Reading America Together: Faith, Democracy, and the Nation's 250th

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a national initiative called faith250 is bringing faith communities together to study the nation's founding documents. In the Lehigh Valley, a cluster of congregations led by four co-conveners is holding a series of gatherings that combine textual study and community building. The conversation with them considers the gap between the founding documents' aspirations and the nation's realities, the complicated relationship between religious faith and democratic governance, and the challenge of genuine inclusivity when diverse communities try to speak together about shared values.

Guests: 

Rabbi Shoshanah Tornberg, Congregation Keneseth Israel
The Rev. Maria Tjeltveit, Retired Episcopal priest
Rev. Stephanie Anthony, First Presbyterian Church of Allentown
Laura Lawrence, Baháʼí community member

Show Notes:

• faith250 (https://faith250.org/)
• Lehigh Valley Cluster - lvfaith250@gmail.com

Transcript

Chip Gruen: 0:03

Welcome to ReligionWise. I'm your host, Chip Gruen. Well, today's episode is a little different in one respect. It breaks the record for the most number of guests we've had in a single recording. Today, I'm very happy to be joined by four guests, Shoshanah Tornberg, who is rabbi at Congregation Keneseth Israel, Maria Tjeltveit, who's retired Episcopal priest, Stephanie Anthony, who's the lead pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Allentown, and Laura Lawrence, who is a representative of the Baha'i faith. What these four guests have in common is that they are four of the co-conveners of the Lehigh Valley faith250 cluster. So faith250 if you haven't heard of it, is not a local initiative here. It is a broader initiative of faith leaders who are bringing together groups to think about the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And the angle of this is actually really interesting. I had the pleasure of participating in the first of the four sessions here in the Lehigh Valley last month, and the idea is that religious communities tend to be interested in reading, interpreting, unpacking texts. And what people in the United States have in common is shared documents, right? So the Declaration of Independence, of course, but then also the New Colossus, which was the poem that was written in reference to the Statue of Liberty, or Frederick Douglass's What to the Slave is the Fourth of July and the final the fourth one is the song America the Beautiful. And the idea is to get religious people together, first clergy and then laity, to read these texts and unpack them using the tools that they are used to using on their own, religious and scriptural texts and seeing where there are similarities, where there are differences. What you might notice when you don't just take these texts for granted, but you take them seriously and imagine them as somehow collectively sacred to use Emile Durkheim's term here that they mean something to all of us, and that there is a shared ownership of these documents, and so we take them seriously and read them together. As with any interfaith collaboration, there are things that are successes and other things that can be built upon. And I think one of the things you'll really appreciate about this conversation today is the very frank conversation about what stands in the way of having a shared conversation that is truly pluralist and interfaith and reaches across boundaries. So we talk a little bit about not only the success, but the challenge of that and some of the things that are inherent when you try to do work like this together, when we're thinking about the confluence of the history of the United States and religion and religious identity, one of the things you'll hear in this conversation is that that's actually pretty complicated. It's complicated because the historical reality of what that looked like, and the story that we tend to tell about that reality are very different from one another, and that this is a point of contention as we sit here in 2026 as ideas about bringing religion and religious identity to the forefront of national, state and local politics heats up, and so we get more questions about, what is the separation of church and state? What does it mean when people say that the nation was founded on Christian or Judeo Christian principles, or that we are a nation under God, or any of that language that seems to undercut the stated ideal of a state that operates without the sanctioning or condoning of a particular religious tradition. We very much talk out of both sides of our mouth on this at least as public discourse goes and you'll hear how in this particular group, and there is religious diversity Baha'i, Episcopal and Presbyterian Christian and reformed Jewish, how this group of faith leaders deals with that and thinks about that, and thinks about the aspirations and the realities of some of those founding documents, not only vis a vis things like race and identity, but also about how we think about diversity and pluralism and, in this case, religious difference. So I had a very good time. We sat around the table and had a great conversation. So I I hope that you enjoy it. I hope that this inspires you to look for faith250 in your community, particularly if you're in the United States, in the show notes, we will have the connections so that you can find out more about the nationwide initiative and see if you want to get involved, how you can go about doing that in your community. So without further ado, here's my conversation with these four co-conveners of Lehigh Valley faith250. Conveners of faith 250 Lehigh Valley, welcome to ReligionWise.

Multiple Speakers: 5:28

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Chip Gruen: 5:30

All right, before we dig in, our listeners really need to know who's around the table. So if we could just go around and you could say who you are, what your institutional affiliations are, if that's appropriate, and how you became involved with the group, that would be great.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 5:43

I'm Rabbi Shoshanah Tornberg. I am the rabbi at Congregation Keneseth Israel, here in Allentown. And I actually initiated the conversations that we had here in the Lehigh Valley to create a faith250 program, a cluster, is what it's called. And I initiated it out of information I gathered from a colleague in another community who was launching this nationally as a local grassroots project that different communities could do in interfaith groups.

Chip Gruen: 6:20

Great welcome. Pastor Stephanie.

Stephanie Anthony: 6:22

Yeah, Pastor Stephanie Anthony, I'm the lead pastor at First Presbyterian Church of Allentown. I've been in the community for only about 14 months, but have been in ministry for about 23 years other places around the country. So I responded to the email that Rabbi Shoshanah sent out and said, anybody want to do this? And I said, Yes.

Chip Gruen: 6:41

Very good, welcome. Laura.

Laura Lawrence: 6:43

Sure, my name is Laura Lawrence. I'm a member of the Baha'i faith. We don't have a clergy in the Baha'i faith. And I'm just a I'm just a regular Baha'i who is interested in interfaith. I've been in the interfaith movement since 1980 so I've seen it really changed over these decades. And I'm just happy to be here that the Allentown has chosen to embrace faith250.

Chip Gruen: 7:10

Great welcome. And then Maria.

Maria Tjeltveit: 7:12

Hi, I'm the Reverend Maria Tjeltveit. I'm a retired Episcopal priest from the Diocese of the Susquehanna, and I was priest here in Allentown for 21 years at the Episcopal Church of the Mediator, and have been involved in ecumenical and interfaith work for a long time. And right now, I'm serving as the acting chair of the Lehigh Conference of Churches Interfaith Action Committee, and we're partnering with faith250.

Chip Gruen: 7:41

All right, welcome everybody. So for listeners who haven't heard of faith250 Rabbi Shoshanah, can you describe the initiative, how this particular cluster of congregations in the Lehigh Valley came together, who reached out to whom? What made this group happen?

Shoshanah Tornberg: 7:57

Well, I have a lot of networks, as any clergy person does not just within the city that I live in, but also nationally, within the movement of Reform Judaism. And so through one of those networks, I was connected with a colleague, Michael Holzman, Rabbi Michael Holzman, who serves the Northern Virginia Hebrew Congregation, and he had begun to initiate this project, which was a vision that I think it's his vision, but he has all these people who've sort of gathered around him to develop this vision. And so it's become a very robust program where in individual communities, leaders such as myself or other clergy can convene a group of fellow clergy for four different fellowship sessions, sessions where we eat, we pray, we get to know each other, and we also study key text in American history, almost as if it were scripture, and we use the lenses that we use when we study sacred texts to explore the meaning of a text, how it informs or fails to inform our understanding of democracy. It's really inviting people to come together at a time when it's very difficult to have meaningful, open conversations where differences of opinion are expressed, and really helping us build those skills for the soft skills that we need for democracy, things like benefit of the doubt, holding it in your mind, things like having an open heart, things like listening with curiosity, things like refraining from getting defensive the minute somebody else says something that they that could be in favor of something that that you oppose. We know that we know how to do that, but it feels, it felt like we needed to be retrained. All of us in America need to remind ourselves we know how to do this. We just have to practice it like a religious practice. You have to do it, and you have to do it, and you have to do and you and you have to make it a habit. So we put ourselves as clergy who are thinking about these issues all the time and working with lots of different people into a room and studied these texts. Now the original structure was envisioned to be four different two hour sessions with all participating clergy, and each session we'd look at a different text, and there were discussion questions and ways to think about it. The four texts are, let's see if I can get off top of my head. Yeah. Not in not in order. America the Beautiful by Katharine Lee Bates, the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, selections from it. The first one that we did was The New Colossus. The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus, thank you. And and we also looked at What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?, and that is an interesting collection, but we we use it to sort of unpack some of the live nerves that that might those things might hit on to identify where those texts fall short of our reality and where how we relate to them that way. At the conclusion of those four sessions, we were then supposed to gather interfaith intercultural groups from our congregations to come together and have some similar fellowship conversations. Interfaith you know, like people at your table should be at least somewhat different from you, and also to just build community amongst those folks and build those same skills. We didn't do it exactly like that. We did three sessions, and we've found that in the Lehigh Valley there were clergy who were sort of interested in the project, but not able to come to all of those things. So they've kind of come along. Laura's a person who joined us sort of late in the game. There have been people who joined us after we were completely done with the clergy component, and we have made it more open to anyone in the community who might want to be part of these conversations. So so far, we've done two we've done The New Colossus and the Declaration of Independence, and we have two more sessions. And the exciting thing, hopefully about this project is that it's envisioned that a group, a select, a group of self selected folks who are part of these the second round of conversations, the one that involves the community, will get together and out of what we've learned and reflected upon regarding democracy, the state of democracy, what we want democracy to be, what we want to set a path for for the next 250 years, is commemorated meaningfully in some sort of ritual or event commemorating the Fourth of July this coming July. Or, you know, near that time, and other communities who are doing faith250 around the country. There are like 30 or 40 clusters in like, over 200 congregations that are participating. They I know some are doing them in the fall and some are doing them in June, and you know it's gonna be different for every community, but our hope is that we are able to pull something together really meaningful for the Lehigh Valley. Hot dogs and fireworks are awesome, but we want to get a little deeper, and we think this is a good opportunity.

Chip Gruen: 14:08

So as you mentioned that the initiative is timed to the nation's 250th anniversary, or at least the anniversary of 1776 but it also exists in a very specific political moment. The organizers have not been shy about saying that this is a response to what they see as democratic backsliding. How do you think about the line between civic engagement and political advocacy? Is faith250 one or the other, or is it something else entirely that doesn't fit either of those models?

Stephanie Anthony: 14:40

When I think about those two phrases, the civic engagement and political advocacy, I see maybe it's just my own hearing and others might disagree. I hear the civic engagement part as the education and the conversation part, where ideas are exchanged and they might learn new things and we might talk to elected officials. We may talk to fellow citizens and and that sort of piece, and then political advocacy for me is what I do with that information if I choose to. So in my mind, the faith250 is the civic engagement piece. If someone walks out of a room, as at our last gathering we were talking about some of the gaps between where I think we're doing the Declaration of Independence, yeah, yeah, some gaps of where what is said is in the declaration are not really alive in our in our community. And we came up with some issues around homelessness and some other so if somebody left that meeting and got politically active. I would not be sad, but, but it's not organized in that room. We did, we did civic engagement. We talked about issues, what we see, where we see things going well, and where we see things that are falling short. And I think that's a great setting for that. Does somebody wants to take that? Find some connections?

Shoshanah Tornberg: 15:59

No, I think it's very important that this this project, is trans partisan, that it is an invitation to everybody to commit ourselves to the skills we all need to maintain a democracy which is not going to be a governmental system in which you always get everything you want, but you need to have the system in place so that we can function to assert or determine the will of the people and to move us progressively forward into the values of the texts, such as the Declaration of Independence.

Chip Gruen: 16:38

So the Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal, and endows them with rights from their Creator. And 250 years later, those words have really, as we all are aware, never really described the reality of the country, to say nothing of the gender exclusivity of that language. So what does it mean to celebrate a document whose promises remain unfulfilled? Is the aspiration itself enough to build on, or does the persistent gap between the words and the reality change how we should relate to them? Laura, I think you have some comments on this one.

Laura Lawrence: 17:12

Exactly. This is a really part of my, part of my DNA, I would say, is that when we talk about the that all men are created equal, 250 years ago, that's, that was their understanding that, and they limited it to just men. And we know 250 years later, that's, that's not necessarily appropriate. But the most important aspect for me through all of this is the fact that we have to, it's imperative that we see each other as members of one human family. Period. End of story. No more, no more, no more qualifications, whether it doesn't matter what religion you are, doesn't matter you don't have a religion, you don't believe in God, you think the whole thing is very silly. Whatever it is your whatever political background you have. The fact is, is that we are really at a precipice for humanity, and if we continue to concentrate on these petty, I really see them as really petty differences, especially in religions. Oh, you, you know, you pray on this day, I pray on that day. Oh, this makes us this. This makes us terribly we can't, we can't possibly come together. The fact is, is that people of religion, what we have in common is we have a love of humanity. We have a love of the earth. It's, it's not, it's not even just a good idea any longer. It's, it would be a travesty, a travesty, if we let these petty differences separate us. Here we are at this table. Being on this interfaith community is easy peasy. Sometimes people look at me, go, Oh, don't you have all these philosophical differences. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. We all love each other, we all love our family, we love our community. We wanted to see we wanted to see it progress. And here we really, truly are at the most critical time in our history, and if we don't come together and just see each other truly as one human family, no matter your country, no matter your political background, no matter no matter what, no matter your religion or anything that what ties US is great and what separates us is very small, very, very small. And if we continue to concentrate on those separations, we're doomed. Hate to make it so black and white, but it actually is. We're really at that point, and here we are. You know, I'm glad to be at this table and to be amongst these lovely women. Talking about the same thing. So that's that's where that's and this is my passion. This is the reason my the reason for my life. That's how I feel about it.

Maria Tjeltveit: 20:09

I think having just done a session on the Declaration of Independence, most of the people there felt that the aspirational nature of the document, no matter how flawed, was something that we should still embrace. And there is a tradition within the United States of people pointing to things like the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, or all people are created equal, or things in the Constitution and saying, No, we shouldn't just throw them out because they didn't live up to what they did. But we need to claim the right as Americans to say, this is what we need to do that's been part of the civil rights movement. It's been part of the Native American movement, to say, you made these you made these agreements with us now, you need to live up to them. And so I think that that claiming that aspirational nature, no matter how flawed these documents are, is something that can guide us toward a future.

Stephanie Anthony: 21:11

The other, another piece of the gap, for me is that it's not just that there, there's a gap now. There's a gap in the moment. We've said that a little bit already, but the gap in the moment, similar to me with sacred texts, gives encouragement to not, I can, I can treat these documents the same way I treat religious documents in my own tradition as not literal. Like there, we cannot point to the declaration and say, well see it was always this way, because it wasn't always that way. And so we have to take it all with a grain of salt as it was there. All men were not created equal, as we would define that today. They just weren't right. Slavery was going on. Native American removal. We have to read these texts the same way I think most in this room at least read our historical texts with the history behind, sorry, religious texts, with historical context. That's the ultimately what I'm trying to say. And so I don't, I don't hold the declaration up too high, because it was, it was never fully true. It was always aspirational. But I think even the aspiration was different than we would read it today. So I don't, maybe that's an originalist kind of I don't, I don't know that we get that it ever meant what even we would want it to mean today.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 22:37

Well, we noticed in the selections that we looked at, from the Declaration of Independence, that there's the part about all men being created equal, but there was also horrible language about Native Americans and how they should be understood. And, you know, I think that definitely we're not alone. So you have, you have both a text that has aspirations that we might want to promote, but also things that we find regrettable to be within the text. And so we need to bring the lens of our contemporary interpretations and values,

Stephanie Anthony: 23:15

Right

Shoshanah Tornberg: 23:16

as they've evolved in order to authentically approach this text.

Stephanie Anthony: 23:22

Yeah, sometimes we want them to mean more than they meant in the moment, and we have to remember what they meant in the moment.

Chip Gruen: 23:28

So I think all four of you would agree with Laura's sort of summation of the interfaith right idea that more holds us together than separates us, but it is occupational hazard of me to say no difference is really important and we need to think about difference, because if we don't expect difference, then when differences come up, we look to our neighbor and say, I don't even know you, right? I don't understand where you're coming from. So in the spirit of that, I wanted to ask about, what has come out of either the clergy sessions or the broader sessions, and I know only two or four of those are completed already that has either been, you know, points of deep agreement or unexpected friction, or things that you know, that surface that needed more conversation because they were not self evidently similar.

Stephanie Anthony: 24:26

For me, the experience has been fantastic on a pretty surface level, in that I'm new in town, and so it's been an easy way to meet colleagues and have some some interesting conversations. And particularly when we were at the clergy level or the leader level, you know, we were all folks who are ready to jump into our text and our traditions and sort of, you know, look at things from different angles and and there were points of deep agreement. There were points of not unexpected friction, but angles that I that I would not have expected, because I don't even some of the texts that we share we read differently. And so that was fascinating and exciting and fun, and those were super invigorating. There I see a little less of the engaging from our religious texts in the bigger group, I think, not unexpectedly, but the conversations are still the same, folks finding different angles into into the ways that they want to share. I'm trying to think of specifics. And of course, in the moment, I can't, but I wouldn't, I wouldn't say deep agreement, some shared, enlightening around values that we may share, but we come at from different sources, and that's been exciting to me.

Maria Tjeltveit: 25:36

It was interesting in my table there was, there wasn't a big spread in terms of maybe political perspectives that I sensed, or religious, different religious perspectives. But there was one, one male at the table who, like, was kind of surprised at the fact that the phrase all men are created equal, it had never bothered him, whereas the women were all very much on that. And it wasn't that he disagreed with them, it was a moment of reflection for him that, wow, I never noticed that. So I think there were even within what might not have been like, moments of friction there, as you was mentioned, moments of enlightenment where people said things and like one person said, these rights to life liberty, these inalienable rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were stated before we became a country. So to say these, these rights only belong to citizens today is not an appropriate thing. So, you know, so finding, finding nuggets, were things that I think that this kind of conversation lends itself to, and so there can be breadth, even if there's not friction or disagreement.

Chip Gruen: 26:56

So speaking of religious difference, we all know that there is religious language in many of these documents. And just thinking about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, you see phrases like nature's God, divine providence, the Creator. But though many readers of those texts interpret it differently, we know that the those founding documents were kept deliberately vague about which God and they really built a legal architecture designed to keep government and religion separate. I, you know, I'm going to take the opportunity to do it here, because I love to do it, and it's always surprising, but that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospel, and he yanks out all of the things that he described as superstitious, you know, things like miracles and the resurrection, which you know is really unexpected, right to a lot of people who know that story. So let's think about that. Let's think about the ambiguity in those documents, in the distance between the religion of at least some of the founders and how many want to understand those founders in the contemporary world, how do we understand and read that religious language? Is it a resource for the work that you're trying to do, or is it something that gets in the way?

Shoshanah Tornberg: 28:20

So it is really crucial for Jews in America, and the story of Jews in America, that this language is loose enough that it can include the Jewish conception of God, which is, you know, to a certain extent, different than the Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Baha'i or Sikh, I could keep going. The idea that this was a place where Jews could come and be a citizen and relate to God in our unique way was, was unprecedented. I mean, it was, there's a reason that so many Jews immigrated here and thought of it as the Goldene Medina, the golden land with the, you know, the streets paved with gold is because they weren't paved with gold, but they were paved with the Cossacks are not going to come for you, and you can open up your synagogue on the end of the block and walk to Yom Kippur services, and no one's going to harass you for that. Now, we're lucky that, at least at the moment, we still have laws that say that that kind of harassment is not allowed, but it really was a game changer for Jews. And one of the dearest documents to Jews in America is a letter, the letter that Washington wrote to the Jews of Newport Rhode Island, talking about that bigotry should have no sanction in in this land, and that that we should be able to observe and practice our religion freely, which not every state within its own laws was, was complying with or thinking about it was, it was his aspirational text, and we've always been very grateful for it. But even I did a study once for a textbook we were writing on American Jewish history. And one of the cool things is that Washington's inauguration, there was a table that just had fish and dairy on it, so that the Jews who keep kosher could be part of this celebration. Because it was a it was a nation. It was envisioned to have room for the a multiplicity of religious traditions that makes it weird that there's religious language in it at all, because the truth is that my ability to practice Judaism is just as central to America as an atheist's ability to profess atheism. So it makes me a little uncomfortable, because there's no reason that religious folks should be able to claim what this democracy thing is more than folks who are not religious. But I've enjoyed this gathering because it's invited us to use our religion, which is central to the lives of all of us, as as an important lens for thinking about the meaning of democracy. Because we live in a democracy and we are religious people, and that's how we get meaning. That's, that's different than assuming that that's, that's the cadence, or the language of meaning for every person who encounters it.

Maria Tjeltveit: 31:46

And I think to kind of follow up on that so many people who came to the United States as colonists were fleeing religious persecution, and sometimes then they set up religiously persecuting colonies. But I think the people that, many of the people that were writing the Declaration of Independence, were what we would call Dias, who really had kind of a view of God as the sort of the nature's God or Creator, who kind of, like, set everything up and then went off to take a nap or something like that. And so we don't really have the kind of perspective of the God that most of them had. And there is a strain within Christianity right now that is trying to to read back into this religious language, a kind of evangelical Christian, you know, deep faith and and that's, that's just fake. That's that wasn't what they were about, but they lived in a context where, you know, God was kind of a given, in a way that today it's not. But they were trying to create within that some spaciousness, and I think that we're all grateful for that, because it allows for us to have colleagues who are people of other faiths or people have no faith and to to know that we're all together in this and and I think that we then realize how how important a democracy is. And I was reading, one of the things about the document of Declaration of Independence is it starts we the people, doesn't say, God did this. And so by starting it that way, when you're speaking to a monarch that is, you know, instituted by God, you're sort of putting a tension. And we live in that tension and and I think that's a healthy tension that we live in in the United States. So I think, I think it's helpful.

Stephanie Anthony: 33:38

Well, you talked a little bit about, sort of what it meant at the time when you talk about whether it's a resource, or can it get in the way, when I think about that in my work today, or congregational life today, you know, I come out of a tradition where Presbyterian land, as I call it, where civic engagement, as we talked about earlier, is considered one of the highest callings, like the understanding of of how God works in the world. There's nothing outside of the sphere that God care of what God cares about, and so being engaged civically is extremely important to us, at least historically. Where it can get in the way a little bit and I think we tip toed right up to talking about Christian nationalism. Pull back just a little. Is when we start to interpret our sacred texts in light of the historical texts, instead of the other way around. In my world, when we read into our religious scriptures with the lens of the Declaration of Independence or the and mix them in that way, rather than what I would encourage folks to do. You know, we we read the other way from where we are as people of faith, if we have faith or no faith or or ambiguous, we interpret the other way around. And it can bump up against me. These language gives, sometimes gives people permission to go. No, no. This is a religious text too. This is I can, I can use it the same way. And then we get to mix them together, and then we start going down some dangerous roads, I think, at least currently in the country.

Chip Gruen: 35:11

So you point to something that I want to kind of push on. And it gets to one of my critiques might be a little too, too harsh, right? But critiques of these kinds of initiatives is that they end up being very largely center left and or progressive right, so that the people at the table do agree, because they choose to participate. And you all have been from what I've seen, have been very open to lots of different religious diversity in the valley, but still, what you end up getting is a subset of the staggering religious diversity that we have here. I mean, to my knowledge, we don't have lots of Hindu or Sikh participation, for example, much less evangelical or, you know, people who would disagree with the premises from the beginning. How do we think about that? Right? How do we think about the difference between pluralism in its broadest form, where everybody has a seat at the table and organizing conversations where people opt in because they largely agree with the premises and the outcomes that are going to happen from that group.

Laura Lawrence: 36:25

I really wish that were different. I mean, in my heart of hearts, I truly wish that everybody was at the table. It would make it so interesting and so enlightening, and we could learn so much from each other. I mean, that is, that's one of my regrets. I have to say, when I started out in this interfaith movement so many, so many years ago, it was truly everybody that was at that table. First of all, a, I was the only woman at that table, the only, certainly the only non clergy. But that continues to today. And at that particular table, so many years ago, I was the youngest by 40 years, and but at that table, at that time we indeed, we had Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, several Muslim Imams myself amongst all these people. And it really was the most diverse thing. And that's, that's actually, that's my introduction to interfaith. And you're right. Over the years, it has definitely moved towards the center, more moderate expression of religion, a more very inclusive expression, and honestly, we all wish we could have much more diversity on this representative that's that's really in our heart of hearts, it's hard to reach, it's hard to get a commitment.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 37:59

So I worked, you know, I was the one who said, like, let's do this. And then I, like, was calling people and, you know, like, trying to generate, it took a while to generate enough of a group to show up. And I tried, with all of my networks and all the people that I knew to have this group be, as diverse as possible. And I think that there are some things that made that extra hard, like such as, the timing was lined up with Ramadan in a way that wasn't super helpful. We also, you know, it's, it's a, I'm a Jewish leader, and, you know, in my attempt to get Muslims involved, I don't know kind of pressures they were facing from their communities regarding being part of something like this, being able to have those conversations. There's, you know, in this community, many, well, many American Muslims have family that are currently living under violence in parts of the world, and that makes it this a harder conversation. The other thing is, look, I'm a white woman, or at least I appear to be a white woman in most contexts. And so there's a lot of things I walk around the world just assuming are the way things everybody does. Because, you know, that's that's a feature of how we're educated in our society, that the way that you're doing things is the normal way, or the the most inviting way, or the the most sensitive way. And I, I have been wondering, and since the beginning of this, is that is there something that we're doing or not doing in the way that we're talking about this group, or conceptualizing this group? That is inviting certain people to not show up, like, you know, are there other people that say, Yeah, this is not going to be a place where I'm comfortable, because there's something that I don't even see but I have, but that's a learning I could do. That's a that's an education that we could, we could gain. I am curious to hear from people in the community who knew about this, who are very right wing in their views, to find out what, what kept them from coming. I do know a few people who are further to the right, at least, than I am, that that did show up and have shown up, but it continues to be a growing edge I hope for, for how we do interfaith work. You know, you can invite everybody to your party, but if they don't, if they don't show up, you know, maybe you're serving cake and they're gluten free, you know, like you may not know all the things you need to know to make someone feel welcome.

Maria Tjeltveit: 41:13

I think the other thing is that, as somebody who's been here in the Lehigh Valley, the longest out of this group, except for Laura, we were often using certain my networks, and I do have a lot of networks, but I had retired five years ago, and then kind of came back in. And so, like the Sikhs and the Hindus and whatever, had been more involved in some of the interfaith things that I was involved in earlier on, but I've lost some of those contacts, and we ended up becoming kind of a more Allentown, or kind of Western Lehigh Valley group. We didn't intend it to be that way, but so there may be people associated with BIG the Bethlehem Interfaith Group that are from those other communities. But even though we've invited them, it's sort of we're not a divided Lehigh Valley, but we sort of are. And so for them to come all the way over here, they may not be as interested in doing that. And then I have reached out to some of the congregations that are more African American congregations, and just haven't been I don't have as strong networks with some of them, and so haven't received responses, and everybody's really busy. The thing about interfaith work is that it's always something added on. So if you're a busy pastor, to say, Oh yes, I'm going to do all the work that it's going to take to get my congregation to come is that's a big ask. And then, and also, I've gotten to know some of the Latino pastors and but they're like, we're really busy on an afternoon, on a Sunday afternoon, and but if you do it on a Friday or Saturday, then you're eliminating your Jewish, Muslim neighbors. So I think that because this is an extra convincing people that it's an extra worth investing in when they haven't been part of the beginning part is always harder. So for instance, I'm hoping that once we get to Frederick Douglass's What to a Slave is the Fourth of July, maybe we'll get some people from the African American community who want to come specifically to that dialog, and hopefully, and we would like that they would be here earlier, but if they can come for that, that would be a wonderful blessing. So so we're aware of our own limitations, but you have to start somewhere, and this is a question you're gonna ask later, so I'll put all the segue into it, which is, what do we do after it ends? And the Interfaith Action Committee partnered in part with faith250 because we were in the process of creating a ongoing interfaith dialog that we're calling Shared Humanity, to look at different issues and maybe do it quarterly. So we're hoping that if people get excited about this, we start to build those networks that then there will be a means to continue that conversation in somewhat different ways in the future. So we hope that each time that we do this, there'll be a few more people at the table from different groups, and we're continuing to work on that.

Chip Gruen: 44:17

Yeah, I just want to underscore something that's come up in this conversation, because it sort of lurks in one question. But it's two things, like, one is religious diversity itself, right, which we're all keenly aware of and super excited to have more of those voices at the table. But the other part is, you know, the religious traditions whose values are just fundamentally, not necessarily, in alignment with the pro, with the project, right, which is always, always the challenge, getting those voices represented. And Rabbi Shoshanah, as you, as you sort of said, like, am I communicating something that makes those people feel unwelcome? And even the idea of having the thing might be the thing that makes them feel unwelcome, and I think that that's,

Shoshanah Tornberg: 45:09

Even that I'm just, I would really, I'm eager to understand that, because that's the whole point of this project, is to, like, stop being in our silos and really curiously, be curious and deeply understand what is someone else's story, and how do they get to what it is that they believe, and why is that a coherent narrative for them? And just see another human even if they're while very, very different from you,

Stephanie Anthony: 45:39

Another angle to it that I think matters is, as we said earlier, the majority of the folks that are in the room when we're doing the larger group gatherings identify or are perceived as white, yeah, and, and probably Judeo-Christian, right. So there's that. And then every time someone who shows up who does not fit in one of those categories, if we're doing that. There's that level of emotional labor and to say that, and that added burden of do I have to speak for my whole people when I show up at something like this? I could imagine a world where that is a barrier for entry if I'm going to have to show up at this talk and speak for all Muslims or all Sikhs or all Black Christians versus white Christians like that's a whole other piece that might limit somebody from even stepping in the room. It's exhausting. And there's people telling us every day, these days, that that's been exhausting for a long time.

Chip Gruen: 46:39

So the question I like to end on, and I want to give this one lots of space, because I want everybody to answer it is, what am I not asking? Like, what are we not talking about that you think is super important to either understand the aims of this project or the logistics of the project. I'm always keenly aware that, you know, I'm on the outside of this thing looking in, and so I might not have my finger on the things that are really important that we consider. So I'd love everybody to take a shot at that. What are we not talking about that we should?

Shoshanah Tornberg: 47:13

I don't know that there is something you haven't asked about, because the thing that really bubbles up for me is the issue of diversity and how it is that we're missing the mark on that. It limits how effective and meaningful conversations can be. I, I know how to have a conversation with someone that agrees with me. All of us do, and if there's, you know, a discussion of a text, and we basically come out with the same kinds of values, that's nice. I've appreciated the relationships. I was really hoping that this would be a thing that I could do in the world, not by myself, obviously, but one of the, you know, everybody's saying like the world is going to hell in a hand basket, like, what? What do we do? How do we how do we respond to this moment? And I was really hopeful that this was one of those things that could help us respond to the moment, because I think the way that we the way that we respond, and the kinds of communities that we build, that that's the story of our lives, when you were there and it was bad, what were the things that you did? And I, my vision of this was that I, perhaps naively, thought I could gather people who really differed, and we could all learn how to just stop for a minute and deeply listen, because I think we've forgotten how to do that, and that if you don't have that, democracy cannot last long. For myself, I wanted to learn how to do that listening, or relearn how to do that listening. And I wanted everybody to get that opportunity for learning. And I think the lack of diversity limits how deeply I can get into Oh, okay, so that's where other Americans are coming from on this, you know that it continues to be like the other side of the Rubicon instead of the person that I know and I disagree with, you know?

Laura Lawrence: 49:51

I think Rabbi Shoshanah, I think you put that very, very well, extremely well. And for me, it's always been this, it's always been that we see each other, and again, it's the same theme that we see each other as members of one human family, regardless of our religious differences or political differences or so forth. And the occasion of the 250th anniversary a perfect opportunity to revisit those principles, and as flawed as it was then, we know that it was. We've had 250 years to get things make things a lot better, and we certainly going to make it better in the next 250 God willing. And this is the a perfect opportunity. It's the occasion to come together and recognize the, again, the oneness of humanity. I mean, just like Abraham Lincoln said, we put that in our Constitution. No one ever did that. We were the first country to ever do that. We put it in there such a long time ago.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 51:03

What's the it?

Laura Lawrence: 51:04

The that all men are created equal.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 51:06

In the declaration...

Laura Lawrence: 51:09

We put that's, that's what we did. We were the first country to declare that, and even uses the word conception. You know, that's how our country was conceived. It was born at that moment. This is, this is the, to me, this is the principle for the United States. So we can as flawed as we are right now, and we are, can we use the can we be an example for the rest of the world? Can we be that great example that that long, that long desired moment. And to me, we're right there. We are right there. We have this incredible opportunity, strangely enough, you know, an occasion. That's, that's that is, honestly my heart of hearts, that is, it's my it's the reason why I was created. That's how I feel truly.

Maria Tjeltveit: 52:09

I have a much more mundane thing that you didn't ask us, which is, if somebody gets excited about hearing this, how do they get involved?

Shoshanah Tornberg: 52:17

I like it, well done.

Maria Tjeltveit: 52:18

We do have two more sessions coming up. Our next session is May 17, Sunday afternoon, from three to five, and it will be at the Barn, which is a Presbyterian in Allentown. And then the last one will be at First Presbyterian, where Pastor Stephanie is the pastor also in Allentown. And that will be on June 14,

Shoshanah Tornberg: 52:43

From three to five.

Maria Tjeltveit: 52:44

From three to five, yeah, again, Sunday afternoon. And then we have a,

Shoshanah Tornberg: 52:50

An email address, yeah, LVfaith250@gmail, so you can email that, and then we can give you the the link to register. You are required to register. It is not a drop in situation, and that's very important to know anybody's welcome, but you do need to register in advance, and there will be food.

Maria Tjeltveit: 53:15

LV is in Lehigh Valley. Faith written out. And then the numbers 250@gmail.com

Chip Gruen: 53:21

All right, we will put that and in that email address and the link in the show notes.

Shoshanah Tornberg: 53:29

Wonderful.

Stephanie Anthony: 53:33

I know. I'm trying to think...

Chip Gruen: 53:34

If you want to pass, you can.

Stephanie Anthony: 53:36

I don't know that I, one of the things that when I thought about logistics and how what was easy and what was hard about this, it always struck me that the hardest, actual thing beyond the diversity question, was figuring out the food situation. I mean, in the line of mundane stuff, the first time we started talking about we want to have food, well, can we have food? Can we have? Is it kosher food? Is it halal food? Like, it was like, that seemed to be, like, the most insurmountable task when we were just talking about now, when we played it out in real life, it turned out a whole lot easier. But that first day of talking about the logistics, and to me, that was, I mean, it was sort of funny. Go ahead, it was sort of, it was sort of funny because, you know, all these things, we can sit around tables and have conversations about one word, but it was so important because, I mean, in all of our traditions, and then I think in the human experience, sharing food, breaking bread, companion, the all those kinds of things, is so important and humanizing in a gathering. I mean, even when we sat down to do this, we all got our coffee or a tea before we sat around the microphone, it's its own version of, you know, forming community, and so figure out how to how to serve food during different people's holy seasons. Because it wasn't, I mean, Ramadan was is the longer period, but it was in the middle of Lent and Easter. It was in the middle of Passover. It was in the middle of all of our times converging.

Laura Lawrence: 55:01

The Baha'i fast as well.

Stephanie Anthony: 55:03

Yes, yeah, so it was, it was interesting to me, and a little funny, and also telling that the the logistical piece that was hardest was how to get the snacks right.

Chip Gruen: 55:16

Although, and I remember taking students on a field trip to a local it was kind of an old school evangelical church, but it was an Evangelical Church, and the pastor there, who was showing us around knew that we'd gone the previous week to a Catholic community, and he wanted to take this opportunity to explain to the students that everything that was important, the Catholics in this Evangelical community agreed on the inerrancy of Scripture, right, the virgin birth, the atoning death of Jesus, etc. And then he said, but the things that aren't important we have, there's diversity there. We don't, you know, necessarily see the eye on these less important things like the sacraments, right? And so, of course, you know, I always, I always want that laugh from my class, and they don't ever get it, but to say to a Catholic that the sacraments are not important, right? Absolutely right, a ridiculous statement. And so I bring that story up because the idea of, like, oh, this mundane thing, of like, the food you eat,

Stephanie Anthony: 56:32

It's very important.

Maria Tjeltveit: 56:33

Yeah, getting it right was important, right?

Chip Gruen: 56:33

Super important, and not mundane at all to people who That's the idea.

Stephanie Anthony: 56:35

I'm sorry I didn't say the other halfway, have food... because that's certainly it was important to get it right. There's a point which I think I even said, maybe we just don't do food. This is hard, like but, but the hospitality of getting it right is so important, knowing that people are can, can come and be themselves in a space and have that it's so important, super crucial. So, yeah, I didn't thank you for.

Chip Gruen: 57:04

No but even the idea of like, what's important is a diversity issue in itself.

Stephanie Anthony: 57:07

Yeah, I felt silly in the moment, but it wasn't silly, right? Because it mattered. It mattered to make sure we did it, right.

Chip Gruen: 57:14

Well, thank you all for for for coming in. This has been great, and as listeners have heard it's been a grand experiment, and having five people around the table to do this live. So I really appreciate you all being here for that, and I appreciate your work at faith250.

Multiple Speakers: 57:29

Thanks. Thank you very much. Thanks for having us.

Chip Gruen: 57:35

This has been ReligionWise, a podcast produced by the Institute for Religious and Cultural Understanding of Muhlenberg College. ReligionWise is produced and directed by Christine Flicker. For more information about additional programming, or to make an inquiry about a speaking engagement, please visit our website at religionandculture.com There, you'll find our contact information links to other programming and have the opportunity to support the work of the Institute. Please subscribe to ReligionWise wherever you get your podcasts, we look forward to seeing you next time.