certaines zones, la surexploitation des sols, dont la fertilité baisse en conséquence.
L'idéologie passéiste de certaines ONG occidentales qui ont une conception idéaliste et erronée de la production agricole.

Ce que nous recommandons, spécifiquement pour augmenter la productivité

Pour développer l'agriculture en Afrique, le développement de technologies d'avant-garde n'a pas à être la première priorité.

Contrairement au point de vue de certaines organisations internationales, nous pensons que sur un continent où le rendement en grain est seulement un cinquième de la moyenne atteinte dans les pays développés ou émergents, les technologies existantes ayant fait leurs preuves depuis longtemps sont tout à fait suffisantes pour créer une vraie révolution en matière de rendement. Plutôt que de faire de la recherche complexe et futuriste, il convient de mettre en place :

Une structure d'éducation et de conseil agricole.
Une politique de crédit avec assurance permettant aux petits producteurs de se procurer des semences de qualité, élément fondamental du rendement final.
Maintenir ou développer les subventions nécessaires à l'achat d'engrais. Sans nourriture de la plante, il n'y a pas d'espoir.
Développer les méthodes d'irrigation qui optimisent l'emploi de l'eau.
Protéger les récoltes de la concurrence des mauvaises herbes par un désherbage correct.
Surveiller et éliminer si nécessaire, insectes et champignons parasites qui détruisent la production, avant et après récolte.
Développer une politique de stockage et de transport, pour permettre l'accès des denrées aux marchés.

Tout ceci n'est pas un « modèle agricole d'une multinationale ». Cette liste d'actions n'est que de la logique de bon sens, et son non respect est à l'origine de la majorité des échecs.

Ne pas accepter les lois de la nature et donc les principes de base de la production agricole ne peut être dû qu'à l'ignorance ou à l'idéologie.

Nous pensons qu'avant de mettre davantage de terres en culture, il convient de faire produire des récoltes normales aux hectares actuellement en production. Ce n'est ensuite que dans un deuxième temps que le passage à des technologies de pointe pourra se justifier.

Par ailleurs, une réflexion s'impose à propos de la gestion du foncier, sans pour autant porter atteinte à la culture africaine (sens de la communauté). Il convient également de réfléchir, au niveau politique, à des mécanismes de protection des marchés qui sécurisent les prix, peut-être sur le modèle de la Politique Agricole Commune (PAC) européenne.

Bernard Graciet

The African agricultural question

2009-09-04T13:09:30Z

Bernard Graciet works for an agricultural supply multinational and wrote this note at our request. He is open to a dialogue on these subjects, including new technologies and GMOs.

The problem

Since the dawn of time, man has struggled to extract subsistence from the earth. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that the entire Western world has been able, thanks to a better understanding of biology, to reach beyond food self-sufficiency without interruption.

The green revolution of the 1970s allowed Asia to produce sufficient quantities of food thanks to a spectacular increase in the productivity of crops such as wheat and rice. Meanwhile Africa has remained largely isolated and local food production has not been able to meet the growing demand for basic products such as wheat, rice, corn, cassava, soya and other oilseed crops.

Despite its vast potential, $19 billion in food is imported each year to the continent and more than 200 million Africans, one fifth of the population, suffer from malnutrition (FAO).

This crisis was aggravated in 2008 by the global shortage of grain due to limits on yields and a drought which affected many parts of the world.

This sudden awakening of the "fear of food shortages" in developed countries has alerted the world to the fact that it has neglected to continue efforts in research and development that had for 30 years ensured a steady increase in yields.

Much has been said about this issue over the past year, but in reality little has been done and it is clear that without a massive increase in production, the crisis will return and will be long-lasting and far-reaching, particularly in developing countries.

According to the FAO, agricultural production will have to double in order to feed the 2.5 billion extra inhabitants that the world will have by 2050, plus the one billion who are currently malnourished. This takes into account the increase in living standards in major Asian countries where demand for food is rising fast.

In this context, the FAO already estimated in 2007 that the population suffering from malnutrition in sub-Saharan Africa stood at around 200 million people. The situation in 2009 can only get worse, due to the economic and financial crisis.

Agricultural Africa - the facts. Is there any hope?

We believe that Africa has an exceptional potential for development and that there is no reason why it should not be able to feed its population properly both now and in the future.

With 500 million cultivable hectares, Africa's agricultural potential is larger than the total surface area of the European Union. Furthermore, a lot of land has not been used much or at all, for example in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Admittedly, water supplies are unevenly distributed, but some countries could produce a lot more by making better use of their water reserves.

This is why we have a very positive vision of the potential for agricultural development on the African continent.

Why so many failures?

There are many deeply contrasting situations in Africa, so we find amazing examples of farming success alongside significant declines. Certain countries that were self-sufficient in food 40 years ago are now net importers of food.
The main reasons for several African countries falling behind are, in our opinion:

Wars that prevent farming or devastate crops.
Absurd policies that can transform a bread basket into a food desert (Zimbabwe).
The lack of land legislation, which discourages investment in improving soil fertility, a long-term activity. This is a serious problem.
The lack of infrastructure, roads, means of transport, crop storage capacity, access to markets.
The lack of training of many small farmers in technical matters.
The lack of access to fundamental agricultural production inputs, high-quality seeds, fertilisers, crop protection products. Without this chain of production, progress is impossible.
The lack of access to irrigation.
In certain areas, the overuse of land, with a resulting fall in fertility.
The outdated ideology of some western NGOs who have an idealistic and misguided attitude towards agricultural production.

What we recommend, specifically, to increase productivity

To develop agriculture in Africa, the development of new technologies does not have to be the number one priority.

Contrary to the point of view of certain international organisations, we believe that on a continent where grain yields are only one fifth of the average achieved in developed or emerging countries, existing technologies have shown for a long time that they are perfectly sufficient to create a true revolution in terms of yields. Instead of carrying out complex and futuristic research, what is required is the establishment of:

An agricultural training and advisory structure.
Credit policy allowing small producers to buy high-quality seeds, a fundamental part of the final yield.
Maintaining or developing subsidies required for purchasing fertiliser. If you don't feed the plant there is no hope.
Developing methods of irrigation that optimise the use of water.
Protecting crops against competing weeds through proper weeding.
Checking and eliminating when necessary, insects and fungi parasites that destroy crops, before and after harvest.
Developing a storage and transport policy to allow the farmers to access markets to sell their foods.

All of this is not a "multinational agricultural model." This action plan is simply common sense, the majority of crop failures being caused by not paying attention to this.

Not accepting the laws of nature and thus the basic principles of agricultural production can only be blamed on ignorance or ideology.

We believe that before putting more land under cultivation, it is necessary to produce higher yields from hectares currently in production. It is only later on that moving onto advanced technologies could be justified.

It is important to consider how to manage the land without damaging the African Culture (the sense of community). It is equally important to consider, on a political level, which market protection mechanisms can secure prices, for example those based on the European CAP model.

Bernard Graciet
bernardgraciet@hotmail.fr

A propos de nous

2009-05-05T15:06:22Z

Qui sommes-nous ?

Dialogue Dynamics est une association sans but lucratif établie à Bruxelles. L'association étudie les concepts-clefs, les valeurs et les mécanismes opérationnels de la mondialisation. Elle recueille et diffuse toute information de nature à promouvoir sur ces sujets un dialogue interculturel et interreligieux, en particulier à travers son service d'information, l'organisation de sessions de formation ou autres activités éducatives. Elle participe à des activités de même nature organisées par d'autres institutions. Elle produit des études, matériaux didactiques et documents.

Haut de page▲