Articles in English
Log in
Traži - Search
 |
 |
 |
|
David Wesley Hammerman UDK: 316.482:[316.74:2 ; 2-676/-679 Georgetown Universitiy Orginal scientific paper Washington Received: 10. 12. 2008.
BUILDING BRIDGES
An Analysis of How Religion Can Be Used to Heal Societal Wounds along Racial and Political Lines
Summary
Topic of this paper is how religion can be used to achieve political and racial reconciliation. The main thesis is while we have seen the power of religion to be used as a way to divide society and cause conflict, there is also the potential to achieve reconciliation along both political and racial lines, which seem to have become intrinsically interconnected. The paper will explore religion as an agent of societal division, introduce conflict based in religious differences and explain the idea that religion is not necessarily the cause of conflict, but is used to escalate it. There is description of how we can build bridges using faith-based initiatives to heal the societal wounds of conflict. The Author writes about success of post-Apartheid South Africa, the partial sucess in the United States and ways to apply the concepts to Israeli Society.
Key words: religion, reconciliation, conflict, Israeli Society
Introduction: Religion as a Societal Divider Religion – It is a word that can invoke the deepest passion one can experience, bringing thoughts of spirituality, unity, and understanding. It is also a word that incites visions of division, strife, conflict and violence. The duality of religion, or rather its metaphorical image as a double–edged sword, is one of its most fascinating and complicated aspects. Religion’s power to bring about societal division is one of the longest recurring phenomena in history. Religion has been used as a justification for maintaining systems of racial inequality, expulsions of a societal group, and even, genocide. While there are very few modern examples where the cause of societal conflict is based solely in religion; on a macro-sociological level, religion is used as a propaganda tool to further divide societies. In the post–colonial world of today, religion has less of a power to create macro-sociological conflicts (while still maintaining a significant role), but rather is used very divisively on a micro–level. Regardless of individual opinion on Gay Marriage, religion has played a large role in promulgating the conflict. For the Church[1], this is part of a much larger struggle to maintain membership bases in a rapidly secularizing role. Thus, they begin what can be characterized as a “culture war” – the name in itself implies the divisive nature. In their study of the issue, Damore, Jelen and Bowers, question why Nevada, with its long heritage of libertarian values, became one of the early states to ban gay marriage. They were most puzzled by the fact the state allows both prostitution and gambling, perennial culture war battlegrounds, but would mobilize to ban gay marriage. Ultimately, they conclude “socially conservative Nevadans tolerate gambling and prostitution in large part because the state’s economy and the local economies of rural communities depend considerably on the availability of these activities for non–residents of the states.”[2] In the United States, we find few instances where the Church will directly enter into conflict with Corporations. This is apparent in the Nevada case. Since business was unable to, nor cared to, find an overwhelming value in allowing gay marriage, the Church was able to find an issue to charge their base, create a divisive atmosphere, and reenergize supporters. The conflict over gay marriage is one of a few number of issues that have a basis entirely in religion, and the “family values” that are espoused by the Church. To solely attach a stigma of division to religion is unfair and unrepresenta-tive. Psychologists explain to us a phenomenon called the “availability heuristic,” in which the brain perceives something is more common than it actually is because of the amount of media and societal attention paid to the infrequent event. This is a way in which religion has become associated with division. The media refuses to show us the way in which religion is and has been used as a bridge to reconcile and unite society. Rather, we are only exposed to the more polemic sides of religion, namely the culture wars. The main focus of this work is to explain the ways in which religion and faith-based initiatives have be used as effective tools in healing societal wounds of conflict, on both a micro and more importantly, a macro-sociological level.
Building Bridges: Using Faith-Based Initiatives to Heal Societal Wounds “…….the Leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations”[3] The above quotation from the book of Revelations has become the ethos statement for many multi-ethnic churches in the United States. Ignoring any questions as to the historicity of The Bible itself, as they are wholly irrelevant to this paper, Jesus referred to his disciples as “the leaves of the tree” and that they were supposed to preach to all of the nations of the world to spread his message. Today, “racial reconciliation proponents emphasize [Jesus’] willingness to minister across ethnic boundaries in a region rife with ethnic conflicts.”[4] Taking the above quote, religious leaders seeking to bridge ethnic divides, justify their decision, from the very same source as other leaders who chose to divide – the Holy Bible. Before discussing how religion heals the wounds of racial divide, we must define what racial reconciliation is. Sociologist George Yancey defines racial reconciliation as “the process by which we overcome the previous dysfunctional unequal relationship between the races and develop an egalitarian, healthy relationship.”[5] Religion, itself, cannot completely achieve this function, especially in a rapidly secularizing society, but it has the profound effect to bring about social movements, which is what we must view racial reconciliation as. The fact is, in spite of the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans have yet to reach a state of true equality. The gap is narrowing, but in the overall American socioeconomic power structure, they are unequally represented. Thus, it can be argued that racial reconciliation is still very much a necessity, and the United States has not entered a truly post–racial phase. As with many other social movements, the Church has been the source of promoting racial reconciliation. Beginning in the 1960s, churches began preaching a message of reconciliation, although this was largely in the African American community, and was regarded as radical.[6] With the expansion of the Civil Rights Movement, racial reconciliation began to enter the mainstream, so much so that by the 1980s there had been “an explosion of racial reconciliation activity, including conferences, books, study guides, videos, speeches, practices by organizations, formal apologies, and even mergers of once racially separate organizations.”[7] The racial reconciliation movement gained so much steam that Evangelical magazines began to print stories of emotionally intense rallies in which White ministers atoned for their sin of racism. In 1994, what is arguably the largest American religious reconciliation took place when “leaders of the White Pentecostal Association of North America asked the African American Pentecostal for forgiveness and disbanded in order to form a new, multi-racial Pentecostal body.”[8] This was quickly followed by a similar action on the part of the National Association of Evangelicals. The reconciliation, as previously described, leaves many questions unanswered. The first of which, is how does religious racial reconciliation translate into societal healing? How can different races be integrated into the political structure? How does society adequately address the wrongs of the past? There are numerous micro-sociological examples to illustrated societal reconciliation in the United States. The rest of this section is dedicated to that very purpose. On a global level, South Africa, which is probably the closest any country will get to full racial reconciliation through religious and political means, provides us with the answer to these very questions on a macro-sociological. Over the last two decades, there have been numerous incidents that have torn communities apart, along racial lines. New York City experienced heighten-ed tensions immediately following the shooting of Amadou Diallo, and Los Angeles was home to the Rodney King riots. What these two cities share in common is their wide-spread secularization. Following the shooting of Timothy Thomas in Cincinnati, there was the same strife that embroiled New York and Los Angeles. There was distrust between racial groups, and riots ensued. Enraged, African Americans flooded the streets, demanding justice. In the immediate aftermath, clergy from many different faiths “engaged in quite a bit of cue-giving activity….., speaking out about both publicly and from the pulpit with regularity”[9] against the violence in the city. As a result, the violence was far less severe than what was expected, and bought the political establishment much needed time to respond to the situation adequately. More than seven years removed from the event, Cincinnati has become far more racially integrated and aware. This is especially true in the case of the younger generations, who overwhelmingly responded to a survey by saying “they are willing to bridge that divide through on-going dialogue and aggressive denunciation of overt discriminatory behavior.”[10] In the South-Eastern part of the United States, racism and discrimination have a much longer and protracted history. After slavery was abolished in 1865 by the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, many Southern states elected to enact what have become known as the “Jim Crow laws.” Although disbanded in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, the “Jim Crow laws” has left a very unequal and divide society, especially in non-Urban areas. Siloam Springs, Arkansas, was to become the host of a largely unwanted Ku Klux Klan rally, which was to feature the inflammatory Rev. Jeffery Berry. Following the drowning of the son of a Klansman, the Klan decided they were to hold a vigil and rally in the town. City officials desperately wanted to avoid this conflict creating an event that would only reinforce existing stereotypes and further divide the town. They pleaded to the Siloam Springs Ministerial Alliance, who seized upon the opportunity to work together to unite the city. Following, weeks of prayer services, and sermons decrying the evils of the KKK, the rally took place, with less than two hundred spectators.[11] “The fact that so few city residents attended the rally was a function of SMAA clergy’s ability to convince their parishioners to avoid the rally be either staying at home or attending church-sponsored events.”[12] Religious leaders were able to mobilize their congregants and in the process they avoided what could have been an event of further racial division. The case of Greenville County, South Carolina is even more compelling. It was one of the very few counties in the United States to have not recognized Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday. The reasons for this are rooted in the overwhelmingly evangelical population, many of whom were graduates of the divisive Bob Jones University, who just recently ended a ban on interracial dating.[13] Originally, the movement to recognize the holiday began in the African American community. In what had been a religiously divided community, “the events stimulated cooperative organizing by African American churches.”[14] Discussion soon began outside the African American churches, with White Baptists joining the cause, followed by the business community. Shortly afterward people began to realize that the holiday becoming recognized was a “symbol that the end of the era of segregation is over, [it is] a symbol of the coming together of the races.”[15] The county council formed a commission which was largely comprised of religious officials to address the issue. This proved to be essential in their recommendation of the adoption of the holiday, as they were united over their prayer session for divine guidance and unity. Without a decision from the city council, businesses began to recognize the holiday. Finally, close to five years after South Carolina recognized the holiday, the county did as well. This story highlights two key functions of religion as a reconciler. First is that it has the power to unite people of different faiths. This is the key to understan-ding its ability to bridge societal wounds. The second function is that religion was only the stepping stone to societal reconciliation. First, the religious communities began the movement. Then, businesses joined. Finally, there was political acceptance. The movement has grassroots support in faith-based initiatives and eventually transcends its religious nature, and becomes universal within a society.
Truth and Reconciliation: The Success of Post-Apartheid South Africa “When I came home, I saw there were many white men, they kicked my door……and they went in. I am sure I nearly died that day. They missed when they shot – they missed my forehead.”[16] The above excerpt is from the testimony of a witness to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Included in the New South African Constitution, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was assigned a herculean task. They were to “investigate human rights violations,…..investigate victims and perpetrators, grant amnesty in the case of ‘political acts’ where there is full disclosure,” and ultimately, “build national unity and reconciliation.”[17] Following, centuries of discrimination, and over fifty years of a policy known as Apartheid, Blacks were finally going to be integrated into the South African government. The history of racial inequality in South Africa can be said to have begun with the first landing of Dutch ships on the Cape of Good Hope. After exchanging control between the Dutch and England, the colony gradually became populated by Europeans. Still, the Europeans did not truly dominate the indigenous populations, but rather, coexisted with them until the discovery of diamonds. Propagating two wars, the British systematically subjugated the indigenous populations, in addition to taking control of the breakaway Boer Republics. Following, the declaration of independence in 1910, the White South Africans, began to legally enforce and maintain their socioeconomic advantage. In 1913, they passed the Natives’ Land Act, effectively taking control of 90% of all land available, while leaving the remaining 10% for Blacks and what would become the other two minority groups, Indians and Coloreds.[18] In 1948, while the rest of the world was marching towards racial equality and awareness in the wake of the Holocaust, the National Party took control and instituted a variety of reforms that are collectively known as Apartheid. Under this system, Whites maintained their position in the upper-echelon of society, while Blacks and other minorities lived in poverty, with literally no middle class. The first internal and external opposition to Apartheid and other segregationist policies came directly from the Church. Even before the direct enforcement of Apartheid, churches were providing Blacks with their only access to education. Wilkinson explains that by “receiving grants-in-aid from the provincial governments, the missions ran virtually the only institutions where Africans could acquire the literary skills necessary for effective participation in the industrializing government.”[19] The Church was able to provide Blacks with one of the vital services that the government would not. Upon the institution of Apartheid, most mainstream churches were appalled; “the very nature of the policy of Apartheid was anathema to”[20] churches. In fact, in the wake of the segregation laws that prohibited Blacks and Whites from being alone together, and the illegalization of meetings between three or more black men, churches began to serve as a rendezvous destination. The police were unwilling and disallowed from desecrating the holiness of White churches. Thus, the church became the home of many of the resistance movements, whose leaders were “banned” and thus could not have visitors. Internationally, the Church mobilized opposition to the policy of Apartheid. The World Council of Churches organized a “Programme to Combat Racism” which in conjunction with “the actions of other church organizations attained the highest profile in pressuring South Africa and her allies to end Apartheid.”[21] It is important to understand that the Church was in no way directly responsible for the end of Apartheid; it did play a considerable role in moving public sentiment towards the issue. The late 1980s brought about a series of events that would fundamentally change South Africa. After years of repressive rule, Prime Minister P.W. Botha abruptly resigned from power on August 14th, 1989. Although Botha has made some progress towards reform, under significant pressure from President Reagan and well as Secretary Gorbachev, his government was responsible for countless “crimes against humanity.” His successor, F.W. de Klerk was a far more moderate politician, whose primary objective ultimately became the reintegration of blacks into the government. After six months in power, de Klerk reversed many bans on black political parties, including the African National Congress, headed by Nelson Mandela. Following years of intense and fragile negotiations, and new a constitution was adopted, culminating in the election of the ANC to power with Mandela as the new president. Following the monumental elections, there were still several problems facing the new South African government. First of all, the stratification of wealth within the society divided the political and corporate spheres of influence. While Blacks were now enfranchised, they most certainly lack control of any means of capital. Whites on the other hand lost true political power, they controlled the national industries. The other larger problem was how do deal with the atrocities of Apartheid. There were only two modern models of reconciliation and justice available for the South African government, Nuremberg and Chile. Nuremberg passed judgment and provided much overdue justice, while Chile merely absolved all sinners of their crimes. In the case of South Africa, neither model was ideal. While Whites did incite much of the violence, the ANC and other resistance organizations employed means just as heinous. In dealing with the problems of reconciliation in a fractured society, Mandela turned to the Church, and in doing so he created a model that should either become the archetype of all conflict resolution or that was merely miraculous. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was perhaps uniquely designed to head the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The character of his voice is “sweet and singsong, which augments his way of talking in platitudes, truisms and reminders.”[22] What is more important than his demeanor was his beliefs and presumptions upon assuming the chairmanship of the Commission. He approach-ed his work on the Commission as “the Christian ideal of a people that has fallen out of a relationship with God.”[23] Hence, his philosophy sent him to seek not revenge but understanding and forgiveness. The Commission began in 1996, two years following the election of President Mandela. The Archbishop began every session of the Commission with a prayer for unity. His deputies were also men and women of cloth from a variety of faiths. Over the two years of its exisitance, there were over 7112 petitions for amnesty. As a condition, the petitioner must disclose all relevant information about the crime he/she may have committed. Only 849 (approx. 11%) were granted amnesty. The Commission heard testimony from the families of victims, as well as from victims themselves. After hearing some of the most brutal accusations from victims, the chairman, Archbishop Tutu, would ask those attending “to stand in silence or to engage in prayer.”[24] The Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented its report in October of 1998. It condemned both sides, Black and White, for the atrocities committed. While the situation in South Africa is far from perfect reconciliation, there has been substantial improvement. With a society that was as fractured and dichotomized as South Africa, it is to be expected that the society will need much time to heal, and will probably never be fully healed. The case of South Africa is somewhat of a circular one. Religious movements gave rise to political pressure which gave rise to social movements that incited poltical reform which ultimately gave power to a secular yet deeply religious Truth and Reconciliation. By stressing their religious similarities, and looking solely towards to future by forgiving the past, race relations in South Africa have drastically improved.
The Holy Land: Repairing Division in Israeli Society "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."[25] In the above passage from the Book of Genesis, God promises Abraham that his descendents shall inherit the land that is roughly the modern state of Israel. This passage is polemic in itself, as three modern day theologies, Christianity, Islam and above all, Judaism, lay claim to some part of the modern state. The situation between the Palestinians and the Israels, who must coexist within a fractured society, is especially dire. In many ways, the situation resembles Apartheid South Africa. Israelis are constantly under the fear that an act of terror is imminent, and the Palestinians live under the fear of their entire economy being shut down by a simple order of the Israeli military or Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. Economically, there is a key difference between Palestinians and Black South Africans – “the Israeli Economy can do without the Palestinian labor.”[26] When Israel closes the boarder with Gaza, it is really not hurting its own economy. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, much like the South African conflict, has its basis in the land. The Palestinians claim that the Israelis have stolen the land and homes of their forefathers, and that they are now forced to live in substandard conditions. The accuracy of this claim is neither relevant nor apropos to this work. What is important is that there exists a fractured and stratified society. The Israelis live in one of the world’s most developed countries while the Palestinians overwhelmingly feel marginalized. Another striking parallel to the South African example is the use of violence by both sides. As with the Blacks in South Africa, they Israelis were most definitely the initial target of violence. Immediately following the declaration of independence of the State of Israel, seven Arab nations launched a war. As Israel responded to several other threats and obtained significant victories, it became the target of terrorism. In response, the Israeli government has taken an ever more hard-line approach to responding, decimating buildings, and inflicting significant civilian casualties. Both sides view the other as the propagators of violence and terrorists, which is a term not to be taken lightly. The same was true in South Africa, where White felt they were the target of ANC and other resistance groups, and Blacks felt they were the target of especially brutal police raids. Both sides were equally right in their assertion, and neither side was correct in its use of violence. Despite the case for socioeconomic causes of the conflict, most commentators immediately turn to religion. The reason for this is that “leaders on both sides legitimize their actions and mobilize influential constituencies in the name of religion and historical religious persecution.”[27] We are not looking at a holy war, in spite of what clerics and clergy may lead Westerners to believe. Religion is a propaganda tool for the architects of hate. This conflict is one that is far more socioeconomically motivated. The problem is few are willing to take up arms to improve their socioeconomic standing, whereas religion is a far more personal and irrational trigger. It is the deep spirituality of religion that insights passion and this is exploited in the name of a true culture war, not a holy war. In a working paper published by The United States Institute of Peace, David Smock reveals that no negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis have “given serious attention to the religious dimensions of the conflict.”[28] He also notes that there has been very little effort to begin serious interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Jews to achieve peace in Israel. Smock does relay one bright spot in the peace talks, and that is the Alexandria Declaration, which in 2000 had the backing of both Ariel Sharon and Yassar Arafat. The declaration called “for a religiously sanctioned cease-fire and an end to both violence and demonization of the ‘other.’”[29] Having had a clear model in South Africa, as well as successful multi-ethnic movements within the United States, it seems as if there is some worth in attempting a religious movement for peace. Since the conflict is continued by the “demonization of the ‘other’” and perversion of the very peaceful nature of religion, by removing religion from the equation, the conflict can be addressed by political means. This requires that Rabbis, Imams and Priests reconcile their religious differences to stand against the violence on a macro–level. There are severe limits to what religion can do. Religion will not be able to alleviate the stratified socioeconomic system, but it can bring many parties to the table to begin to discuss in a serious and meaningful way a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Just as in South Africa, there will remain fringe extremist groups on both sides that will aim to disrupt the process. We must not let that stop this process of reconciliation from occurring. What religious communication can do is make the conflict a mostly secular issue – an issue about land and economies.
Conclusion: Reconciling the Irreconcilable Reconciliation is not an easy nor is it a quick process. The United States and South Africa are still coping with the division created by segregation. If Israel does choose to use a faith-based approach, or any approach, it will not be a smooth and seamless process. Still, religion does have this extraordinary power to unify and reconcile mass populations. It has allowed for an integration of African Americans and Caucasians in the American South. South Africa has been able to move on from a brutal and violent past. And, Israel has the potential to become the next sociological example of reconciliation. The model developed shows the clear limits of the power of religion. It cannot and should not be a substitute for political reconciliation. Secular governments must also do their share to create a system for righting injustices and inequalities caused by their previous policies. This is not to say it should be to the detriment of those who previously enjoyed benefits but they must figure out some way in which the disadvantaged can have access to all of the same opportunities. Ultimately, we must view religion as a bridge. It is the connector between conflict and understanding, inequality and equality, hate and tolerance. If we stress the commonalities rather than the differences, the blade on the double-edged sword will be permanently blunted, allowing any society to heal the wounds of division.
Works Cited
Adam, H., & Moodley, K. (2005). Seeking Mandela: Peace Making Between Israelis and Palestinians. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. de Gruchy, J. W. (2005). The Church Struggle in South Africa. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Djupe, P. A., & Olson, L. R. (2007). Religious Interest in Community Conflicts: Beyond Culture Wars. Waco: Baylor University Press. Garces–Folex, K. (2007). Crossing The Ethnic Divide: The Multiethnic Church on a Mission. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herwitz, D. (2003). Race and Reconciliation. Minneapolis, MN, USA. Knox, C. (2000). Peace Builidng in North Ireland, Israel and South Africa: transition, transformation, and reconciliation. New York, NY, USA. Smock, D. R. (2006). Religious Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace Not War. Washington , D.C., USA. Wilkinson, T. P. (2004). Church Clothes. Washington D.C.: Maisonnueve Press.
Sources:
Borer, T. A. (2001). Reconciliation in South Africa: defining sucess. Notre Dame, IN, USA. Cochrane, J., de Gruchy, J., & Martin, S. (1999). Facing the Truth: South African Faith Communities and the Truth and Reconciliation Commision. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Djupe, P. A., & Olson, L. R. (2007). Religious Interest in Community Conflicts: Beyond Culture Wars. Waco: Baylor University Press. Garces-Folex, K. (2007). Crossing The Ethnic Divide: The Multiethnic Church on a Mission. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Helmick, R. G., & Petersen, R. L. (2001). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Religion, Public Policy & Conflict Transformation. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press. Herwitz, D. (2003). Race and Reconciliation. Minneapolis, MN, USA. Knox, C. (2000). Peace Builidng in North Ireland, Israel and South Africa: transition, transformation, and reconciliation. New York, NY, USA. Smock, D. R. (2006). Religious Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace Not War. Washington , D.C., USA.
David Wesley Hammerman DK: 316.482:[316.74:2 ; 2-676/-679 Georgetown Universitiy Orginal scientific paper Washington Received: 10.12. 2008. e-mail: Ova adresa el. pošte zaštićena je od spam napada, treba omogućiti JavaSkript da biste je videli
PREMOŠĆIVANJE KONFLIKATA Analiza o tome kako se religija može koristiti u cilju premošćavanja drustvenih konflikata izazvanih na rasnoj i politickoj osnovi.
Rezime
Tema ovog rada je kako religija može poslužiti kao sredstvo dostizanja političkog i rasnog pomirenja. Uprkos težnji da religija proizvodi konflikt, takodje postoji potencijal da se dostigne pomirenje na rasnoj i političkoj osnovi, koje su suštinski povezane. Glavno pitanje se odnosi na to kako religija doprinosi društvenim podeljenostima, kako ona uvodi konflikt zasnovan na religijskim razlikama i objašnjava da religija nije uzrok konflikta već ga pojačava, ako već postoji. Takodje je opisano kako se mogu izgraditi mostovi sardanje koristeći religijske inicijative za njihovo zalečenje. Autor se fokusira na Južnoafričku Republiku u post aparthejdu, Severnu Irsku i takodje ispituje ograničenja religije i odnose religije i Izraelskog drustva.
Ključne reči: religija, pomirenje, konflikt, Izraelsko društvo
[1] Author’s note: the Church herein refers to any Christian denomination, both Catholic and Protestant, unless otherwise specified. [2] Djupe, 67 [3] Rev 22:2c. [4] Garces-Foley, 37 [5] Garces-Foley, 35 [6] Garces-Foley,40 [7] Garces-Foley, 7 [8] Garces Foley, 42 [9] Djude, 209 [10] Djude, 202 [11] Djude, 230-240 [12] Djude, 241 [13] Djude, 145-171 [14] Djude, 149 [15] Djude, 155 [16] Herwitz, 14 [17] Knox, 178-179 [18] Wilkinson 71 [19] Wilkinson 91 [20] De Gruchy, 87 [21] Wilkinson, 42 [22] Herwitz, 13 [23] Herwitz, 42 [24] Herwitz, 8 [25] Gen 15:20-21 [26] Adam, 59 [27] Adam, 63 [28] Smock, 9 [29] Smock, 10
|