A Pastor and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar

A Rabbi, A Pastor, and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar

April 21, 2022 Randy Knie, Kyle Whitaker Season 2 Episode 20
A Pastor and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar
A Rabbi, A Pastor, and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

We've been excited to talk to a Jewish scholar for some time now...and not just for the obvious episode title opportunity, either. For those of us who consider ourselves Christians, to understand Judaism is to understand the roots of our faith tradition.

In this episode, we interview Rabbi Or Rose from Hebrew College in Boston, MA. Rabbi Rose specializes in inter-religious studies and takes us into the world of inter-religious dialogue, the value of it, along with ancient Jewish practices of arguing and debating the Scriptures, and seeing that practice as holy. This is a fascinating episode. We hope you enjoy this conversation as much as we did.

We drank The Prisoner Wine Co. Finish II by Bardstown Bourbon Company. It's phenomenal.

The beverage tasting is at 1:50. To skip to the interview, go to 5:25.

You can find the transcript for this episode here.

=====

Want to support us?

The best way is to subscribe to our Patreon. Annual memberships are available for a 10% discount.

If you'd rather make a one-time donation, you can contribute through our PayPal.


Other important info:

  • Rate & review us on Apple & Spotify
  • Follow us on social media at @PPWBPodcast
  • Watch & comment on YouTube
  • Email us at pastorandphilosopher@gmail.com

Cheers!

Elliot:

I'm Randy, the pastor half of the podcast and my friend Kyle is a philosopher. This podcast host conversations at the intersection of philosophy, theology and spirituality.

Kyle:

We also invite experts to join us, making public a space that we've often enjoyed off air around the proverbial table with a good drink in the back corner of a dark pub.

Elliot:

Thanks for joining us, and welcome to A Pastor and Philosopher Walk into a Bar. This week, we have Rabbi Or Rose to share with you I met or on the rooftop in New York that I've mentioned to you a number of times, I think, probably already. And it was a magical magical time, there's something about being led by a rabbi in Shabbat prayer, as he's singing, and you're on the 30th floor in downtown Manhattan in the financial district, and you hear the cacophony of horns and cars all around and planes going overhead who are about to land in LaGuardia Airport. And then you hear this ancient Jewish prayer that's being sung for 1000s of years. And you feel like you're part of this really ancient and early modern story. And that was how I met or and I'm excited to, for us to share this conversation. It was really really insightful and delightful.

Kyle:

Yeah, and now I'm jealous of your experience. Now, it's ported me there, Randy. Yeah. Yeah, no, this was a wonderful conversation. He has such a calm, methodical, careful way of speaking. Pausing before, you know, in answering a question. Yeah, humble, or at least seems in the conversation, like clearly wants to get the answer. Right. wants to do justice to the strength of the question.

Elliot:

Well, let's start off this conversation with a tasty beverage. Yeah. What do you got?

Kyle:

So this is a bourbon from a place called Bardstown bourbon company.

Elliot:

You just said bourbon today. Yeah,

Kyle:

that's how you say it. So this is in Bardstown, Kentucky, just few hours from where I grew up, and I've never had anything Bardstown before I don't think they're that old. They've I've been seeing their stuff on shelves for a few years. But I think they're relatively new on the scene. And I've heard good things and a buddy of mine. Were sharing some stuff the other night and he pulled this out. And it was so delicious. I asked him if I could get a few ounces to share on the podcast. So this is a bourbon I wouldn't normally bought for myself, but I loved it. So I'm sharing it with you guys. So this is called the prisoner. It's a wine finished bourbon from Bardstown bourbon company.

Elliot:

You can smell it in the nose. Daily. Yeah, like sweet apple, like red apple and cherry. I

Kyle:

give it cherry was one of the first things I noticed from this cherry and then chocolate on the palate.

Elliot:

Maybe my palates coming back, guys. Jesus.

Kyle:

I wish I could describe the color to you. It's just such a dark, rich bourbon.

Elliot:

This reminds me a hotter version of the dark rye by basil Hayden's, I think, yeah, because it doesn't taste like a bourbon. It has the burn going down. Maybe this is my COVID pellet, but a burns gone down. But on my tongue, it doesn't taste exactly like bourbon. It's, it's got that bourbon quality, but man, you taste so much of that wine finish. And there's no wine in here right

Kyle:

now just finished in French oak red wine barrels for 18 months.

Elliot:

That's delightful. And like you said, it's a dark, rich amber color.

Kyle:

And that's after being aged for 10 years in new oak. So yeah,

Elliot:

yeah, it's savory. Like, it's like the giving plate just has all the flavors, I'll start to get like this. I like this. This, this is that sawdust on the front of my palate. And then the dark, dark fruit on the back of my palate, which is really fun. Because it changes as you if you're tasting whiskey, you should be paying attention to where in your palate, you're tasting different things, because then you'll be tasting things in different places. And that's the one of the most fun parts of it for me, right? Yeah. Yeah, that's my favorite bourbon in quite a while.

Kyle:

But it was one that like, tasted it perked up. That was better than way better. There we go. We're gonna go back. Yeah.

Elliot:

Yeah, no, this is very good. Yeah, it's so different for a bourbon, though. Because of that one finish. Wine Barrel finished that. I'll bet some people won't look.

Kyle:

I'm sure some purists would probably say it's not really a bourbon or something like that. But I don't care what they think. Because it's wonderful. Yeah. How much is a bottle? So this MSRP on this is about 125. I don't know if you can actually get it for that because I wasn't able to find it anywhere. So we'll see. I don't know. So it's pricey. There's stuff is often priced beyond most bourbons. But now I see why. Yeah,

Elliot:

yeah, it's really, really good. And speaking of really, really good. Our Patreon top shelf supporters are just we're so grateful for them. And I had an interaction with a person who loves the podcast, and he said, What I got to do to get a shout out. What am I going to do to get my team and I said, You got to you got to, you got to support us with $20 a month. Patreon supporter and we will shout you out, buddy. And so Mark Heckman. Man, it feels good to see your name over these waves. Mark Heckman. Thank you. We can't do what we do without you. shares to mark Ekman Sure, yeah. Cheers. Well, Rabbi Or Rose, thank you so much for joining us on A Pastor and Philosopher Walk into a Bar.

Or:

My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me to be here.

Elliot:

Or, can you tell just just tell our listeners about yourself?

Or:

Sure. I was born and raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Following high school, I went to New York City where I studied at Yeshiva University, which is a modern Orthodox institution. And then went on to study in Israel at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem came to Boston roughly 20 years ago to study for a doctorate in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis. And for the last 18 years or so, I've been working at Hebrew College, which is just outside of Boston and Hebrew college is, by design, a pluralistic Jewish institution, which means that we have Jewish folks that are from various walks of life. And it's a hybrid institution. So some people are studying to become rabbis, cantors, and educators within the professional sphere of the school. And then we do a lot of adult and youth education. And I am the founding director of the Miller center for inter religious Learning and Leadership, which is one arm of the institution, which, as the title suggests, brings us into conversation and collaborative work with folks from other religious and cultural ways of being and doing in the world.

Elliot:

So just as a primer, what are the different? You know, I think there's what three main traditions within Judaism? Can you tell us a bit about each of them? And where do you land? Where do you find yourself

Or:

or so the landscape is a little more complicated, but I won't barrel forth into a lecture, I'll keep it brief. The three major denominations in the United States are Orthodox, Conservative, and reform, there is a smaller fourth denomination reconstructionism, which is newer. And then there are a variety of groups and subgroups, and so forth. That could be described as branches or that exist in perpendicular ways to those denominations, I would describe myself as a none of the above. I have spent time both seeking and working in all of those contexts. But I work at Hebrew College, in part because I was attracted to the vision of being in a diverse Jewish setting. Some of our faculty and students do identify with one or another of those denominations or streams of Judaism. And I'm glad that they feel at home in them. And I happen to be someone that feels more comfortable simply describing myself as a Jew. And to describe each of those denominations. Briefly, I would say that much of the conversation has to do with the nature of authority, visa vie, text and tradition. How do you regard the Torah right, the Hebrew Bible and the rabbinic traditions that flow from it? Do you consider yourself to be bound by Halacha, the Jewish sacred practices and rules of traditional Jewish engagement, etc. So I'm not going to go into each at a greater a greater length, but you know, I have people that I love and respect, who are walking their Jewish paths differently. And I've learned a lot from my time within synagogues, educational settings, in each of those

Elliot:

spheres. Did you grew up or as none of the above? Was that your family of origin or was that more specific?

Or:

My my parents, who are both originally from New York moved to Winnipeg, Canada, as a kind of countercultural experiment in the 1960s. My father was ordained the Jewish Theological Seminary, which is the flagship of conservative Judaism, and my mother did some studying there too. But at the same time, they were also attracted to positivism to Eastern European Jewish mysticism and specifically to the Habad school. Within that context. There are Habad Sometimes called the Chabad Lubavitch groups around the world. And my parents, also, you know, being of the age of counterculture, were very moved by the possibility of creating with friends and one mentor, an intentional spiritual community in Winnipeg, that would that would take piecemeal from from the various denominations. So I certainly grew up in a very rich Jewish religious household where Shabbat, the Sabbath and construe dietary laws and Phila prayer, are all a part of the way in which we lived. I went to a Jewish Day School for much of my upbringing, I went to Jewish summer camps. So I've been blessed, as far as I understand it, and experience it to being involved since childhood in a thickly Jewish environment. My parents, though, were also very good models of people that were engaged with folks from different walks of life, religious, secular, cultural. And that combination was imprinted on me and to this day certainly shapes the person that I aspire to be.

Elliot:

How would you say Jewish people generally relate to the Scriptures? And again, I know how complex that that question is. But in general, how might Jewish people approach the scriptures differently than Christians and even historically? Sure, so

Or:

again, this is one Jew one opinion, you know, with some educational background and life experience that I'll try and articulate in traditional Jewish contexts. The Hebrew Bible, also known as the tonna, which is an acronym for the Torah, the NIV, e m, and the two Vehm, three sections of the Hebrew Bible, the Five Books of Moses called the Torah, and maybe even the prophets in the movie in the later writings, together constitute what is called the Written Torah, the Torah should be hooked up. So that is the canonical text. And then there is also what is called Torah, Chevelle pair, the oral tradition. And it's called that because the early discussions of the rabbi's based on their understandings of the Torah and their life circumstances, were originally oral. And at a certain point, for the sake of preservation and continuity, those conversations were written down, and they too became canonical. But it points to something important, which is whether one is more or less traditional, we've all inherited an exegetical tradition, in which the written word, and the interpretive process are considered to be sacred. And so one of the things that I love most about Judaism is that we have this long history of creativity that is born out of a serious engagement with classical texts. And there's a kind of layering effect, so that you could have a conversation today in which you are looking at a passage on the exodus of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, as told in the book of Exodus or elsewhere. And then you might have the text of a conversation between rabbis from the third century, and then you might have another commentary from a philosopher from the 12th century, and then one from a mystic from the 18th century, and then Modern and Postmodern commentaries. In fact, many Jewish sacred books are printed in such a way that you have, right, the first or the oldest texts often write the Bible, and then a variety of texts that surround it. And that sends a very powerful aesthetic and pedagogic message about the importance of the original text, but then also the the importance of a process of engaging with different sages and interpreters from from different periods of time. So for me, that's actually one of the things that I love most about Judaism. I think that this kind of commitment to exegetical creativity that is rooted in the past, but demands of a person to be engaged, you know, in their place in time is, is something that has sustained us and is beautiful. There really is a sense that you are both an inheritor of all of these traditions, but also that you're invited to be inventive. And that in a way that you might describe, ultimately, as transcendent, that you are called, you know, by your ancestors and by the Divine to try and discern how to read those sacred sources here and now If that makes sense, depending on the context in which you learn and teach and so forth, you know, some voices are considered to be more authoritative and other voices considered less authoritative, and, and such. And we know, and we know, you know, across our traditions. That question is about authority again, and who has a seat at the table and whose voice matters are very much in flux. And, you know, and those changes are important and complicated ones, to try and continue to be discerning. And responsible?

Kyle:

Yeah, I know the answer to this is It depends, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Is it the case that that the viewing someone on the other side have a disagreement about one of these ancient texts, viewing that person as divinely inspired, even though you disagree with them, viewing the process of disagreeing them with them, as itself divinely inspired? And then seeing God at work in the dialectic is that common across all of the traditions of Judaism you named? Is it more likely to occur in more liberal traditions than more conservative ones?

Or:

Right? That's a good question. And first of all, you articulated you know, the, the presumption really, quite beautifully. I would say that it is an ideal in all of the communities that I am familiar with the take text study seriously. And it's embedded in older traditions. So it's not simply a newfangled, modern or postmodern, liberal invention, but ancient texts of the rabbi's talk about the importance of having a router and having a study partner appear, and that might look it that engaged conversation with disagreement is holy. And I think that's a very powerful model for us today. Given the ways in which so often in our broader culture, we are disturbed by disagreement to the point that we sometimes find it intolerable. I mean, we know how polarized this country is. And so if I dare say, I think something of the spirit of look at and have Ruta could be very helpful as a broader intervention and in American culture. And can we remember, just based on what you said a moment ago, and and the traditions from which all of us flow, that, in religious terms, God is greater than than any of those interpretations, opinions, ideological political dogmas? And so, can we recognize that in conversation with people that may think, an act differently than we do, that there is, you know, something holy, to be uncovered, doesn't mean that we ultimately need to try and agree, or that we should try and act always together. It doesn't mean to that we can't be critical, and that we can't, you know, make thoughtful decisions about a whole range of spiritual and ethical issues. But But can we live into an ethnos? In which resilient listening and respectful engagement across difference is something that we're trying to

Elliot:

achieve? Resilient listening? You say, that's incredible. Yeah. With staying within that. This, this idea of this ancient tradition of debating the scriptures within rabbinic tradition, and even the reality of the scriptures, with these within these, from what my my limited understanding, in the Jewish in the Hebrew Scriptures, there's different rabbinical schools that are actually arguing with each other within the text itself, right. There was designed to be that way. Can you bring us into that world in that reality in the Hebrew Scriptures? And then also, just how can we particularly for those of us who identify as Christians learn from that?

Or:

Yeah, I think it's important to say that from an historical critical perspective, right, the Bible is a composite document, written edited over generations. And that may come into conflict with more traditional Christian and Jewish views of Revelation, and the like, but from my perspective, it doesn't diminish the holiness, of, of Torah of Tanakh of, of the texts that we hold dear, because they are a collection of the struggling and striving of generations of people that were trying to make sense of life in real lationship with God and community. And so I like the term that used before, you know, divinely inspired, however vague that might be. But I really do have a sense that when I'm involved in the study of Torah, and all of the commentaries that issue forth from it, that, you know, there is a cloud of witnesses, to borrow a Christian, the term that that I am beholding, and a conversation that I'm participating in across generations. And yes, there are already different strands within the within the Hebrew Bible, and different theological and ethical perspectives that are recorded there. And then out of that, of course, as we might expect, you know, there are different different schools of thought, in the ancient rabbinic context. And then in medieval, early modern, modern and contemporary context, and and I think that knowing about the, the historical development of those sacred texts, and commentaries, again, doesn't have to diminish the holiness of the endeavor, I think, can actually also help us when we are engaging with texts that we find difficult or vexing or spiritually or ethically problematic, because we can, we can come to an understanding that these are the best attempts of people, past and present, trying to walk through the world, consciously and conscientiously. To me, that is a very serious and sacred undertaking. So I hope that helps, in some ways that to answer the question. I'm not a literalist, in any way, shape, or form. But I consider all of it to be holy, if that makes some sense.

Elliot:

Yeah, I think it's the most beautiful, healthy way of holding the scriptures and engaging with the scriptures and relating to them and wrestling with them and all of that. Yeah, it's, it's beautiful. This is just a toss in question, because we did a episode on the afterlife not long ago. And my one of my regrets from that episode is we didn't include the Jewish perspective on afterlife or lack thereof. Can you tell us just about traditional Jewish perspective on any sort of afterlife? And more that's gone since then?

Or:

Sure. So I think, you know, in contemporary times, many Jews might answer that question by simply saying, I do not know. I may hope for, you know, one eventuality or another, but I do not know.

Kyle:

So, in that way, our episode was very Jewish.

Or:

And there are a variety of answers to that question. There are certainly vivid imaginings about what Olam Haba The World to Come or Gan Aden, you know, the Garden of Eden might look like or you know, more hellish kinds of scenarios. So, you know, there is a wide variety. And it is it has been a subject of speculation, you know, for for 1000s of years. I don't know myself, that is, yeah, what what will? What will it look and feel like, will Or Rose as Or Rose continue to exist in any way, shape or form, subconsciously? Or will I simply, you know, become a part of something that is the larger energetic wheel of life, and I'll live on for as long as there are people that knew me and cared for me and maybe some strange folks that read my work and share it with others.

Elliot:

So would, would you agree that the Hebrew Scriptures don't say much about afterlife about, you know, yes,

Or:

I would. And then, you know, through through engagement with other cultures across space and time, you know, there are various Jewish ideas that emerged, but by and large in the Hebrew Bible, there's very little discussion of what may be, you know, after life as we know it, here, and now,

Kyle:

since Randy started this tangent, I'm just gonna continue for one more question. I'm curious because you're, you're a rabbi and a biblical scholar. And I'm curious what you think of NT Wright's take on the originality of the idea of resurrection in the first century. I don't know if you're familiar with his take, but one of the like, he's kind of famous for arguing Paying for the sort of authenticity of Jesus's resurrection as a historical event by arguing that there wasn't anything within Judaism conceptually, like that, that that an individualist bodily resurrection was a new idea. And then sort of he makes a very complex argument for that being a kind of original idea that is hard to explain without an actual event. So I'm curious, given your knowledge on what Jews around that period might have thought, does that seem like a reasonable case to you?

Or:

Yeah, I'm always, I'm always suspect of any claim to absolute originality. Because, you know, like, so many other things. It's contextual. And, you know, there are sources that one can turn to, that you could describe as preludes, you know, to this to this great drama, I think what's most important is to observe just how powerful that myth or for some fact, has been over the centuries. That is, why has it spoken so powerfully, to so many people? Over the ages? That's a more interesting question to me. Is it original? And can you locate it? Or something like in texts BEFORE AFTER Jesus? But why did it why did it spark such interesting, creative, complicated?

Elliot:

Let's good

Or:

religious, reflection and dedication? What does it say about people's desire, you know, to be in contact with the divine, and the human experience of pain and loss and suffering, and the possibility of redemption. And, and the realities of, you know, walking often, often hobbling through history, is as we tend to do so. Maybe unsatisfactory, but I hope that's good. Oh, I'm

Kyle:

a philosopher. All answers are unsatisfactory. That's right. And let

Or:

me just say the other, you know, the other thought that was on my mind, which is this, this question about, you know, imminence and transcendence, which I think is also woven into, you know, that that great story of Jesus and Jesus Christ, and the ways you know, in which different religious traditions including Judaism, you know, the generations of people have, you know, have have reflected on that, how do I access the divine? Is God present to me? Can I have an impact on the world? He's got affected by human action? What might it mean to say that, you know, God inheres in some way, throughout all of creation, and that all human beings, as described, you know, based on the book of Genesis, are created in the divine image and likeness. And, you know, there are interesting moments throughout Jewish history to where certain sages or mystics or charismatic leaders have been understood somehow to be the connective tissue between heaven and earth. You know, and how does that how does that compare and contrast? You know, with with Christian theological notions, etc. Yeah, and that sort of thing. You know, some of these conversations become more interesting. Yeah. And and as I think you were saying, under your, your breath, Randy risky.

Elliot:

Yeah, absolutely. But, I mean, really, really beautiful. You know, where the really, really good stuff comes out. I mean, thinking of people as connective tissue between the divine and yeah, in humanity, that's incredible. So wonderful

Kyle:

metaphor, if nothing else. Yeah, if you're not risking anything in these conversations is even worth having. So So, for me personally, viewing the resurrection of Jesus in particular, as a concrete historical event makes an enormous difference not just to my theology, but to my lived experience. And so I'm curious if there is anything like that in, in Jewish history for you were your understanding of Judaism or you're even just yourself your experience of the world would be fundamentally different. If you didn't view something that happened in the past as like a concrete okay, this person had this kind of experience with this revelation or whatever.

Or:

Right? That's a great question. And thank you for sharing, you know, you know, why that, that it is important to you and then I will ask why it's so important to you, I think, I think as a younger person. I spent a lot of time considering the question of whether the revelation at Sinai you know, we call the giving of the Torah was in that was an event or not, and if it was not an event Then what did that mean about the authenticity of that revelation and all that flowed from it the 10 commandments in the Torah, and so forth and so on? And what did it mean about the authority of those texts to come back to that term, and all the great interpreters and the rules of engagement that they had set up around? Right? That great Theophany. And, at a certain point, not easily, but gradually, the question of whether that was an historical event or not receded, and so I can't think of specific great, revelatory prophetic or other kinds of, you know, traditionally pivotal moments in Jewish history, especially ancient ones, that, that for me to consider them sacred have to have happened, factually, yeah. You know, the, the myth of Sinai is still magical to me. And it doesn't matter whether it happened or not, on a particular day, in a particular location, the story itself really does motivate me profoundly. You know, obviously, that, that does change with more recent events, you know, where I think that knowing the facts of such events is significant, and trying to shape a life but you know, if you're asking about, you know, Sinai, for example, as it relates, you know, to your own wrestling's with Jesus, and resurrection, it's not, it's not important to me anymore, it is to some other people that I know and love and respect and, and I've also met people for whom, you know, much of what they consider to be their, their religious worldviews really were shaken or fell apart, when they let go of, or felt some, somehow that they couldn't hold on to, you know, more traditional notions of, of these, you know, sacred events, which I'm describing as, as mythical not to denigrate that to try and describe, you know, in terms that you're familiar with, from philosophy and literature about, you know, great stories that carry us.

Elliot:

Yeah, in when, in when you say myth, just for the few listeners who are just like, clenching their butt cheeks and don't know what to do. You don't mean that, that Sinai myth? That means that's not true, right? That it's different than truth, whether it happened or not, there's something deeper that you're speaking to,

Or:

right, that is, I don't know, whether there was an encampment around a mountain, and there was a man named Moses, and that the heavens opened and God voice broke through and so forth and so on. And the details of those events, by the way, already debated, you know, in an early rabbinic tradition. And so I feel, you know, like, I'm in the company of people that were asking questions about, you know, the, the facts of the event, you know, long before I came on the scene, but what I mean by myth is that, somehow in the collective consciousness of my people, as they tell the story of their walk through the wilderness, not only of Sinai, but of life, that experiences of Revelation, matter, individual and collective. And so telling that story generation after generation, in story form, in douse it with with great power. Again, you know, for some, that's not enough, right, they, they need to know that it happened. But that's not important to me, just like whether the Sea of Reeds actually opened and the Israelites walk through dry land is not important, but the story itself is incredibly powerful. What is it that our ancestors were trying to say about hope and despair, about slavery and freedom? About a way out of no way? Right? Martin Luther King, Jr, etc. So those are all tropes. Those are all themes. Those are all stories. You know, that really do matter to me. Yeah. But it's not it's not the it's not the same kind of engagement that I had as a child or young adult in which Sometimes those those texts were presented to me as being factual. Right. And, and that it was, it was really crucial for me that, that I understood them as such and could defend, you know that against, you know, other positions.

Elliot:

Quick personal question was that journey from it has to be literal to it doesn't anymore and I still think it's beautiful, powerful true. Was that a painful process or life giving process or both and

Or:

both, but I don't want to underestimate the pain. You know, in this regard, you know, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur is a very helpful voice when he talks about myths, and, you know, and broken myths, right, what what happens, you know, when your theological worldview changes, part of that involves great disorientation. And, you know, and a sense of loss, and really needing to try and pick up the pieces. Again, again, record talks about, you know, a first naivete, and a second naivete. Right. So can you reenter the myth? Can Can the world still be enchanted? If you're involved in, you know, critical and deconstructive readings of, you know, of our sacred texts and traditions. And, you know, in my experience, and it's only, that my experience, the world really is both beautiful, and broken. And so, you know, stories, stories about slavery and freedom stories about hope stories about Revelation, however, one tries to understand that redemption really, really mattered to me, you know, those are epical stories.

Kyle:

So you acknowledged a little bit ago, though, that events being more recent might make it more important to you that it could have been an actual concrete thing. So I'm curious why that is? And is it the case that the importance of that sort of thing would diminish with time? And if so, why? And I mean, I can think of some events that, let's say, in a couple 1000 years, very well, maybe enshrined into some kind of sacred texts in the Jewish tradition, should it survive that long. And it seems like those being concrete events that happened with people who had identifiable names that were known, is important, and that if that were lost, and or not lost, but so much as transformed into something more mythical, that you would have lost something valuable. That's just how it strikes me. So I'm curious what you think it's

Or:

Yeah, I think it's a wonderful question. I honestly need to give it more thought, you know, my initial response is that I don't, I don't necessarily think that the some of the sacred texts that we have from from the ancient world, were intended to be historical texts in the same way that we regard historical texts now. Yeah, you know, that, that the transmission of values. And what we might call memory, as opposed to history are more important. But I think it's a good and fair question. How, how might I feel if I could imagine such a thing that in 1000 years, when people talk about the Holocaust, for example, you know, that they that they remember, dates, and names and places, and actions, and so forth and so on. From my you know, from my, from my contemporary perch, those things really do matter to me. But how it's remembered in the future? I don't know. But I do think we, you know, we also live in a different time in places I was trying to say before. So there are different sensibilities about, you know, our intentions, the intentions of our ancestors. And then of course, as you well know, you know, the intentions of, of actors in the past and the present, yeah, will be will be interpreted differently in the future. Yeah. I want to give that more thought.

Kyle:

Okay, thank you for that, and fairpoint, about the intentions of the communities of authors of those texts being quite different from our sort of historicist fact recording intentions today. That yeah, granted, absolutely

Or:

none of it is none of it, of course, is is ever completely objective, right? Subjectivity is also part of our modern and postmodern, you know, historical, rational, fact, driven, you know, work. So, it's complicated. Yeah, yeah. Good. And also I want to say, you know, living through the last four years, you know, I'm acutely aware of trying to be attentive to facts, in which people are often guided by misinformation that is presented, like people with power, for reasons that I consider to be not only unethical, but very dangerous. Yeah.

Kyle:

So I read a piece that you wrote, in your account in that piece, I don't remember where it was, but you recount a story of being on an interfaith panel at an urban public high school. And they asked you what you loved about Judaism. And what you said, was very much in line with some of the things we've been talking about here. And but I want to quote a piece of that and get you to expand on it. So you say, it is my belief that the dialogical approach of the ancient rabbis can serve as a model for both intro and interfaith relations? What do you mean, what do you mean by that?

Or:

Sure. So, you know, in that piece, and many other places, you know, I quote this, the story from the Talmud. You know, about students from the house of Hillel in the house of Shama, those two great academies, who disagree vehemently about many things. And in the context of one of those discussions, according to the editor of a story, you know, the divine voice intervenes and says, both are words of a living God, wow, kind of amazing statement, right about the partiality of all of our human endeavors and the fact that they also contain divinity. And then, you know, the rabbi's go on to say, in that, in that story, or the editor of the of that particular story says, But, you know, then the the ruling in question, followed that of the house of Hillel and not the house of champagne. Why is that? Right, because we do have to live concretely and decide on on rules and regulations, and so forth. So Why hello, not chama both are the words of the living God. And the response there is that house of Hillel was humble. That they were kind, and that they always quoted the opinions of their interlocutors before their own. And so that kind of threefold approach seems to me to be very, very important when we're dealing with orthodox conservative reform, Reconstructionist Hasidic New Age, fill in the blank Jews, in my case, and then when I'm having conversations with Christians, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus and atheists and agnostics, that is to say, you know, am I am I willing to actually listen? And do I listen carefully enough so that I actually hear so that I could articulate the position of that other person or people? And then can I respond to that thoughtfully, knowing that each of us is always in possession of partial truths. And we then have to make decisions about how we want to live our lives. And so we do our best. But can we can we hold those truths? Lightly enough so that we can say, I need to think about that more? Or? That's a good question, or I hadn't thought about it in the way that you are, or, more fundamentally, you and I are different people with different life experiences. And so I am trying to understand why you see things the way you do. But it does mean if you're serious about, you know, this kind of dialogical work within and across communities, that you may be in relationship with people who hold significantly different views on issues that you really care about. And then you have to make the decision. Are those relationships important enough to try and sustain? You know, even though we may see things differently, politically, religiously, philosophically, or otherwise. And I feel like it is often easier to retreat to my religious or political clan, or tribe or club than it is to actually enact this kind of resilience that I'm describing this kind of dialogical resilience and say, I think there's more for me to learn. I think that if we can be in conversation and find ways to work together that we can bring redemption, I dare say a little closer. And we will also disagree and argue and we may find ourselves on opposite sides of the picket line. And then, you know, we have to continually discern, can I do I want to be in relationship with this person or this group, even even when it hurts. And that has certainly been a part of my real life experience

Kyle:

on this theme of inter religious dialogue, lots and lots of religious people, especially most of the ones I've known. And me it for most of my life, if I'm honest, view that inter religious dialogue, interfaith dialogue. And if it happens at all, view it through the lens of conversion, because why else would you want to do that? So, what do you take? I'm presuming that's not your view. So what do you take the point of inter religious dialogue to be? And second, why should people who are committed to the truth of their own religion, be interested in it? If conversion is not even a desirable outcome? What's the point?

Or:

So I think first and foremost, you know, the value of inter religious or cross cultural or inter ideological dialogue, where there are real differences is to humanize them. So that you come to have experiences with three dimensional people who are not stereotypes, who are not, you know, the construction of your imagination, or of your reading exclusively, but our flesh and blood, people who you come to understand as being complicated, and in most cases, trying to make their way in this world, and to do good. And there's so much fear of the other writ large, that that in itself to me, is reason to engage in, in such conversations. I also think that there are real opportunities to learn, right, it goes, it goes hand in hand, in some ways, with my, you know, approach to Jewish scripture and to Jewish sacred texts and to Jewish life. I think the Jewish tradition is beautiful. But I also think I have real things to learn from other people, and that other traditions possess truths of their own, that may be similar, that may be different, some of which I will not be able to accept. But I think I will learn a lot along the way. And it's just happened so many times. Yeah. And it happened this evening, before I came here, I was teaching a course with the Catholic colleague of mine from Boston College, on the book of Psalms for Christian and Jewish leaders from across the country and around the world. And his reading of the Psalms, even this evening of three or four occasions, just enlightened me. And he has no interest in converting me to Catholicism, and I have no interest in converting him to Judaism. And, of course, what we agree about, and what we disagree about also, is sometimes unexpected. And there's delight in that, right, which happens, when you're with an actual human being, Oh, I thought that you would read this text this way, based on the fact that you're a Catholic, you know, and fill in the other identity markers. But Hmm, that's how you read it. That's how you understand it. Oh, and you read it that way, because this is what happened in your life. And this is how it relates to your child or to your parent or to illness or to joy or to disappointment. It's both humanizing. And there's, there's much to learn, I often say, absent of all violence and warfare, I would still want to be involved in inter religious conversations, just to learn how people try and put the pieces together. And it may be easier for me, you know, I don't want to dismiss you know, some of the earlier conversation because I'm not invested in the question is Judaism the truth, the way in the light, so to speak, and is my truth better than your truth? I'm less invested in those kinds of conversations. And I don't feel defensive about the possibility that other traditions have real wisdom that may not be included in all of the great teachings of Judaism. There may be analogs there may be things that are to be compared and contrasted, but it may also be right that I learned something genuinely new from my Catholic colleagues, for reasons that I don't completely understand even if they might be there somewhere in the Jewish tradition, for better, sometimes and for worse, sometimes religious institutions in this country and in other societies around the world, continue to have power. And they have structures through which people come together to make change. And so if I want to try and make positive change in the world, and I can agree with people from other communities, then we have the power of numbers, and of our institutions, and in many, in many cases, common motivations. And so there's real work that can be done, right, from fixing streets to feeding people who are food insecure, etc, etc. And, and in many of those cases, we don't need to agree about much theologically. Although I'm always curious to learn from people, why is this work? You know, let us call it for the common good, born to you, and where does it flow from? And then again, we'll probably disagree about issues, whether it's the Israeli Palestinian conflict, or LGBTQ identity issues, or, you know, who's running and should be elected in a local election? I don't think we should be surprised to that we disagree. And discouraged by that. The question is, how we, how we disagree. And then we how we, you know, live into and through those those experiences of tension, because there will be tension, how could there not be tension? And frankly, I don't think that religious groups have always done well, with dealing with, you know, ideological tensions, and it's, you know, and it's led to bloodshed, and violence, and oppression, and so forth and so on. So we, you know, we have, we have a lot of healing to do, you know, based on past models as well.

Elliot:

Yeah, I'm just realizing, or that. I mean, Christians are I come from a tradition within Christianity, in my upbringing and in, in the Christianity that I was really discipled in, have nothing but skepticism and cynicism when it comes to inter religious dialogue. That's something for you know, Universalists and people who don't take the Bible seriously. And I've resisted inter religious dialogue for a long time into my ministry, because I was afraid of those people who would crucify, you know, just take me to task for, for being so, you know, errant and heretical and all that stuff. But some of the most profound experiences I've had in the last several years have not been does it gonna get me in trouble. I have not been in Christian contexts, you know, one of two milestone markers for me, we're going to a vigil for the Christchurch victims of the I don't know how many Muslims were massacred while praying in New Zealand, and was at a visual with, you know, 1000 people and many religious speakers there and I was the evangelical representative. I've since we've since dropped the evangelical label, but didn't then. And I had a profound I would call it a mystical experience, literally embracing my friend who's an Imam, on stage, the words that were exchanged, I'm not going to go into it. But I had this experience where I would say in my work in my language, the Spirit spoke to me and said, basically, this is what's going to get me to trouble. This is what I meant when I said, I have sheep of another fold. Like in the, in the Gospels of Jesus, or when Jesus talks about how Not all who call Me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, in what you do to the least of these. And I felt like I had an embodied experience of those passages that just made deep sense within me, and it moved me change me in many ways. And then that rooftop that we shared in New York City, you have many of these experiences. I don't, I'm a former evangelical pastor. And so I have been taught and trained to stay away from these kinds of gatherings. But you were leading us in ancient Jewish prayers, and it's beautiful. And then I met some some Mormons who I would have been really skeptical and the only reason I would have been interested in talking to them 20 years ago is to debate them and how wrong they are. But what happened when I actually just embraced the spirit that was on that rooftop, which was one of generosity, one of curiosity, and one of honor, and saying there's something of the Imago Dei and each person here regardless of what tradition they're from, and that changed me it made me it I've been processing it since then, of thinking, How do I facilitate and foster those kinds of environments and those kinds of atmospheres, where were we there's this generosity to the air into the atmosphere that we're not looking to debate, we're looking to learn from one another. So much stuff melts, when we just engage in relationships together. So I just as a formerly evangelical pastor want to just say, this is good work, that you're doing really fun stuff.

Or:

Right? And, you know, it's, it's very powerful to hear you articulate these experiences that you might describe as being more universalistic. But in your particular aesthetic language, right. And that's, and that's part of the, that's part of the complexity. Because we all come from somewhere, we're influenced by a series of different factors, we have different symbols, and expressions and tools through which to articulate that, and they're never going to be the same, and they don't need to be the same. But, you know, listening to just, you know, as you're speaking, you know, chill ran down my spine. And I think it's not only because I figured in your story, running amok, but like, wow, something, something profound happened, you know, on that stage with that person. And I would imagine that you both felt it now, how you would, how you would articulate that might be, will likely be different. But there was a genuine meeting of spirit, and how that all works itself out? I don't know, yet. But I do know that, from my own experiences, and from good social scientific research that I've read, that having meaningful experiences with people that are different from you, changes the way in which you then think about other people from that same group. Were far less likely to flatten your depiction of those people. Yeah. Because I now know, Kyle, and I know Randy, right. And, you know, one is a pastor and the other is a philosopher. And so the next pastor and the next philosophers that I meet, you know, I will have you both in heart and mind and say, they are more complicated than I might think they are before I meet them.

Elliot:

Yeah. Yeah. The Franciscan priest Richard Rohr, I'm just thinking of what he often says, which is if it's true, somewhere, it's true everywhere. And that's, I just think that's true. Everywhere. Everywhere. Yeah, it's true here. So it's true everywhere.

Kyle:

Yeah. What is this picking that apart? Because that's important.

Or:

I want to I want to want to chew on that.

Elliot:

Yeah. I mean, he's talking about different traditions, obviously. And we talked about this with Pete ends, that, you know, other other religious texts can be inspired in some way like that the Divine is not limited to my tradition, and trying to reveal truth to my people. But if the Divine is for truly all people in the Imago Dei, like you referenced in Genesis one is true, then we can just be sure certain that the divine life is trying to reveal the Divine Self, in every expression, wherever it's found in every culture and historical context or around the world.

Or:

I think I think I would agree with that. And then, you know, the question is, as, you know, as that Spirit is moving, you know, how do we shape and form it? And do do we? Do we increase the light, so to speak, you know, do we obscure it? And that's, and that's complicated. Yeah. Yeah, that's good.

Kyle:

So you said somewhere, I don't remember if I read this, or heard you say it on a podcast or what, but it is my paraphrase of what you said. But you distinguish between diversity, which is a fact. And pluralism, which is a project or something that like an ideal, a goal is something we're working on. So can you describe how you understand that goal, pluralism? And also what would my coinage? Okay, well, where did you get it? And what does it mean? And what would like actually pluralistic American society look like? And are we are we close? Are we headed that way?

Or:

Right? You're asking me all these small questions as you sip on your beverages. So the term comes from Professor Diana EK, of Harvard University and she is the founder of the pluralism project there. I find her articulation of that difference between diversity and pluralism to be profound that is, we live in one of the most religious really diverse societies in the history of humankind, right, that is a fact that is the United States. And, you know, by all measures, it still remains one of the more religious societies and in the Western world. And then the question is, so what do we do about it? How do we engage it. And so what you know, Eric and others of my teachers and mentors have called for is a kind of intentional engagement across our religious and cultural communities, so that we humanize so that we learn so that we cooperate so that we try and create a society that is as inclusive as possible, where people genuinely have opportunity to achieve their goals, their hopes and their dreams that we are not hemmed in, and, and deterred by systemic injustices, and so that the least of these, right, is accounted for and as many of the decisions that we make in our personal and collective lives. And that somehow, we are actually better for engaging across these differences. That doesn't mean that we all become relativists, you know, in the extreme, that we give up all commitments, that again, that we have to, you know, agree on everything, but that we try and work to create structures, through which the divinity of every human being of every skin color, gender, race, ethnicity, and religion has the opportunity to flourish. That is a great project. And I do think, you know, with with all of their limitations, those that found this country also hoped and prayed for versions of this, you know, that out of many, there could be one, not one way of thinking and feeling and being but that we could create a shared society that's greater than the sum of its parts. And, and I think we need to continue that struggle, because it's, it's very much in in process, and it is not linear. And we've lived through a lot of pain and anguish over the last four plus years, and we see the ways in which it has taken a toll on on the society that we live in and how frayed it is. And I can't agree with some of the decisions and policies that have been put in place by, you know, by our leaders, and are supported by millions of people in this country that pains me. But I don't want to retreat, you know, again, just to being a part of my club, or my tribe, or my clan, religiously, politically, ideologically, etc. Yeah, I want to, I want to see if we can, if we can contribute to this unfolding to this unfolding. Right.

Kyle:

So that's a great segue into my follow up. So I'm personally quite interested in sort of society level pluralistic dialogue, and particularly on issues about which there are ideological or evidential impasses and how we can make progress on those issues. And there are some barriers to that kind of dialogue, there are some constraints on that kind of dialogue. So they're external constraints, such as, for example, the urgency of reform on certain issues. Like if we can't make progress on climate change yesterday, we're screwed all of us, right? Like we can't wait on loving people into dialogue. If if that's the only like workable solution. It's not scalable, and that as a society wide level, we're kind of screwed. So that would be a kind of external constraint on dialogue. There's also internal constraints on dialogue in the sense that, you know, let's just call it what it is. There's a whole political party that has given up on good faith dialogue. So like when a necessary party to the conversation just isn't acting in good faith might not even be pretending to then obviously, the dialogue can't progress. So what do you have any suggestions for how to move forward in a situation like that what might actually be a workable, at least partial solution to getting people to the table?

Or:

Dialogue is not a panacea. And we have to make decisions about how we want to move forward, as you said, rightfully so. Particularly around urgent issues as far as I I understand it to the best of my ability to take in information that is being provided to me by people that have expertise beyond my own, which is also important in terms of humility, that we are, we are already in the midst of a great climate crisis. And it will impact us but even more so our children and our grandchildren and possibly the human species. And so we do need to find ways to act. And we do need to make common cause with people that are prepared to act and to advocate. And I would say already, within, let us call it the environmental movement, there are a whole slew of differences that need to be attended to. So even if you think you're singing to the choir, about dialogue and about cooperation, you're going to discover very quickly, you know, that within an ideological or political camp or movement, that there's a lot to sort out, you know, just think about, you know, the history of the civil rights movement, and all of the people that agreed about the urgency of those issues, but all the ways in which they needed to sort out sometimes very painfully, how to go about making change, you know, and so, you know, but one simple example, you know, are the models of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Right, yeah. So, you know, even within those frameworks of communities that we see ourselves already a part of there's much, much of this dialogical work that needs to take place. And then I think the question is, are we intentionally creating settings in which we're inviting conversation? Alongside, you know, activism? Are we attending to the questions, the fears that the disappointments of people that disagree with us, and different people are called to do different kinds of work? I think that's also very important, I think, you know, to put it in spiritual terms, you know, I think you have to be humble about what your calling or callings are, and where you're going to make change in difference. So I can say personally, that as a younger adult, I spent more of my time, you know, in the social justice round with people that fought and acted more similarly to me, across Jewish Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist agnostic lines. And I think that is holy work. But I also think it's important at this stage of my life, just based on who I am, my talents, my limitation, you know, my sphere of influence and power to be involved more in these dialogical conversations. And more listening to people that disagree with me and trying to continue to do you know, some of some of

Elliot:

thanks for those thoughtful reflections? Or do you have places where people can find what you've, you know, published or books?

Or:

Yeah, if you look on the Hebrew College website, you know, my school, you can, you can find my faculty profile, and you can find pages that are designated for the Miller center for inter religious learning and leadership. And there are opportunities there to read, you know, some of the things that I've written books and articles and also to get involved with some of the programming. One, you know, one of the, one of the adjustments that we've made, like so many other people is that we're doing a lot of things online. So for example, you know, in the new year, I'll be teaching a six part course on on Abraham Joshua Heschel, you know, the legendary 20th century. Right. An activist and if you're ready, if you're, you know, interested and would like to participate, I'd love to have students, you know, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise. We're doing a similar kind, of course, again, with my colleague from Boston College, on the book of Psalms, specifically for Christian and Jewish leaders. It's a sacred text that we that we collectively both love and it's been interpreted in a whole variety of ways. And it's a it's a really wonderful lens through which to learn about, you know, people and traditions that you don't know a lot about or you think you know, and need to relearn or unlearn. So their activities, you know, like that, courses and workshops and so forth that people can, can tune into. Yeah,

Elliot:

well, we'll put a link to your page on Hebrew College, where you can get all that on our show notes. So listeners, go to the show notes if you're interested in in discovering more about the world of Rabbi Or Rose. Rabbi Or Rose, this has been pure delight. Really, really grateful for your time. Thank you.

Or:

guys to again, I didn't just mean it as a throwaway. The questions you asked are real. They're hard. They're complicated they come from, as we say, in Yiddish, your kiss goes from your guts, not just from your, your heads. And, and I'll be thinking more about all of them, you know, trying to refine my own practices as I go. Brilliant. Thanks.

Elliot:

Well, in our tradition, we say cheers. Hi, life. There we go. Alright, thanks again robber.

Kyle:

Well, that's it for this episode of A Pastor and a Philosopher Walk into a Bar. We hope you're enjoying the show as much as we are. Help us continue to create compelling content and reach a wider audience by supporting us at patreon.com/apastorandaphilosopher, where you can get bonus content, extra perks, and a general feeling of being good person.

Randy:

Also, please rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, and Spotify. These help new people discover the show and we may even read your review in a future episode. If it's good enough.

Kyle:

If anything we said really pissed you off or if you just have a question you'd like us to answer, or if you just like to send us booze, send us an email at pastorandphilosopher@gmail.com.

Randy:

Catch all of our hot takes on Twitter at@PPWBPodcast, @RandyKnie, and@robertkwhitaker, and find transcripts and links to all of our episodes at pastorandphilosopher.buzzsprout.com. See you next time. Cheers.

Beverage Tasting
Interview