gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (08/01/85)
"What do we call a Jew who loves his people, its literature and its
cultural heritage, and who yearns for its renewal; but who, at the
same time, is a free thinker in the broadest sense of the term?
While he believes in nature and the natural law, he rejects the idea
of a creator God, and a providential God who is Giver of the Torah..
... Is such a person a Jew or isn't he ?"
-from an open letter to Ahad Haam
The impetus for this posting was an essay by Laurence Silberstein in
the September 1984 JAAR(Journal of the American Academy of Religion)
and my discovery of net.religion.jewish. I am hoping that the latter
will be a willing conversation partner in a discussion concerning the
subject of the essay - Secular Judaism as an alternate paradigm for
Jewish identity in response to the process of secularization in the
post-Enlightenment (and post-modern) world. Specifically, the essay
addresses the writings of Ahad Haam(1856-1927) who, according to
Silberstein, constituted the most ambitious attempt to construct a
nontheological paradigm for Judaism.
I have also posted this to net.religion.christian as the Christian may
well ask the same question of identity. S/he, like the Jew, is not
untouched by secularization and the modern world and if the theological
affirmations of the jew are in question then so also are the
theological affirmations of the Christian. Given the fact that there
are over 250 Protestant denominations the Christian may well ask this
question of his Christian brethren - "Who do WE say we are?"
One further remark. This posting and Silbersteins article in JAAR
specifically address the problem of modernity and I am well aware that
"modernity" and the post-Enlightenment tradition of western European
(intellectual) history do NOT pose a problem for a great many people
who would identify themselves with either Christian or Judaic
traditions.
For Christians I may well ask by what right they identify themselves as
Christians without appropriating the Christian tradition that went
before them. In what sense are they in continuity with the historic
Christian tradition when they have no memory of the past and posess no
theological resources to interpret the present or project a future. If
one has indeed appropriated the historic Christian tradition then
coextensive with this they have already appropriated much of Western
intellectual history. For Christians within the tradition (as opposed
to those (Fundamentalist) Christians that are "just passing through"
the problem (crisis) posed by the modern situation is inescapable. One
might even say that Christianity in its intellectual form brought on
its own crisis and possible demise.
The jewish case is somewhat different given that they have almost
always lived in isolation in the Christian West and been subject to
their own inner dynamic. Further, judaism has historically been a
community of observances and not a community of theology/dogma so one
may rightfully ask why Western intellectual problems should concern
them. (Mystical theosophy of Kabbalah although highly intellectual is
still not the intellectual problems of the West.)
Admittedly, one might say that to the extent that modernity is a
problem for Judaism is in some degree a measure of how much western
ideology has been infused into it. But I will leave that speculation
rest.
So, for the purposes of this posting I will assume that modernity is a
problem for both Christian and Judaic traditions. This posting
discusses one type of response on the part of Judaism. Specifically, a
reinterpretation of Judaism in terms of secular categories when it is
found that traditional theological and religious legitimations are
becoming obsolete and inadequate.
-----------------------------------------------------
According to Peter Berger (The Sacred Canopy) secularization is "...
the process by which sectors of society and cultures are removed from
the domination of religious institutions and symbols" thus creating a
crisis for religious institutions in that they find it increasingly
difficult to legitimate their own continued existence and to "keep
going in a milieu that no longer takes for granted their definition of
reality."
On the Christian side, according to Silberstein, there were basically
two alternatives to these pressures exerted by the Enlightenment and
post-Enlightenment traditions. Either one seeks alternate theological
interpretations to find new religious legitimations for the continued
existence of Christianity(thus infusing Christianity with secular
ideologies) or alternately, one separates ones self from the Christian
community accepting the secular ideologies without benefit of
Christianity.
The jewish case offers a third alternative - reinterpret Judaism in
secular categories. Enter Ahad Haam(1856-1927) and secular judaism.
Rejecting the traditional religious paradigm of Judaism Ahad Haam
effected a thorough going revision of the fundamental teachings of
Judaism and a translation of all theological categories into
secular-national terms.
Instead of viewing Judaism as a divinely revealed pattern of life, Ahad
Haam considered it to be the creation of the jewish people.
The jews are not the passive recipients and bearer of Divine Wisdom.
Rather, the jewish people are creators of Judaism.
Whereas in the past Jews lived for the sake of Judaism, Ahad Haam
argued that Judaism was created by, and preserved for the sake of, the
Jews.
The true foundation of Judaism is not religious beliefs and practices
but rather such elements as land, language, literature and historical
consciousness.
Jewish uniqueness is not derived from a special covenant with God as
traditionally believed but rather from its distinct national spirit.
The will of God was not the moving force in jewish history. Rather,
history is to be interpreted in terms of lawful patterns that govern
the lives of all human groups. In this context, jewish history is
driven by the will to survive.
The mission of Israel is not divinely decreed but is a product of the
cultural genius, national distinctiveness and the will of the community.
According to Ahad Haam the Bible still plays a central role in Jewish
life - but not a divinely revealed Scripture but as a product of human
creativity. The sanctity of the Bible derives not from its divine
origin but rather from the fact that embodies the values and ideals of
the Jewish people. The act of studying the Bible is no longer viewed
as a religious obligation but rather understood as an expression of
national consciousness and an act of national identification.
It was the intent of Ahad Haam to formulate an interpretation of
Judaism that he believed to be compatible with both the modern world
and with the ongoing needs of the nation. And, for the first time in
Jewish history a group of Jews simultaneously rejected the religious
world view while struggling to retain their jewish identity.
In this new view of Judaism based on national consciousness and
commitment devoid of theological affirmations one could enjoy the full
intellectual freedom of the Enlightenment tradition.
"I can, at least, speak my mind concerning the beliefs and opinions
which I have inherited from my ancestors, without being afraid of
snapping the bond that unites me with my people. I can even adopt
that 'scientific heresy' that bears the name of Darwin, without
endangering my Judaism. In a word, I am my own person, and my
opinions and feelings belong to me. I have no reason to conceal
or deny them, or deceive others or myself."
The identity of the secular jew is self-validating and as natural
as being a member of one's family. It does not require the
legitimations and theological affirmations of traditional Judaism.
"I, at least, have no need to exalt my people to Heaven, to trumpet
its superiority above all other nations, in order to justify my
existence. I, at least, know 'why I remain a Jew.' -or rather, I
find no meaning in such a question anymore than I would in the
question why I remain my father's son".
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think Ahad Haam represents one of those exemplary figures who fight
at the borders between received religious traditions and contemporary
situations that are inhospitable to the former. There are choices -
reinterpret the religious tradition in secular categories(Ahad Haam),
reinterpret (deform) modernity faithful to religious categories
(orthodoxy), or remain oblivious to the entire problem (the "religious"
masses).
But is there really a problem ?
The question of "truth" and "right" can be dissolved. We all seek the
"supreme fiction" in which to emplot our lives. Religion is story and
the adequacy of story is not measured by its correspondence to a
reality external to us but rather, is measured by the ontological
reality within us.
On this paradigm all religious formulations are "true" and to say that
they are not is refuted by the mere fact that that people hold them and
interpret their lives by means of them. Religions are the supreme
fictions of Mens lives.
All religion is a search for identity(emplotment) so what does it
matter if my story is different than yours as long as we each solve the
ontological problem. "Truth" is not content but (ontological) adequacy
of story to human being and these requirements are as various as the
individuality of the beings that tell their autobiography by means of
religious traditions. There is no incompatability between world
religions nor between different formulations within the same religious
tradition simply because content is not the real issue. The real issue
is adequacy to human being and this is content independent. Religion
as religion survives only because of a mis-construal of what religion
is on the part of its participants. Beyond this, "religion" will
become the fully self-conscious construction of human beings by which
they project their life and a future in a "supreme fiction" that they
know to be a fiction, and this will be above criticism simply because
there will be no alternatives.
Garyhedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (08/04/85)
In article <929@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) writes: >I have also posted this to net.religion.christian as the Christian may >well ask the same question of identity. S/he, like the Jew, is not >untouched by secularization and the modern world and if the theological >affirmations of the jew are in question then so also are the >theological affirmations of the Christian. Given the fact that there >are over 250 Protestant denominations the Christian may well ask this >question of his Christian brethren - "Who do WE say we are?" I am ill-equipped to comment on the question you pose to Jews, so I will respond only from the point of view of a Christian. Most of us use the term "Christian" to refer to faith in God, and specifically to his self-revelation in Christ. From watching my Jewish friends, I understand the point you are trying to make. I do indeed often wonder what is meant by the term "Jew" as applied to someone who believes in few of ideals that I would have thought would characterize Judaism. But I don't think Christians have an exact analogy to that problem. That isn't to say that there are no issues in how Christianity is to deal with the modern world, of course. But we don't have that particular ambiguity. Generally when someone stops believing in God, he stops calling himself a Christian. We have, of course, "nominal Christians", who sort of believe but don't do a lot about it, and people who grew up as Christians and sort of still think of themselves that way even though they really aren't. But there doesn't seem to be any serious question about what the word actually means, nor of the role of the Church and the Bible. Modern Christians attempt to separate the Christian faith from their culture. Thus using the term Christian to refer to a culture would be for me a very serious error. It is true that at various times Christianity may have become confused with Medieval culture, or Western European culture, etc. However one of the major challenges in theology now is rethinking what Christianity should look like in the Third World. As you probably know, Christianity there is no longer dominated by Western missionaries. This is, of course, a fairly recent development (and not always voluntary on the missionaries' part). So non-Western Christians are just now starting to develop their own patterns. But they are certainly doing so now. Indeed there seems to be a good chance that Africa will become a Christian continent, and with a Christianity that is not dependent upon the West's. The thing that unites me to an African Christian is precisely our faith in Christ, and not any specific culture. Indeed he may well regard my culture as something that is inimical to him. You talk of "secularization". When used in Christian theology, this term tends to refer, not to replacement of Christian faith with a "Christian culture", but to a separation between Christianity and the surrounding society. Western society is no longer dominated by the Church, nor does it (at least overtly) takes its values from Christianity. This is the phenomenon that I believe the word "secularization" refers to. This does not necessarily indicate that Christian faith is retreating, nor losing its importance. Rather, it indicates that Christians are coming to accept (1) the separation of Church and State, and (2) the fact that Christ transcends any particular nation. The older mingling (not to mention confusion) of Church and society is now seen to have caused a number of ills, to both the Church and the society. Among them are large numbers of insincere members, injustice to members of other religions, and a compromising of Christian values by the needs of the nation. Thus the nation and its culture are being encouraged to develop secularly, i.e. without domination by the Church. Some people have suspicions that this is simply a justification after the fact. That is, society became secular because people stopped believing in the Christian faith, and we are coming up with ad hoc justifications for why Christians have wanted it to be that way. I am not a good enough historian to be sure how much truth there is to this. However I can point out that the ideal goes back at least to the Reformation. The Radical Left of the reformation (i.e. the Baptists and related groups) stood against automatic inclusion of every citizen in the Church, and against Christians participating in much of the political life of the State. They, and those in more recent times who follow them, wanted to maintain the Church's ability to stand over against their culture in a prophetic role. In general, I believe that the American churches trace their ideas of the relation between the Church and society more to the Left Wing than to the ideals of Lutheran Germany and Reformed Geneva. Our denominations are all "gathered churches", rather than established churches. In recent years, we have seen a growing number of Christians who value this prophetic role of the Church. I am not sure quite what the significance is of your mention of 250 denominations. This is simply an indication of the fact that we are no longer trying to construct a single organization that unites all of society. Rather, we are each trying to follow God as well as possible. From time to time Christians become embarrassed by this organizational chaos, and construct intricate plans for union. I have never been convinced that this is such a great idea. Indeed I think some of our larger churches are now large enough that they are becoming bureacratic. I would prefer not to seem them get larger. Organizational separation is a threat only if we see ourselves as an organization. When we think of ourselves as the People of God, then we seek our unity in him, and not in our organizational structure. Indeed I am inclined to think that the ideal of a single unified organization is rather like the Tower of Babel. We had it at one time. It did in fact lead people to take pride in their own organizational construction and in their own power. I consider the tragedy of the Reformation and the ensuing religious wars to have been a judgement on that pride, as definite as the destruction of the Tower. (There is, of course, one denomination that has not yet reconciled itself to the current situation, and that does not maintain communion with the rest of the Church. Thus for members of this denomination, the situation is not entirely as positive as I portray it.) Some of your comments suggest that the Christian tradition is somehow separable from Christ and his Church, and that its inheritors are elsewhere. I'm not quite sure what you could mean by that. In my view, anything that finds an ultimate source of value outside of God and his revelation in Christ, is idolatry and has no claim to the term Christian. Christianity has now survived enough changes in culture, both in ancient and modern times, that I think this judgement can be seen as historical as well as ideological. That is, I think we have transported Christianity to enough different cultures that it can be clear that its essense in not cultural.