The paradox of the us in enemy
This morning, while working out at the gym, I was listening to a Ted talk by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks entitled, “How we can face the future without fear together.” In this talk he suggests and discusses the proposition that “…the simplest way of safeguarding the future “you” is to strengthen the future “us” in three dimensions: the use of relationships, the use of identity and the use of responsibility.”
He goes on to suggest that it is only when we keep a firm hold on our story – our identity – that we can risk holding “out the hand of friendship to somebody whose class or creed or color are different than ours…”
While listening to his very eloquent talk which, to me, is, at one level, common sense, I found myself asking the following questions:
In the United States, it seems as if both sides of the political divide are having a difficult time holding on to enough of an identity to be able to identify with a more inclusive us – an us which includes the other side.
I was talking to a recovering addict yesterday who has an older brother who is also an addict. The person with whom I was talking had a difficult time accepting that he and his brother are awe. The younger brother with whom I was talking was very judgmental of his brother. In order for him to fully accept his brother as an equal who also struggles, there has to be enough of an acceptance of his own sacred humanness to allow that to happen. The active addict is very involved with just surviving from one fix to the next. He/she does not have much, if any, of an identity outside of the addiction. If I want to help the addict I need to be secure enough with/in my own story to accept that the addict and I are an us. We have much in common. We both want to feel good about ourselves and to have a sense of belonging to a community/a tribe. As the addict accept that he/she is part of the us, then they can include others such as this young man’s brother.
Both side of the political divide in the United States have much in common, but both, at the current time, can easily fall into the trap of attempting to create a story rather than claiming a shared story. That is, both sides are members of a nation which has a rich history of an idea of a more just community. The reality of the shared history has always fallen short of the ideal. When we lose sight of or do not claim and reclaim this shared story we end up as small groups of individuals who have nothing in common with each other. The us are very tiny and very exclusionary. If each side, then labels those who are not us as “them” then they are enemies and there is no chance of coming together to form a larger us which can jointly write another chapter in the story of the ideal which is this nation.
When Jesus and other spiritual teachers suggests that one love one’s enemy they are suggesting that we find the us in “them”. When the disciples want to stone the prostitute Jesus says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” thus reminding them that us humans have a shared story of stumbling, fumbling our way through this life journey.
If I want to be more a part of the solution and not just a part of the problem, then I have to claim the shared story of which I am a part. When I, for example, fly the United States flag on my flagpole I am affirming that the story of this nation in all its imperfections and achievements is my story. It is also the story of all those with whom I disagree politically and those who may, on the surface, appear to be “the other”. It is as the resultant “us” that we can feel confident in inviting others to share the next chapter in our story.
I am grateful to Rabbi Sacks for this powerful reminder that we are all part of an us.
Written July 12, 2017
This morning, while working out at the gym, I was listening to a Ted talk by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks entitled, “How we can face the future without fear together.” In this talk he suggests and discusses the proposition that “…the simplest way of safeguarding the future “you” is to strengthen the future “us” in three dimensions: the use of relationships, the use of identity and the use of responsibility.”
He goes on to suggest that it is only when we keep a firm hold on our story – our identity – that we can risk holding “out the hand of friendship to somebody whose class or creed or color are different than ours…”
While listening to his very eloquent talk which, to me, is, at one level, common sense, I found myself asking the following questions:
- How can Israel apply this proposition to their relationship with the people of Palestine?
- How can I apply this proposition to those in the United States with whom I passionately disagree?
- Is this the secret or the way to move forward in following the teaching of Jesus and other spiritual teachers to love our enemy?
In the United States, it seems as if both sides of the political divide are having a difficult time holding on to enough of an identity to be able to identify with a more inclusive us – an us which includes the other side.
I was talking to a recovering addict yesterday who has an older brother who is also an addict. The person with whom I was talking had a difficult time accepting that he and his brother are awe. The younger brother with whom I was talking was very judgmental of his brother. In order for him to fully accept his brother as an equal who also struggles, there has to be enough of an acceptance of his own sacred humanness to allow that to happen. The active addict is very involved with just surviving from one fix to the next. He/she does not have much, if any, of an identity outside of the addiction. If I want to help the addict I need to be secure enough with/in my own story to accept that the addict and I are an us. We have much in common. We both want to feel good about ourselves and to have a sense of belonging to a community/a tribe. As the addict accept that he/she is part of the us, then they can include others such as this young man’s brother.
Both side of the political divide in the United States have much in common, but both, at the current time, can easily fall into the trap of attempting to create a story rather than claiming a shared story. That is, both sides are members of a nation which has a rich history of an idea of a more just community. The reality of the shared history has always fallen short of the ideal. When we lose sight of or do not claim and reclaim this shared story we end up as small groups of individuals who have nothing in common with each other. The us are very tiny and very exclusionary. If each side, then labels those who are not us as “them” then they are enemies and there is no chance of coming together to form a larger us which can jointly write another chapter in the story of the ideal which is this nation.
When Jesus and other spiritual teachers suggests that one love one’s enemy they are suggesting that we find the us in “them”. When the disciples want to stone the prostitute Jesus says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” thus reminding them that us humans have a shared story of stumbling, fumbling our way through this life journey.
If I want to be more a part of the solution and not just a part of the problem, then I have to claim the shared story of which I am a part. When I, for example, fly the United States flag on my flagpole I am affirming that the story of this nation in all its imperfections and achievements is my story. It is also the story of all those with whom I disagree politically and those who may, on the surface, appear to be “the other”. It is as the resultant “us” that we can feel confident in inviting others to share the next chapter in our story.
I am grateful to Rabbi Sacks for this powerful reminder that we are all part of an us.
Written July 12, 2017
RSS Feed