And here's another post on the nature of Judaism, from more than a year ago. I seem to keep having to explain these things to our newer members, and I hope these posts will make some of that unnecessary.
To repeat what is said below, the intention here is not to debate whether these ideas are correct, but only to describe and explain what they ARE.
-----
In the spirit of providing information, I thought I would here attempt to explain, as I understand them, some of the basic beliefs of Judaism that distinguish it from other faiths. My intention is not to provoke argument or debate, but to provide information only.
Nothing here should be construed as an effort to "win" others to my faith or convince them of its truth. Jews don't go there, and I most certainly don't either. JEWS DO NOT PROSELYTIZE, and have not done so since approximately the time of the fall of Rome.
I would emphasize most strongly here, then, that nothing I say should be taken as advocating that anyone take up Judaism or even agree with it or any aspect of it. I am here attempting to describe Judaism in positive terms; no more. There is no further significance to my words; no "hidden messages", nor any intent to disparage anyone who does not share, or might even be hostile to, any belief or practice that I describe here. I do not see how I can be any clearer than that.
To begin, then: It is tempting to begin and end the matter with the words of the great first-century sage Hillel, who was famously asked to explain the whole of Judaism while standing on one foot. Though other authorities had thrown the questioner out on his ear after hearing such an inquiry, Hillel lifted his foot and said: "That which is hurtful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Now go and study."
Tempting, as I said, but in the present context a bit fatuous. Such a principle is shared by every religion of which I have ever heard, and so hardly distinguishes Judaism from any of them.
Still, it ought to be noted that that IS the supreme ethic of Judaism--and in Judaism, ethics are more important than "doctrine". To Jews, no "doctrine", no belief, no principle, no ritual practice, no custom, and no law is ever to be placed above the worth and welfare of the individual human being. It would be well to bear that in mind as one reads what follows.
It would be difficult, nay, impossible in a single post to adequately even summarize the content of the Jewish religion, let alone the distinctive Jewish culture that is so interwoven with it; but perhaps a synopsis of why that is so, with some appended remarks, will serve for the moment. I shall borrow and edit the following few paragraphs from Rabbi Milton Steinberg's fine book, Basic Judaism--one of the best short works available on the subject today. For those who wish to understand or learn more about our faith, it is highly recommended. I shall not always use quotes, because I am largely paraphrasing and restating the rabbi's thoughts in my own words. Quoted material is given verbatim.
The Jewish religion is made up of seven "strands":
(1) A body of teachings about God, the Universe, and human beings;
(2) A system of moral principles for the individual and society;
(3) A collection of rites, customs, and ceremonies;
(4) A body of law;
(5) A sacred literature;
(6) Institutions for the preservation and expression of the above; and
(7) The Jewish people.
I would add
(8) The dimension of time, in that ALL of the above have been revised and adapted to changing circumstances and perceptions over the approximately 4,000 years of Jewish history. I am specifically including the sacred books; responsa, Midrashim, teaching tales and commentary are still being added to the corpus, and even our understanding of the Torah itself has changed, and that even in recent years.
Now it would seem to be possible to separate these threads--to discuss the teachings about God and the Universe separately from the ethic, or the teachings and ethics apart from the books, or any of those apart from the people; but such separation is, in practical terms, impossible. "First, because, where the cords are actually distinct, they have knotted so tightly under the wear and tear of centuries that no amount of picking can pull them apart."
And second, because the unity of Judaism is more than that of a knot. Most of these seemingly distinct threads are in reality different organs of the same creature, animated by a common spirit, reaching into and penetrating one another, no more to be isolated than the parts of a body. "For--and this is the crux of the matter--Judaism is an organism; the fabric of its weaving is alive."
This may sound like mere poetry or a facile metaphor. Stay tuned. It is literally true.
(Here ends my borrowing of material from the good rabbi. The rest of what follows is my own, and he ought not be blamed for it.)
An example of the futility of any attempt to separate the strands:
#1, the teachings about God, the Universe, and humans, are probably of the most interest in the present discussion. However, they do not stand alone. They cannot be expressed without reference to the sacred books (5), especially the Torah; and even there, they are virtually never stated directly. They must be inferred from those documents by the Jewish people (7), who collectively determine their meaning in and through various institutions of learning and study (6), express and symbolize them in liturgy and ritual (3), and revise them over time (8) in relation to the moral code (2) and the laws (4) derived from it. All these are a single entity.
If these relationships, and this structure, seem overly complicated, it might be well to remember that this "system", so to speak, was not conceived and designed by any human agency--no man or committee ever thought this up or drew a master diagram or flowchart that spelled out these related areas and their interaction. Before you assume that I am speaking of God, I will say that He didn't do it, either.
Judaism grew and developed on its own over the centuries; rather like a living thing, as Rabbi Steinberg indicated. It has adapted and changed according to its environment and nurture, and grown more complex and varied in its parts. Like a living tree, it remains flexible in the wind, and, also like a tree, that flexibility has built-in limits. Too, parts of it occasionally die or are destroyed, but the whole continues to live and grow.
And, though it is a complicated and ever-changing organism, it remains recognizable and essentially a simple thing: a tree. Judaism. The same as it was and will be, ever changing and somehow always the same. (It is no accident that the Torah, and the Jewish faith itself, is often called the Etz Chayim--the Tree of Life.)
Your own appearance and circumstances have changed over the years, and will continue to do so; yet you remain you, and those who know you still know who you are, and love you--or hate you--just the same.
Very well, then; all these "strands" are inextricably intertwined. Beliefs, ethics, laws, ritual, books, institutions, and the people; all one, living organism, ever changing yet ever the same, yada yada yada.
What is there that does NOT change? What makes Judaism, Judaism? What teachings or principles or whatever distinguish it from all other faiths?
Here we go. I shall now break all the rules and ignore all the principles I just laid down as immutable and impossible to ignore, and tell you what Jews believe. Here goes...
First, Jews believe in God.
(Duh.)
We believe that God is One.
Now, that is a bit more than just "one God." it means that God is absolutely unique, impossible to compare to any other force or being. He is no Grandfather in the Sky with an avuncular smile and a long white beard; such a conception is blasphemous. He is without body or form, incorporeal, and unaffected by any force or power; He is other than any part or any attribute of the Universe which we inhabit, and which He made. He shares His power and essence with no one and nothing; He is indivisible, eternally One.
He is the Ein Sof, the Totally Other, the Unknowable. No man can understand or judge Him, nor begin to apprehend His nature. Whatever we may conceive Him to be, He is beyond it. As Arthur C. Clarke once said of the Universe, He is not only stranger than we think, He is stranger than we CAN think. Anyone who claims to "know God," or claims to speak for Him, is ipso facto either a fraud or insane.
(The quite reasonable objection that the Biblical prophets did just that may be answered by merely reading their books. Every one of them--every single one--was absolutely compelled to do what he did and say what he said, very much against his will. Moses himself protested that he was incapable and unworthy to the point that God grew angry with him. Jonah tried to get out of Dodge by taking ship for parts unknown, and we all know what happened after that. The attitude of every one of them was, "Why ME? I don't want to DO this!" The pattern is consistent--and NONE of them claimed to be holy themselves, or to be perfect role models, or demanded money--or appeared on TV in a $4,000 suit with blowdried hair.)
God is Sovereign. That means He is beyond our manipulation. When He spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush, He gave his Name as Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, usually translated as "I am that I am"--but the Hebrew is in a kind of "eternal tense". The real meaning is closer to, "I was What I was, I am What I am, and I will be What I will be." Clear implication: You cannot change Me or determine what I will do. (It was commonly believed in the ancient world that if you knew the true name of a thing, you could control it; God was making it quite clear that that notion did not apply to Him.)
TV evangelists who claim to be able to deliver miracles on demand, "faith healers," and those who assure you that if you will only send them money, pray their specified prayers, and/or follow their program of guaranteed spiritual enlightenment, that God will bless you, heal you, or make you rich are engaging in blasphemy and arrogance of the highest order. They are essentially claiming to be able to give orders to God Himself.
Speaking for myself, I would be reluctant to give orders to a child that was not my own. One shudders
Jews further believe that God--this sovereign, eternal, omnipotent and unknowable God--spoke to us.
And that's not outrageous enough; He didn't just speak to us through some individual holy man, through Abraham or Moses or whoever. That could be doubted, and rightly so; holy men who spoke for God, or claimed to, were ten cents a hundred in the ancient world, just like today. No, that wasn't certain enough, not striking enough, too likely to be shrugged off or forgotten.
God spoke to us all, all at once, amid smoke and fire and the deafening blare of ram's horns, from a mountaintop around which we had all gathered to listen. And we all heard Him, each in his own tongue, all at once, and His voice was far beyond thunder. We fell on our faces and begged Him to stop before we died from hearing Him speak to us directly, and pleaded with Him to speak to us only through Moses.
(Some may object to my use of the word "we," since I obviously wasn't there--and especially since I am a convert and was not born Jewish. Suffice it to say that the Torah itself states that we were ALL, in some sense, there. The truth of that symbolic statement might become clear in what follows.)
Let's stop and clarify a few points. First, it is not important, and never was, whether or not this tale is literally true in an objective, historical sense. Most liberal Jews today don't believe that it is, but we tell the story anyway; as an aid to memory and a way to fix the principle in one's mind, it's a pretty hard story to beat. Whether God gave us His Laws by burning letters into slabs of red granite right in front of Charlton Heston's face, or through the collective, cumulative wisdom of the best and wisest of our people--who began the process by cribbing from the laws of Hammurabi and then slowly refined and humanized them over a span of centuries--does not matter. The Laws, and the principles behind them, stand on their own.
From the very beginning, the laws and practices of Judaism have been judged, altered, adapted and modified by human beings, explicitly independently of any Supreme Being. God's opinion no longer matters, and--according to Jewish tradition--has not mattered since Sinai.
Do you doubt this? Can you believe that our religion does NOT invoke the authority of the Almighty when discussing any question of ethics, "doctrine", ritual, or anything else, but that all such matters are ONLY decided by the logical arguments of humans, acknowledged by the whole community to be good and wise?
It is true beyond question.
One of the most famous stories in the literature is that of an argument among the sages of old. The subject does not matter; it concerned a dispute over the dietary laws, and a minor dispute at that.
As the story goes, the council had agreed on a conclusion--but one man, a particularly wise and pious sage, Rabbi Eliezer, disagreed. He attempted to change the council's decision by producing various miracles; "If I am right, let that tree move from its place to another a hundred cubits away"--and so it did.
(For those not paying attention, this is a teaching story, a parable. Its historicity is not asserted and is a trivial point. Observe the principle taught.)
Even after several such displays, each more astonishing than the last, the council refused to budge. Finally, Rabbi Eliezer called upon God Himself to confirm his judgment--and God did just that. A Voice from the sky proclaimed the rabbi's decision to be the correct one.
The leader of the council then stood and REBUKED GOD, with the remarkable words, "The Torah is not in Heaven!" - and the decision of the council stood.
The principle is simple and important: Now that God has entrusted His laws and principles to humans, by whatever means, it is now OUR responsibility to understand and interpret them; we may depend on miraculous displays and supernatural events no longer. We are to grow up and figure out for ourselves what is just and right, and the Torah itself is subject to human judgment.
And what, according to the story, was God's reaction to this?
He is said to have laughed. "My children have defeated Me!" God was pleased at the development of humans standing on their own, needing His guidance no longer. That is apparently what He intended.
This is not a matter of human arrogance; Jews believe that we were, and are, commanded to do this in the Torah itself. We are to work out the meaning of the Law in every generation, while never turning our backs on the tradition--the cumulative wisdom and judgment of the generations of the Wise who came before us.
Jews do not believe that God gave us a Book that would be an infallible guide to history, science, or even ethics, and that we can stop using our brains and just look up all the answers in its pages. We believe that He gave us brains to use, and to the very best of our ability.
(One of the corollaries of that belief is that Jews, by and large, do not resist science but revere it. To one who believes in a real God, all facts are God's facts and we need not fear them. That is why Jews regard ALL learning as sacred, and also why Jews are so heavily overrepresented in the sciences--and why Jews generally have no problem with evolution.)
Now that the process that has formed, and is still forming, the body of Jewish teaching and practice is clear (I hope), the rest is anticlimactic. For Jews, ethics are above doctrine or theology; the enormous mass of discussions and arguments in the Talmud and later works have to do with proper and righteous actions, and very rarely indeed with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (There is much of that sort of thing in the folk literature, and it's regarded as fun and interesting, but ultimately trivial.)
The core of the Torah, and of Judaism generally, is the laws--moral laws--that we believe God gave us. Initially, of course, there were ten; though there are conceded to be many others in the Books, most of the other 603 laws for Jews (613 is a traditional and symbolic number; no one has ever produced a definitive list) are derived from the Ten Words, as Jews call them.
And those Words are really nothing very special. They basically boil down to two principles: "I am God, the real deal; accept no substitutes and don't be suckered by phonies," and, as outlined at the beginning here, "If you don't like it, don't lay it on anybody else." (Corollary to that would be, "Hey, don't forget to treat YOURSELF right, too; take a day off once a week. I did.") Everything else in Judaism--everything--is derived from those two rather reasonable ideas.
So why didn't God just give us two Commandments instead of ten? Moses would only have had to carry one little rock instead of two big ones. My guess is that God was very aware of the capacity of humans for hypocrisy and rationalization. "Hey, I don't care if you mess with MY wife..." "Well, he doesn't really need it, and I do, so I'm gonna take it..." And so on. We need specifics.
The sages of old had even less faith in human nature than God did; they tried to spell out every conceivable detail of what is right and not right in every field of human endeavor--for Jews, anyway. 613 Commandments, and one heckuva lot of customs beyond those.
Gentiles have it easier. In Jewish tradition, they are subject to only seven laws, and some of them aren't in the Ten. As far as figuring out what other laws ought to be derived from those, you guys are on your own, just like we are (and we profess to know nothing about what happens if they aren't followed, either. Not our business).
If your objection to religion is the bare belief in a God, well, that can't be helped. But if you're hostile toward the supernatural in general, you won't get much disagreement from us. So are we.
You won't catch a rabbi telling anyone to throw away his insulin, cancel his surgery, and jump out of his wheelchair and dance. Oh, we pray for healing, to be sure; but we expect to receive it--if we do--at the hands of a physician and not through a parting of the clouds. So God has nothing to do with it? Well, no; He made that doctor's brain and hands, and those of the other doctors who taught him his trade.
In my opinion, Judaism is not really comparable with any other religion. It is sui generis, unique. Does that mean it is the One True Faith? Do we Jews hold The Truth, and those who hold all other faiths, or none, are ignorant, benighted and doomed?
Some Jews might feel that way, but the voice of the tradition, which is in this matter authoritative, is clear. Again, we know only how God chose to speak to US. How He may choose to deal with others is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to either endorse or reject any other faith, or to judge those with none.
Some will no doubt notice that I have not mentioned the issue of "salvation" at all. That is because for Jews, it is not an issue. The focus of our religion is this life, not the next. God is the true Judge, and both His justice and His mercy are perfect; we are content to trust Him with whatever may happen after death, if anything does. We don't claim to know.
This may be because when we were delivered from slavery in Egypt, we left a culture that was obsessed with death and the afterlife. We do not regard such an obsession to be the proper focus of a people who profess to serve God and their fellow humans. This world is where we have been placed to serve, not the next.
Questions and comments are welcome, though I will not feel compelled to answer them all--and particularly those that wish to convince me that my beliefs are false, foolish, against Scripture, or condemn me to Hell. Feel free to hold those opinions, but I see no need to try to prove anything to anyone. My intention here, as I stated at the beginning, is to inform only; no more, no less.
Thanks for reading.
What Judaism IS
Moderator: Moderators
-
cnorman18
What Judaism IS
Post #31Agreed again, on all points. Formal, structured "dialogue" isn't often helpful, but the personal relationships and communication that come from casual contact can be, even when it occurs in the context of such formal events.
Perhaps the Jewish community in Dallas is different, but from what I have seen of the relationships between Reform, Conservative and Orthodox (and even Reconstructionist) congregations and individuals is generally mutual support and respect. Some of the more extreme Orthodox avoid relationships (and sometimes contact) with anyone outside the community at all, but that's obviously not normative. There are exceptions there as well.
I have heard this saying many times, whenever a squabble among the branches insinuates itself into the conversation: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter." Then the matter is dropped with mutual affirmation and respect. Whatever differences there are among the branches, there is a general sense that we are all Jews and thus responsible for each other, whatever our differences, and that community is more important than either practice or doctrine - or, for that matter, how much one knows about the teachings and the tradition.
You might have to be Jewish to "get" this one: How can you tell the difference between an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Jewish wedding?
At an Orthodox wedding, the bride's mother is pregnant.
At a Conservative wedding, the bride is pregnant.
At a Reform wedding, the rabbi is pregnant.
Perhaps the Jewish community in Dallas is different, but from what I have seen of the relationships between Reform, Conservative and Orthodox (and even Reconstructionist) congregations and individuals is generally mutual support and respect. Some of the more extreme Orthodox avoid relationships (and sometimes contact) with anyone outside the community at all, but that's obviously not normative. There are exceptions there as well.
I have heard this saying many times, whenever a squabble among the branches insinuates itself into the conversation: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter." Then the matter is dropped with mutual affirmation and respect. Whatever differences there are among the branches, there is a general sense that we are all Jews and thus responsible for each other, whatever our differences, and that community is more important than either practice or doctrine - or, for that matter, how much one knows about the teachings and the tradition.
You might have to be Jewish to "get" this one: How can you tell the difference between an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Jewish wedding?
At an Orthodox wedding, the bride's mother is pregnant.
At a Conservative wedding, the bride is pregnant.
At a Reform wedding, the rabbi is pregnant.
Post #32
Yup. lol
In our area there's a strange thing where a lot of congregations are on the edge of the next movement, and then all it takes is a small shift in demographics that pushes them over the line. So, there's been an Orthodox that was really Orthodox lite...finally go Conservative. My rabbi tells that a certain Orthodox rabbi will not address him as Rabbi, but as Mr., but he's very nice about it. lol.
In our area there's a strange thing where a lot of congregations are on the edge of the next movement, and then all it takes is a small shift in demographics that pushes them over the line. So, there's been an Orthodox that was really Orthodox lite...finally go Conservative. My rabbi tells that a certain Orthodox rabbi will not address him as Rabbi, but as Mr., but he's very nice about it. lol.
Post #33
I found the following article which I think is very provoking and relevant to the topic:
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=775
What strikes me about the author is the theological pain he is willing to bear in order to both wrestle with the blurred lines between Judaism and Christianity per Redemption, and the Christian need to hang onto to Jesus fulfilling the role of a titled singular Christ.
So. I will point to an elephant in the room. In all these discussion of "What Judaism Is" or "What Christianity Is" is a glaring glossing over of Rosenzweig's one covenant position.
Was Rosenzwieg's position heresy to all concerned?
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=775
What strikes me about the author is the theological pain he is willing to bear in order to both wrestle with the blurred lines between Judaism and Christianity per Redemption, and the Christian need to hang onto to Jesus fulfilling the role of a titled singular Christ.
So. I will point to an elephant in the room. In all these discussion of "What Judaism Is" or "What Christianity Is" is a glaring glossing over of Rosenzweig's one covenant position.
Was Rosenzwieg's position heresy to all concerned?
-
cnorman18
What Judaism IS
Post #34The article was fascinating, and ought to be required reading for Christians. For Jews, optional.Jonah wrote:
I found the following article which I think is very provoking and relevant to the topic:
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=775
What strikes me about the author is the theological pain he is willing to bear in order to both wrestle with the blurred lines between Judaism and Christianity per Redemption, and the Christian need to hang onto to Jesus fulfilling the role of a titled singular Christ.
So. I will point to an elephant in the room. In all these discussion of "What Judaism Is" or "What Christianity Is" is a glaring glossing over of Rosenzweig's one covenant position.
Was Rosenzwieg's position heresy to all concerned?
I agree that these issues are vital to determining the nature of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism; but all the decisions and choices to be made here are for Christians to make. I see nothing here about any adjustments in thinking that Jews are or should be responsible for.
Of course, I'm interested in these developments within the Christian community; of course, all Jews ought to be. They concern us, in that they can or do signal a sea change in the attitude of Christians toward Jews, and we all know the kind of consequences attitudes can lead to. If supersessionist theology were abandoned by Christianity entire, it would be the beginning of a new and better age. We ought to engage in dialogue - when asked to do so - and be frank about our opinions on these matters.
But, even then, we are in dialogue with those struggling with change; we are not changing ourselves.
The fact is that Judaism defines itself without reference to Christianity. It isn't necessary. Christianity, on the other hand, must of necessity define itself in relation to Judaism, since it professes to revere the Hebrew Bible and since Jesus himself was Jewish.
Christology is of central importance for Christians, and properly so; and Jews ought to be aware of that issue. It affects us. But by rights, we have, and should have, nothing to say about it. "Christology" for Jews might well consist entirely of the statement, "Jesus was a nice fella." Anything that is alleged to be more than human in his nature is ipso facto a Christian matter and not a Jewish one.
That said, the article was fascinating. It dovetails remarkably with a book I read in the mid-70s, when I was a seminary student at Perkins (It might be of interest that I was a student of Schubert Ogden there). The book was entitled The Crucifixion of the Jews, by Franklin Littell. I paraphrase a memorable line: "Any Christian who can look at the Holocaust and the subsequent foundation of Israel, and does not think of crucifixion and resurrection, is not paying attention." One major theme of the book is the idea that God is not finished with the Jews.
It also seems to me that the Messianic, redemptive, and eschatological issues connected with Jesus are far from the only things that divide us. Judaism has different ends, different priorities, and different emphases within those priorities. The grammar of the relationship between God and man is wholly different in Judaism than in Christianity. The former is without the concepts of original sin, eternal damnation, a personal "salvation" that is dependent on one's thoughts (aka "beliefs"), personal devotion to a particular human being, central rituals that are essentially magic, and so on. I really don't see any need for all those issues to be reconciled - from a Jewish point of view, anyway. It might be important for Christians to decide what they think of the absence of those teachings, but I don't see how Jews can either do anything about that, or, indeed, do anything much at all but watch as the Christians decide. Whether or not we ought to be concerned overmuch about the result of that decision is another question; I don't much worry about it, myself. I don't intend to alter my belief or practice, in any case.
It comes down to this, for me: I'm a Jew, not a Christian. What Christians believe - well, I respect their beliefs, I call them neither false nor true, and I am interested in what they are, but I have no interest whatever in changing those beliefs or in influencing that change. That is Christians' business, not mine. I truly do think, as you mentioned was possible earlier, that this "benign disinterest" is a matter of respect, not apathy.
Christians are struggling with new paradigms of their faith and its relationship to Judaism and their own relationship with the Jewish people? Peace to them, I wish them well, and I will contribute any insight I can if and when I am asked to; but those decisions are not for me to make. This is not my struggle.
A final note, re Rosenzweig; I don't see how a Jew needs to be concerned with more than one covenant in the first place. On the alleged second or new covenant, I simply have nothing to say other than "It is not mine." Others may believe what they wish with no objection from me, but I feel no need to either agree that their beliefs are valid or pronounce them false. I reject the necessity for Jews to pronounce a particular position on Christ other than the one we have pronounced for 2,000 years - that he was not the Messiah, and that is the end of the matter.
I personally would like to see some acknowledgment of the crimes and atrocities committed, condoned and ignored over the centuries in the name of supersessionist theology. Those have been pro forma recognized and "apologized for," but I am of the same opinion as Littell; those crimes, that history, warrant a special liturgical recognition and public collective penance on the part of the Christian church. A day of mourning, a special service, some concrete reminder of not only the Holocaust, but of the long centuries of hatred and oppression that preceded it. Jews have the day of Yom HaShoah; The Christian calendar and prayerbook have nothing. That's prima facie evidence that this wound has not yet really begun to heal - and I speak of the wound to the Church, not to Jews.
I will get worried about the Christian struggle to define their relationship to Judaism when they get past the basics of that relationship and acknowledge that the mass murder and expulsion of Jews throughout Europe for centuries was not the result of a few misguided or overzealous or mistaken individuals, but the direct result of the formal teachings of the Christian church.
As my mother told me rather often, "I'm sorry" isn't enough.
Post #35
cnorman,
Within the lines of the author's parameters of what Judaism and Christianity are, I do not disagree with you.
But, the lines AROUND Judaism and Christianity, as commonly drawn, don't hold...and that is the insight and source of existentialist pushing of the envelope for a Rosenzweig or a Kierkegaard.
What I was pointing out is that for all the lengths the author was prepared to go, what was more important was where he felt he couldn't go.
Indeed. For Rosenzweig, there is one covenant. Only one. It contains both Judaism and Christianity.
Now. I think there is a thing many Jews haven't picked up on in Christian existentialism. I think the easiest place to pick it up is in Kierkegaard's attack on "Christendom"...to be distinguished from authentic Christianity. In short, what you are referring to when you say Jews have no obligation/concern is Kierkegaard's "Christendom".
I will avail myself of my Appalachian roots and put the matter in Gitt-r-done matter of fact talk. What the "Christian" existentialists are saying is that authentic Christianity doesn't even exist yet...as a formal religion. There has been a 2000 year old argument between Judaism and Christendom, and historical facts have decided the matter. The Jews have won the argument, and now we are in the "What then?"
The "What then?" is the cleared deck reality that christology (messiahology) is a Jewish thing. It has nothing to do with designated god-men set up to take OUR responsibilities from us.
The historical Jesus pursuit is not about Jesus, but about the Jewish role in redemption of the world that Jesus was focused on. The dissection of the New Testament is about the separation of the Hellenistic hokum from what got covered over and blocked out of Jesus' ministry.
What a Kierkegaard does through existential attack and what a Jesus Seminar scholar does through scientific dissection of text is to deliver the the Wizard of Oz's Coroner's report on Christendom: "I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead."
Meanwhile, real authentic life goes on. Let's say a nurse working in a hospital is confronted with a patient need she can attend to but it would go against policy designed solely to protect the hospital's bottom line. Whether she has received the christology of Hillel or Jesus, doesn't matter. It's the same christology. There is only one covenant. In this moment (and every moment), she is the messiah.
The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one.
And there is only one world.
I think, now, the Jewish self-critical task will be to disengage from an argument already won (despite the ignorance of many within Christendom of that fact), so that the messianic business of tikkun olam is job1 in partnership with the diffused rays of authentic Christianity in the world which are not confined by the tattered lines of a wrecked Christendom.
Or. Is Rosenzwieg's "Star of Redemption" too much for mainstream Jews to bear....currently?
Within the lines of the author's parameters of what Judaism and Christianity are, I do not disagree with you.
But, the lines AROUND Judaism and Christianity, as commonly drawn, don't hold...and that is the insight and source of existentialist pushing of the envelope for a Rosenzweig or a Kierkegaard.
What I was pointing out is that for all the lengths the author was prepared to go, what was more important was where he felt he couldn't go.
Indeed. For Rosenzweig, there is one covenant. Only one. It contains both Judaism and Christianity.
Now. I think there is a thing many Jews haven't picked up on in Christian existentialism. I think the easiest place to pick it up is in Kierkegaard's attack on "Christendom"...to be distinguished from authentic Christianity. In short, what you are referring to when you say Jews have no obligation/concern is Kierkegaard's "Christendom".
I will avail myself of my Appalachian roots and put the matter in Gitt-r-done matter of fact talk. What the "Christian" existentialists are saying is that authentic Christianity doesn't even exist yet...as a formal religion. There has been a 2000 year old argument between Judaism and Christendom, and historical facts have decided the matter. The Jews have won the argument, and now we are in the "What then?"
The "What then?" is the cleared deck reality that christology (messiahology) is a Jewish thing. It has nothing to do with designated god-men set up to take OUR responsibilities from us.
The historical Jesus pursuit is not about Jesus, but about the Jewish role in redemption of the world that Jesus was focused on. The dissection of the New Testament is about the separation of the Hellenistic hokum from what got covered over and blocked out of Jesus' ministry.
What a Kierkegaard does through existential attack and what a Jesus Seminar scholar does through scientific dissection of text is to deliver the the Wizard of Oz's Coroner's report on Christendom: "I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead."
Meanwhile, real authentic life goes on. Let's say a nurse working in a hospital is confronted with a patient need she can attend to but it would go against policy designed solely to protect the hospital's bottom line. Whether she has received the christology of Hillel or Jesus, doesn't matter. It's the same christology. There is only one covenant. In this moment (and every moment), she is the messiah.
The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one.
And there is only one world.
I think, now, the Jewish self-critical task will be to disengage from an argument already won (despite the ignorance of many within Christendom of that fact), so that the messianic business of tikkun olam is job1 in partnership with the diffused rays of authentic Christianity in the world which are not confined by the tattered lines of a wrecked Christendom.
Or. Is Rosenzwieg's "Star of Redemption" too much for mainstream Jews to bear....currently?
-
cnorman18
What Judaism IS
Post #36I don't know why it would be incumbent upon any Jew to hold an opinion on whether there is more than one covenant, or whether or not the Jewish covenant includes Christianity. My point is that our concern is and ought to be about our own, and any other covenant is the business of those who believe it exists. Our interest in the matter remains academic.Jonah wrote:cnorman,
Within the lines of the author's parameters of what Judaism and Christianity are, I do not disagree with you.
But, the lines AROUND Judaism and Christianity, as commonly drawn, don't hold...and that is the insight and source of existentialist pushing of the envelope for a Rosenzweig or a Kierkegaard.
What I was pointing out is that for all the lengths the author was prepared to go, what was more important was where he felt he couldn't go.
Indeed. For Rosenzweig, there is one covenant. Only one. It contains both Judaism and Christianity.
I have no opinion on the truth or falsehood of Christianity and the relationship between Christians and God. It's just none of my business.
I don't think it's possible to simply disengage from an argument "already won" when the overwhelming majority of Christians would take strong exception to that statement. The academics and professors can argue all they want; as far as I can see, the main issue between Christians and Jews is still antisemitism, both the active, vicious antisemitism that still exists and impacts Jews daily, and the institutional antisemitism of the past which the Church has yet to deal with or fully and credibly renounce.
Now. I think there is a thing many Jews haven't picked up on in Christian existentialism. I think the easiest place to pick it up is in Kierkegaard's attack on "Christendom"...to be distinguished from authentic Christianity. In short, what you are referring to when you say Jews have no obligation/concern is Kierkegaard's "Christendom".
I will avail myself of my Appalachian roots and put the matter in Gitt-r-done matter of fact talk. What the "Christian" existentialists are saying is that authentic Christianity doesn't even exist yet...as a formal religion. There has been a 2000 year old argument between Judaism and Christendom, and historical facts have decided the matter. The Jews have won the argument, and now we are in the "What then?"
The "What then?" is the cleared deck reality that christology (messiahology) is a Jewish thing. It has nothing to do with designated god-men set up to take OUR responsibilities from us.
The historical Jesus pursuit is not about Jesus, but about the Jewish role in redemption of the world that Jesus was focused on. The dissection of the New Testament is about the separation of the Hellenistic hokum from what got covered over and blocked out of Jesus' ministry.
What a Kierkegaard does through existential attack and what a Jesus Seminar scholar does through scientific dissection of text is to deliver the the Wizard of Oz's Coroner's report on Christendom: "I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead."
Meanwhile, real authentic life goes on. Let's say a nurse working in a hospital is confronted with a patient need she can attend to but it would go against policy designed solely to protect the hospital's bottom line. Whether she has received the christology of Hillel or Jesus, doesn't matter. It's the same christology. There is only one covenant. In this moment (and every moment), she is the messiah.
The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one.
And there is only one world.
I think, now, the Jewish self-critical task will be to disengage from an argument already won (despite the ignorance of many within Christendom of that fact), so that the messianic business of tikkun olam is job1 in partnership with the diffused rays of authentic Christianity in the world which are not confined by the tattered lines of a wrecked Christendom.
Or. Is Rosenzwieg's "Star of Redemption" too much for mainstream Jews to bear....currently?
Further: Publicly "disengaging," on the ground that Christianity has been proven empty and meaningless in the form in which most Christians believe it, is more likely to spark more antisemitic reactions in response to such stunning arrogance than to spark more interfaith dialogue. If you want to dialogue with Christians, it might not be wise to start with "Well, now that we're all agreed that your religion is false, let's talk about what you can learn from Judaism."
I don't think it's for Jews to say whether Christianity (or Christendom, for the matter of that) is as bankrupt and dead as you say; that's part of having no opinion. All this is for Christians to figure out. As I said, I'll be happy to give my opinion when and if asked by a Christian, but absent such a request, I'll be sitting this one out.
Sorry, but this really isn't my problem to solve. I have no more concern with the self-understanding of Christians than I do with the self-understanding of Hindus. I am interested, of course, insofar as it affects me, my people, and the world I live in; but it isn't my self-understanding that needs to be adjusted, if anyone's does. There isn't anything I need to DO here.
Post #37
cnorman,
I was more interested in Rosenzwieg's vision, rather than Christen self-understanding (which I think a total mess). So, I am guessing that you would find Rosenzweig's position (and Kushner, Levine, Buber, Beck, et al) to be academic and not mainstream. Of course there is variation between the living academics, but I was focusing narrowly on Rosenzwieg's Star of Redemption position.
Returning to a previous point, I don;t think the lines around either group are holding. Focusing on Jewish community, I observe very porous lines. I don't think my own rabbi gives a rip about the "religion" any more. Such is the case with clergy of all religions today. My rabbi is a Buber/Kushner guy. When push comes to shove, and the religion is in the way, the religion gets nudged over. His daughter and ours had the same issue with Friday nights. Both kids were in marching band in school, and football rules. So, I asked him how he is handling that, and he says, "Eh, it's Shabbat somewhere on Saturday night." lol.
Um. There's a whole bunch of Jews not in shul. They're doing their own things and making up their own Judaism. Commentary on that reality goes on forever. The convert who converts to something specific, if only a concrete interpretation of Judaism in a specific shul, is in a way more specific situation and mindset and vision of Judaism than those who are doing their own thing. Personally, I found it very frustrating on our trip to Israel when we went to the tomb of Maimonides. We the converts took it seriously, and the born Jews on the trip made fun of the site.
So. Questions abound in Jewish community as to why so many Jews are making up their own Judaisms...the most common, the High Holiday only Jews, or Passover only, or Chanukah only...
...but more profound, is the Jewish spirituality movements...Jewish Renewal...Chabad....Breslov. We have a Breslov joint in our area and my rabbi bad mouths it...umm marketshare. I've gone in several times and talked to the rabbi, who I find to be quite an engaging guy interested in going all kinds of directions spiritually. So, I suppose all this is called touchy-feely Judaism....but, if it becomes a product that more decide they want....you've got line alterations there. I suspect, especially in western countries, this is an overall attitude of a lot people in various religions...and if common folks just keep making up their own rules....what is to stop them?
In the continuing mix, there will always be somebody to say to another: You are not a real _____, because you have mixed this with that. And they'll say: Whatever, and go on.
In the 20th century this began. In the 20th century leading thinkers, just not academics, engaged mainstream society and established a dialog. We had a Heschel, et al. The Church had a Kung. There is nothing like that now. There are no leading thinking religionists that the public knows of. Who could be named? What we have are a few religio-political grandstanders, but no substantive religious leaders engaging society in needful questions. That must be true within Jewish community as well as within other religious communities.
The numbers continue to bleed out. You have stated previously that Jews do not proselytize. Well, that's not true of Reform. The URJ has a cookie cutter "outreach" program that my wife and I were taken through point by point. After our conversion, I found the program on the URJ's website and it was a verbatim schedule of exactly what we were taken through. What a rabbi does is fill out an application for a grant for the resources to run the program. The congregation isn't involved. It was exactly verbatim right down to the newspaper ad that we responded to. My wife and I responded to a newspaper ad placed in a free alternative newspaper I took out of a container on the street. We literally were brought in off the street. I replied to the ad, and the next day the rabbi called me up, and the dance was on. So. All this is a full out attempt to address the numbers bleed. But, it doesn't touch the deeper subject of why the hemorrhage is there.
One could look at it negatively, or realistically...and therein, possibly positively. If it is not so much that Jewish identity is being totally lost, but rather is changing....what then?
I was more interested in Rosenzwieg's vision, rather than Christen self-understanding (which I think a total mess). So, I am guessing that you would find Rosenzweig's position (and Kushner, Levine, Buber, Beck, et al) to be academic and not mainstream. Of course there is variation between the living academics, but I was focusing narrowly on Rosenzwieg's Star of Redemption position.
Returning to a previous point, I don;t think the lines around either group are holding. Focusing on Jewish community, I observe very porous lines. I don't think my own rabbi gives a rip about the "religion" any more. Such is the case with clergy of all religions today. My rabbi is a Buber/Kushner guy. When push comes to shove, and the religion is in the way, the religion gets nudged over. His daughter and ours had the same issue with Friday nights. Both kids were in marching band in school, and football rules. So, I asked him how he is handling that, and he says, "Eh, it's Shabbat somewhere on Saturday night." lol.
Um. There's a whole bunch of Jews not in shul. They're doing their own things and making up their own Judaism. Commentary on that reality goes on forever. The convert who converts to something specific, if only a concrete interpretation of Judaism in a specific shul, is in a way more specific situation and mindset and vision of Judaism than those who are doing their own thing. Personally, I found it very frustrating on our trip to Israel when we went to the tomb of Maimonides. We the converts took it seriously, and the born Jews on the trip made fun of the site.
So. Questions abound in Jewish community as to why so many Jews are making up their own Judaisms...the most common, the High Holiday only Jews, or Passover only, or Chanukah only...
...but more profound, is the Jewish spirituality movements...Jewish Renewal...Chabad....Breslov. We have a Breslov joint in our area and my rabbi bad mouths it...umm marketshare. I've gone in several times and talked to the rabbi, who I find to be quite an engaging guy interested in going all kinds of directions spiritually. So, I suppose all this is called touchy-feely Judaism....but, if it becomes a product that more decide they want....you've got line alterations there. I suspect, especially in western countries, this is an overall attitude of a lot people in various religions...and if common folks just keep making up their own rules....what is to stop them?
In the continuing mix, there will always be somebody to say to another: You are not a real _____, because you have mixed this with that. And they'll say: Whatever, and go on.
In the 20th century this began. In the 20th century leading thinkers, just not academics, engaged mainstream society and established a dialog. We had a Heschel, et al. The Church had a Kung. There is nothing like that now. There are no leading thinking religionists that the public knows of. Who could be named? What we have are a few religio-political grandstanders, but no substantive religious leaders engaging society in needful questions. That must be true within Jewish community as well as within other religious communities.
The numbers continue to bleed out. You have stated previously that Jews do not proselytize. Well, that's not true of Reform. The URJ has a cookie cutter "outreach" program that my wife and I were taken through point by point. After our conversion, I found the program on the URJ's website and it was a verbatim schedule of exactly what we were taken through. What a rabbi does is fill out an application for a grant for the resources to run the program. The congregation isn't involved. It was exactly verbatim right down to the newspaper ad that we responded to. My wife and I responded to a newspaper ad placed in a free alternative newspaper I took out of a container on the street. We literally were brought in off the street. I replied to the ad, and the next day the rabbi called me up, and the dance was on. So. All this is a full out attempt to address the numbers bleed. But, it doesn't touch the deeper subject of why the hemorrhage is there.
One could look at it negatively, or realistically...and therein, possibly positively. If it is not so much that Jewish identity is being totally lost, but rather is changing....what then?
-
cnorman18
What Judaism IS
Post #38In my own reading, it has become clear to me that the nature of Jewish identity has ALWAYS been changing, from one generation to the next. As I understand it, it's supposed to.Jonah wrote:cnorman,
I was more interested in Rosenzwieg's vision, rather than Christen self-understanding (which I think a total mess). So, I am guessing that you would find Rosenzweig's position (and Kushner, Levine, Buber, Beck, et al) to be academic and not mainstream. Of course there is variation between the living academics, but I was focusing narrowly on Rosenzwieg's Star of Redemption position.
Returning to a previous point, I don;t think the lines around either group are holding. Focusing on Jewish community, I observe very porous lines. I don't think my own rabbi gives a rip about the "religion" any more. Such is the case with clergy of all religions today. My rabbi is a Buber/Kushner guy. When push comes to shove, and the religion is in the way, the religion gets nudged over. His daughter and ours had the same issue with Friday nights. Both kids were in marching band in school, and football rules. So, I asked him how he is handling that, and he says, "Eh, it's Shabbat somewhere on Saturday night." lol.
Um. There's a whole bunch of Jews not in shul. They're doing their own things and making up their own Judaism. Commentary on that reality goes on forever. The convert who converts to something specific, if only a concrete interpretation of Judaism in a specific shul, is in a way more specific situation and mindset and vision of Judaism than those who are doing their own thing. Personally, I found it very frustrating on our trip to Israel when we went to the tomb of Maimonides. We the converts took it seriously, and the born Jews on the trip made fun of the site.
So. Questions abound in Jewish community as to why so many Jews are making up their own Judaisms...the most common, the High Holiday only Jews, or Passover only, or Chanukah only...
...but more profound, is the Jewish spirituality movements...Jewish Renewal...Chabad....Breslov. We have a Breslov joint in our area and my rabbi bad mouths it...umm marketshare. I've gone in several times and talked to the rabbi, who I find to be quite an engaging guy interested in going all kinds of directions spiritually. So, I suppose all this is called touchy-feely Judaism....but, if it becomes a product that more decide they want....you've got line alterations there. I suspect, especially in western countries, this is an overall attitude of a lot people in various religions...and if common folks just keep making up their own rules....what is to stop them?
In the continuing mix, there will always be somebody to say to another: You are not a real _____, because you have mixed this with that. And they'll say: Whatever, and go on.
In the 20th century this began. In the 20th century leading thinkers, just not academics, engaged mainstream society and established a dialog. We had a Heschel, et al. The Church had a Kung. There is nothing like that now. There are no leading thinking religionists that the public knows of. Who could be named? What we have are a few religio-political grandstanders, but no substantive religious leaders engaging society in needful questions. That must be true within Jewish community as well as within other religious communities.
The numbers continue to bleed out. You have stated previously that Jews do not proselytize. Well, that's not true of Reform. The URJ has a cookie cutter "outreach" program that my wife and I were taken through point by point. After our conversion, I found the program on the URJ's website and it was a verbatim schedule of exactly what we were taken through. What a rabbi does is fill out an application for a grant for the resources to run the program. The congregation isn't involved. It was exactly verbatim right down to the newspaper ad that we responded to. My wife and I responded to a newspaper ad placed in a free alternative newspaper I took out of a container on the street. We literally were brought in off the street. I replied to the ad, and the next day the rabbi called me up, and the dance was on. So. All this is a full out attempt to address the numbers bleed. But, it doesn't touch the deeper subject of why the hemorrhage is there.
One could look at it negatively, or realistically...and therein, possibly positively. If it is not so much that Jewish identity is being totally lost, but rather is changing....what then?
Too, the adjustments that we are making in our own time are probably insignificant compared to the adjustments that previous generations have had to make - the fall of the Temple and the Exile, being expelled from every nation in Europe at least once, various persecutions and massacres and oppressions that were going on routinely long before Hitler, or even Germany, existed. The Golden Age of the Jewish people is THIS time and THIS place; Jews have never been as free, as successful, as LEFT ALONE, as we are and have been in the United States in our own time. We only have the luxury of worrying about the matters you mention here because we don't have to worry about surviving.
The center of Jewish religious practice is not the shul, but the home; synagogue membership is not a measure of how "religious" a Jew is any more than whether or not he or she wears a Chai pendant. One of the great strengths of Judaism, and one of the major reasons it appealed and appeals to me, is the very fact that every Jew gets to decide what he or she believes. There is no "standard way" to be Jewish, no set doctrines or dogma, no required Biblical interpretation or belief or way to practice. You GET to make up your own rules. Peace to the Orthodox who think otherwise, but that's the way it is, and it's a very good thing.
Yeah, when push comes to shove and the "religion" gets in the way, the religion gets pushed aside. IT SHOULD BE. When "religion" gets in the way of "real life," something is wrong. The Jewish faith is not about meaningless observance for the sake of observance. It's about LIFE.
I really think all this is the concern of academics and intellectuals in the Jewish community, and few others. The concerns of Christians are the concerns of Christians, and most Jews probably aren't particularly worried about them - nor should they be. Considering how Christians have treated us historically for 2,000 years until the present generation, I think it's perfectly justifiable for Jews to say to them, "You guys are on your own."
Which brings us to another point. You have barely mentioned antisemitism as a factor in the relationship between Jews and Christians, nor responded to any of my remarks about it. And in my opinion, that remains the biggest issue, as it has been for centuries - and an issue that ordinary Jews DO think about, and that ordinary Christians DON'T. THAT strikes me as a live issue and a problem that needs to be addressed, maybe more now than at any time in our history, precisely because it is NOT an immediate issue of survival in our time. We can talk now. Why don't we? I see lots of dialogue attempted from the Jewish side on the subject. I see very, very little from the Christian side. From my point of view - and this was a theme in Littell's book, too - the Holocaust, and the Christian history of antisemitism, is the bleeding wound that is draining Christianity of vitality and relevance, and until the Christian church as an institution faces that history and deals with it in the manner it warrants, that will continue.
You want to deal with Jewish-Christian relations? THAT'S where you start, from where I sit. I don't particularly care to sit down at the table with the other party till the other party acknowledges the blood on his hands and has something significant to say about it.
In short, to Christians, my position is "Don't just tell me you're sorry. Show me. Then we'll talk."
Post #39
cnorman,
I anticipated your point and understandable challenge regarding the Church and anti-semitism. And you are right to wonder why I have not focused on this...yet. Threads seem to go in trajectories, for me, anyway about open questions. The original topic is What Is Judaism. Because I'm a real free will kind of person, I ask not only what something is, but also what can it be. The moral issues of the horrors experienced by our people are a closed issue in terms of any questioning of the validity of our articulation of the experience. What I know, too well, is how Jews can get jacked up against the wall with accusations of trying to use the Shoah as a primary source of identity. In a way it legitimately is, but in validating that, it's typical that ears get turned off to any explanation that there IS more. And I don't think of that articulation as being something directed toward Christians in specific, but the world at large. I do feel that, as my rabbi says, we are called to sanctify the world. Or as Kushner says of why he is a Jew...it is the best way for him to be as fully human as possible. Tillich had the concept of "God beyond God". And in the spirit of Kushner, I have in my mind, a humanity that is beyond another religion, be it Christianity or Islam or whatever. And certainly, in my own house, I must attend to that beyondness with my own Christian daughter.
As they say..."that said". Well, there's what my daughter can tell you about my public persona around here. In short, I became the town prick because of standing up to anti-semitism and standing against Christian imperialism.
This area is culturally and politically controlled by evangelical Christians. Small rural town and county. Most of the battles were at the school house. It started with my daughter's 4th grade teacher who was imposing her evangelical Christian beliefs in the classroom to the point of using educational materials published by evangelical Christian houses. I put a stop to it. I blew the whistle. And my daughter, who openly identified herself as being Jewish took big hits from the group of teachers who were doing this stuff. The school superintendent admitted the problem and told me that they had been confronting these teachers...but, he had only been in the job and district a year...and he was up against teachers who had 20-30 years, and he was feeling his way through the issue.
One day, a substitute teacher just openly asked my daughter's class if there were any Jews in the school. My daughter raised her hand. The dude then went on a string about how she might well fall victim to worse than the Holocaust in the "coming judgement". She cried, and got up and shouted at him "you're nuts!" and ran right home to tell me. I was immediately in the Superintendent's office, and the sub was immediately fired..."and great was the news of it."
Then. The choir. There was a multi-school concert including the Christian school. At a practice, the Christian school choir teacher bulldozed her way into warming up the inter-school choir with a Christian song. My daughter just quietly didn't sing the words and the teacher caught it...stopped the song...and tore my daughter a new one in front of every one about how disrespectful she was...and demanded to know why she was not singing...and my daughter quietly replied, "Because, I'm Jewish." This made the choir teacher bellow even more "THAT's NO EXCUSE!" It was at that point that our own choir teacher stepped in and told her to back off.
But, our own choir director wasn't that much better. He was also the choir director at a local church. And it was his insistence that the December school concert was to be held in his church..."because the acoustics are better." Bull. It was a full out and out church service under the biggest cross hanging from the ceiling you could ever want. The service began every year with a GERMAN hymn where the choir processes in with a weird marching step...and all I could think about was Leni Riefenstall's Hitler film "Triumph of the Will". The service always ended up with a forced corporate standing and singing of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus from the Messiah. I argued this thing til I was blue for all four years with teacher, principal, Superintendent, in the town newspaper and local chat board. No budge. I argued that all school concerts should be held in the school house...that they ought to follow established case law which the ADL guidelines go along with...it's okay to have some Christmas music...but you have to balance it with other cultural stuff and secular stuff...and you can't make it into a worship service.
I wore a kippa to all these events, and THAT really pissed them off. The local prosecuting attorney, whose son was a friend of my daughter's...both of them in the choir...gave me crap in public at one event about the kippa and I just shoved it back up his butt. And I was the town prick. Still am.
More seriously: On the Holocaust. As a former Lutheran, I have much to atone for just because of Lutheranism. I have been a pit bull on the Lutheran evasion of full accountability regarding the Holocaust...and the ever still present anti-semitism. It was a full out issue in the last parish I served...if "served" is the right word. I preached there.
I was the first non-German pastor the parish had in its 150 years. A buddy of mine had the pulpit before me, and even though he had a German surname (which could have been taken as Jewish), he got into trouble teaching some philo-Jewish themes. He and his wife were terrorized with threats. A swastika was nailed to the church door. The stress broke up their marriage. When I took the parish, the same crap started up. I was warned by an Irish-American neighbor not to ever preach on the Holocaust or Hitler. I asked why. He told me that during the War, not everybody in the parish was on the American side, and that reality was still present. I didn't follow his advice. When appropriate to themes at hand, I full out confronted anti-semitism from the pulpit...and racism. Over time, they noticed that I NEVER preached on a Pauline text. My wife and I (with baby daughter) got anonymous threats. Our basset hound was poisoned as was the basset hound of my predecessor buddy. I told the bishop if I wasn't enable to move, I would just leave. He basically told me: don't let the door hit you in the ass.
In my shul a couple years ago, we had a strange event. It was a Lutheran-Jewish dialogue. When I saw it advertised in the shul newsletter, I was immediately pissed that no one had invited my input. So, I just demanded to get in on it. So, that happened. I was a speaker. And in that event, I confronted the officials of my old seminary. I was the most aggressive voice there. I made them shake to the core of their soul. I dredged up a story....of when I was an 18 year old college freshman and I attended another Lutheran-Jewish dialogue as part of a college course. The dialogue took place at the seminary across the street from the college. I took copious notes which I still had...and quoted from in my speech. I told the story of a Lutheran presenter at that dialogue so many years ago. His name was Dr. Arne Sirala. He was a Finnish Lutheran pastor who following the war discovered to his angst Luther's anti-semitic writings which had not been disseminated before. Out of that, he built a full blown attack theology based on the Holocaust. He asserted that the Holocaust "broke theology". He literally bellowed in his speech "WE CANNOT LOCATE THE HOLOCAUST IN THEOLOGY! IT BREAKS ALL THE DISCIPLINES". His speech was an anguished and angry presentation for the fact that no one will hear. His wife sat in the front row, and yelled back at him loudly "THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOU ARNE! YOU BREAK ALL THEIR IDOLS!" Indeed. The room did not listen to him, but I did. Years later, I read an article written by Arne's brother who said Arne had become so dejected with Christianity, that he went into teaching psychotherapy. I confronted my old Lutheran teachers with the man they would not listen to. I argued that the seminary should put a Jew on faculty (my rabbi had been turned down several times in a bid to do an adjunct gig). I argued that they should confront the ELCA's alliance with pro-Hamas people in the Lutheran Church of Palestine and confront that group's propaganda campaign in the US against Israel. I used their own sacramental theology against them to condemn the Palestinian Communion Ware stunt that was being pulled...where the central locus of Christian worship was being used to support Hamas. I argued that they should publish ALL of Luther's anti-semitic writings. The worst tract is "Vom Shem Hamphoras"...the only translation that exists to date is from a Jewish theologian, Dr. Gerhard Falk, who has it in the appendix of one of his books. It is the worst tract. I argued that it all needed to be published in big letters for the laity. They shook and blinked like deers in headlights. The other Lutheran presenters stammered. I was a prick. My rabbi loved it. Of course, he couldn't have gotten away with it. He admitted that he was a little nervous about what I might pull, but in the end, he loved it.
One Yom Kippur, my wife and I are going home and we pass a Lutheran church in the shul's neighborhood. On the sign is the message: Only Yeshua HaMesshia Can Atone For Sins!" I said, What the F is this? Next day, I call up the pastor, and we get into a big sh-t mouth fight. Somewhere, I let him know that I used to be one his club, and he says "OHHHHHH, I'VE HEARD ABOUT YOU!". Then it got weird. He admitted he wasn't the author of the sign. Turns out he has a congregant who "has a special burden on his heart for the Jewish people."...and the dude is in charge of the sign (pastor problems lololol). THEN, he tells me that the dude is actually straddling his membership between the Lutheran church and the Messianic Jewish congregation in the neighborhood. I laughed. I said, "Well, you've got your hands full, now don't you?" He replied "Yeah...." So. We got into this discussion of the problem of the Messianic congregation because a lot of times those joints can be more Jewish than Christian in practice and that just don't fly well in the old stodgy Lutheran church. "Why, they don't even have a cross anywhere in the church." So. Actually, the pastor backed up and promised me that he would put an end to the sign crap. He was still open to evangelizing Jews in terms of just evangelizing generally, but he said he didn't want to be stupid about it...there's no sense in just making Jews feel offended. So, he thanked me, and wished him luck with his messianic dude, and that was the end of the sign stuff. So, I wasn't such a prick any more.
When we converted, family reaction was much stronger than I anticipated. We were cut out of a family function, and I confronted my wife's eldest brother. He got so anti-Jewish, I just cut off the relationship. My wife has begun speaking to him again but only on the topic of their mother's care as she has Alzheimer's.
In general, yes I agree with you. There is little to be achieved with the formal Church. The New Testament is anti-Jewish. Until that is dealt with, not much can be done formally. Perhaps I mentioned it before. I don't know. I did my internship in Seguin, Texas. (LOL. They NEVER had another intern after me. I was enough.). Anyway, at Texas Lutheran University, right there in Seguin, is Dr. Norman Beck, a Lutheran. He wrote: "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic In The New Testament". I was influenced by Dr. Beck. His book is a really well received book in the scholarly community...it is a scholarly book, not one for laity. I have seen Jewish academics allude to it every once in awhile. But Dr. Beck sure didn't get much recognition for it within Lutheranism. Fact of Life. But just imagine how radical that is...for a Lutheran clergyman and professor to propose with painstaking scholarly detail a rationale for surgically removing anti-Judaism from the New Testament...AND...Christian preaching and teaching. Just outright repudiate it...take it back. So, when I bend over to the Christian side...it is for people like Dr. Beck....and my daughter, who's a good kid.
Shabbat Shalom
I anticipated your point and understandable challenge regarding the Church and anti-semitism. And you are right to wonder why I have not focused on this...yet. Threads seem to go in trajectories, for me, anyway about open questions. The original topic is What Is Judaism. Because I'm a real free will kind of person, I ask not only what something is, but also what can it be. The moral issues of the horrors experienced by our people are a closed issue in terms of any questioning of the validity of our articulation of the experience. What I know, too well, is how Jews can get jacked up against the wall with accusations of trying to use the Shoah as a primary source of identity. In a way it legitimately is, but in validating that, it's typical that ears get turned off to any explanation that there IS more. And I don't think of that articulation as being something directed toward Christians in specific, but the world at large. I do feel that, as my rabbi says, we are called to sanctify the world. Or as Kushner says of why he is a Jew...it is the best way for him to be as fully human as possible. Tillich had the concept of "God beyond God". And in the spirit of Kushner, I have in my mind, a humanity that is beyond another religion, be it Christianity or Islam or whatever. And certainly, in my own house, I must attend to that beyondness with my own Christian daughter.
As they say..."that said". Well, there's what my daughter can tell you about my public persona around here. In short, I became the town prick because of standing up to anti-semitism and standing against Christian imperialism.
This area is culturally and politically controlled by evangelical Christians. Small rural town and county. Most of the battles were at the school house. It started with my daughter's 4th grade teacher who was imposing her evangelical Christian beliefs in the classroom to the point of using educational materials published by evangelical Christian houses. I put a stop to it. I blew the whistle. And my daughter, who openly identified herself as being Jewish took big hits from the group of teachers who were doing this stuff. The school superintendent admitted the problem and told me that they had been confronting these teachers...but, he had only been in the job and district a year...and he was up against teachers who had 20-30 years, and he was feeling his way through the issue.
One day, a substitute teacher just openly asked my daughter's class if there were any Jews in the school. My daughter raised her hand. The dude then went on a string about how she might well fall victim to worse than the Holocaust in the "coming judgement". She cried, and got up and shouted at him "you're nuts!" and ran right home to tell me. I was immediately in the Superintendent's office, and the sub was immediately fired..."and great was the news of it."
Then. The choir. There was a multi-school concert including the Christian school. At a practice, the Christian school choir teacher bulldozed her way into warming up the inter-school choir with a Christian song. My daughter just quietly didn't sing the words and the teacher caught it...stopped the song...and tore my daughter a new one in front of every one about how disrespectful she was...and demanded to know why she was not singing...and my daughter quietly replied, "Because, I'm Jewish." This made the choir teacher bellow even more "THAT's NO EXCUSE!" It was at that point that our own choir teacher stepped in and told her to back off.
But, our own choir director wasn't that much better. He was also the choir director at a local church. And it was his insistence that the December school concert was to be held in his church..."because the acoustics are better." Bull. It was a full out and out church service under the biggest cross hanging from the ceiling you could ever want. The service began every year with a GERMAN hymn where the choir processes in with a weird marching step...and all I could think about was Leni Riefenstall's Hitler film "Triumph of the Will". The service always ended up with a forced corporate standing and singing of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus from the Messiah. I argued this thing til I was blue for all four years with teacher, principal, Superintendent, in the town newspaper and local chat board. No budge. I argued that all school concerts should be held in the school house...that they ought to follow established case law which the ADL guidelines go along with...it's okay to have some Christmas music...but you have to balance it with other cultural stuff and secular stuff...and you can't make it into a worship service.
I wore a kippa to all these events, and THAT really pissed them off. The local prosecuting attorney, whose son was a friend of my daughter's...both of them in the choir...gave me crap in public at one event about the kippa and I just shoved it back up his butt. And I was the town prick. Still am.
More seriously: On the Holocaust. As a former Lutheran, I have much to atone for just because of Lutheranism. I have been a pit bull on the Lutheran evasion of full accountability regarding the Holocaust...and the ever still present anti-semitism. It was a full out issue in the last parish I served...if "served" is the right word. I preached there.
I was the first non-German pastor the parish had in its 150 years. A buddy of mine had the pulpit before me, and even though he had a German surname (which could have been taken as Jewish), he got into trouble teaching some philo-Jewish themes. He and his wife were terrorized with threats. A swastika was nailed to the church door. The stress broke up their marriage. When I took the parish, the same crap started up. I was warned by an Irish-American neighbor not to ever preach on the Holocaust or Hitler. I asked why. He told me that during the War, not everybody in the parish was on the American side, and that reality was still present. I didn't follow his advice. When appropriate to themes at hand, I full out confronted anti-semitism from the pulpit...and racism. Over time, they noticed that I NEVER preached on a Pauline text. My wife and I (with baby daughter) got anonymous threats. Our basset hound was poisoned as was the basset hound of my predecessor buddy. I told the bishop if I wasn't enable to move, I would just leave. He basically told me: don't let the door hit you in the ass.
In my shul a couple years ago, we had a strange event. It was a Lutheran-Jewish dialogue. When I saw it advertised in the shul newsletter, I was immediately pissed that no one had invited my input. So, I just demanded to get in on it. So, that happened. I was a speaker. And in that event, I confronted the officials of my old seminary. I was the most aggressive voice there. I made them shake to the core of their soul. I dredged up a story....of when I was an 18 year old college freshman and I attended another Lutheran-Jewish dialogue as part of a college course. The dialogue took place at the seminary across the street from the college. I took copious notes which I still had...and quoted from in my speech. I told the story of a Lutheran presenter at that dialogue so many years ago. His name was Dr. Arne Sirala. He was a Finnish Lutheran pastor who following the war discovered to his angst Luther's anti-semitic writings which had not been disseminated before. Out of that, he built a full blown attack theology based on the Holocaust. He asserted that the Holocaust "broke theology". He literally bellowed in his speech "WE CANNOT LOCATE THE HOLOCAUST IN THEOLOGY! IT BREAKS ALL THE DISCIPLINES". His speech was an anguished and angry presentation for the fact that no one will hear. His wife sat in the front row, and yelled back at him loudly "THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOU ARNE! YOU BREAK ALL THEIR IDOLS!" Indeed. The room did not listen to him, but I did. Years later, I read an article written by Arne's brother who said Arne had become so dejected with Christianity, that he went into teaching psychotherapy. I confronted my old Lutheran teachers with the man they would not listen to. I argued that the seminary should put a Jew on faculty (my rabbi had been turned down several times in a bid to do an adjunct gig). I argued that they should confront the ELCA's alliance with pro-Hamas people in the Lutheran Church of Palestine and confront that group's propaganda campaign in the US against Israel. I used their own sacramental theology against them to condemn the Palestinian Communion Ware stunt that was being pulled...where the central locus of Christian worship was being used to support Hamas. I argued that they should publish ALL of Luther's anti-semitic writings. The worst tract is "Vom Shem Hamphoras"...the only translation that exists to date is from a Jewish theologian, Dr. Gerhard Falk, who has it in the appendix of one of his books. It is the worst tract. I argued that it all needed to be published in big letters for the laity. They shook and blinked like deers in headlights. The other Lutheran presenters stammered. I was a prick. My rabbi loved it. Of course, he couldn't have gotten away with it. He admitted that he was a little nervous about what I might pull, but in the end, he loved it.
One Yom Kippur, my wife and I are going home and we pass a Lutheran church in the shul's neighborhood. On the sign is the message: Only Yeshua HaMesshia Can Atone For Sins!" I said, What the F is this? Next day, I call up the pastor, and we get into a big sh-t mouth fight. Somewhere, I let him know that I used to be one his club, and he says "OHHHHHH, I'VE HEARD ABOUT YOU!". Then it got weird. He admitted he wasn't the author of the sign. Turns out he has a congregant who "has a special burden on his heart for the Jewish people."...and the dude is in charge of the sign (pastor problems lololol). THEN, he tells me that the dude is actually straddling his membership between the Lutheran church and the Messianic Jewish congregation in the neighborhood. I laughed. I said, "Well, you've got your hands full, now don't you?" He replied "Yeah...." So. We got into this discussion of the problem of the Messianic congregation because a lot of times those joints can be more Jewish than Christian in practice and that just don't fly well in the old stodgy Lutheran church. "Why, they don't even have a cross anywhere in the church." So. Actually, the pastor backed up and promised me that he would put an end to the sign crap. He was still open to evangelizing Jews in terms of just evangelizing generally, but he said he didn't want to be stupid about it...there's no sense in just making Jews feel offended. So, he thanked me, and wished him luck with his messianic dude, and that was the end of the sign stuff. So, I wasn't such a prick any more.
When we converted, family reaction was much stronger than I anticipated. We were cut out of a family function, and I confronted my wife's eldest brother. He got so anti-Jewish, I just cut off the relationship. My wife has begun speaking to him again but only on the topic of their mother's care as she has Alzheimer's.
In general, yes I agree with you. There is little to be achieved with the formal Church. The New Testament is anti-Jewish. Until that is dealt with, not much can be done formally. Perhaps I mentioned it before. I don't know. I did my internship in Seguin, Texas. (LOL. They NEVER had another intern after me. I was enough.). Anyway, at Texas Lutheran University, right there in Seguin, is Dr. Norman Beck, a Lutheran. He wrote: "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic In The New Testament". I was influenced by Dr. Beck. His book is a really well received book in the scholarly community...it is a scholarly book, not one for laity. I have seen Jewish academics allude to it every once in awhile. But Dr. Beck sure didn't get much recognition for it within Lutheranism. Fact of Life. But just imagine how radical that is...for a Lutheran clergyman and professor to propose with painstaking scholarly detail a rationale for surgically removing anti-Judaism from the New Testament...AND...Christian preaching and teaching. Just outright repudiate it...take it back. So, when I bend over to the Christian side...it is for people like Dr. Beck....and my daughter, who's a good kid.
Shabbat Shalom
-
cnorman18
What Judaism IS
Post #40Probably time to take this to PM or email - I've got some personal tales to tell, too. Briefly, though, I'll say this; I applaud everything you did, and I salute you for your courage and chutzpah - you've got big brass ones, man. Mazel tov.
You're a Mensch. More soon by PM, but it'll take a while.
You're a Mensch. More soon by PM, but it'll take a while.
