Religion - Jewish Views on Religious Pluralism
Classical Jewish
views
Classical views on other religions in general
The Jewish belief that only their religion was wholly true did not
preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples.
Instead, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all
mankind, and that any person had the ability to have a relationship with
God, even if they were not a Jew. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
speaks of prophets outside the community of Israel.
Based on the Hebrew Bible's statements that gentiles can be prophets,
some rabbis theorized that "God permitted to every people something he
forbade to others...God sends a prophet to every people according to
their own language." This is the view of Nethanel ibn Fayyumi, a
Yemenite Jewish theologian (12th century). (Levine, 1907/1966)
Jews believe that God chose the Jewish people to be in a unique covenant
with God; the description of this covenant is the Torah itself. The Jews
were chosen for a specific mission; to be a light unto the nations, and
to have a covenant with God as described in the Torah.
Rabbinic literature contains many statements illustrating the belief
that God is God of all peoples, not just of the Jews. Moses calls God
"God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16). The Mishnah states
that "Humanity was produced from one man, Adam, to show God's greatness.
When a man mints a coin in a press, each coin is identical. But when the
King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, creates people in the form
of Adam not one is similar to any other." (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5)
The Talmud contains a list of seven commandments that Jews believe God
required of the children of Noah, i.e. all humanity. These are:
(1) to establish laws, (2) to refrain from idolatry, (3) to refrain from
blasphemy, (4) to refrain from sexual immorality, (5) to refrain from
bloodshed and murder), (6) to refrain from theft, and (7) to refrain
from the tearing of a limb from a living animal. Jewish law holds that
gentiles need follow only these laws to be considered moral. There is no
demand for others to convert to Judaism; these laws implicitly allow
non-Jews to have their own religions.
Many rabbis hold that the second law implicitly is a positive
commandment to believe in God; however some historians argue that this
is not the original meaning of the verse. The rabbis spent more time
defining and prohibiting idolatry than they did describing God and
demanding belief in a specific theology.
One sage in the Talmud states "Whoever denies idolatry is called a
Yehudi (Jew)." (Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, 13a). In the second century
a sage in the Tosefta declared "the righteous of all nations have a
share in the world to come." (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13)
Rabbi Norman Solomon holds that three concepts underlie the Hebrew
Bible:
* Universality - The book of Genesis stresses the unity of humanity.
King Solomon's dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem stresses that it is
to be a religious center for all mankind. The Psalms (especially Psalm
117) extol all the nations of the world to join in the worship of God,
without demanding that others convert to Judaism.
* Non-exclusiveness - Non-Israelite Biblical characters such as
Melchizedek, Jethro and Na'aman recognize the God of the Bible, without
being members of the Israelite faith or community.
* Demarcation - While God cares for all humanity, that does not mean
that God considers all forms of worship acceptable. The Tanakh (Hebrew
Bible) repeatedly states that the practice of idolatry is abhorrent to
God, whether practiced by Jew or gentile.
Classical views on Christianity
Some rabbis in the Talmud view Christianity as a form of idolatry
prohibited not only to Jews, but to gentiles as well. Rabbis with these
views did not claim that it was idolatry in the same sense as pagan
idolatry in Biblical times, but that it relied on idolatrous forms of
worship (i.e. to a Trinity of gods and to statues and saints) (see
Babylonian Talmud, Hullin, 13b). Other rabbis disagreed, and did not
hold it to be idolatry. The dispute continues to this day. (Jacob Katz,
Exclusiveness and Tolerance, Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, Ch.10)
Maimonides, held by Jews to be the most important theologian and
halakhist (legal expert) of his age, explained in detail why Jesus was
wrong to create Christianity and why Muhammad was wrong to create Islam;
he laments the pains Jews have suffered in persecution from followers of
these new faiths as they attempted to supplant Judaism. However,
Maimonides then goes on to say that both faiths help God redeem the
world.
Jesus was instrumental in changing the Torah and causing the world to
err and serve another beside God. But it is beyond the human mind to
fathom the designs of our Creator, for our ways are not God's ways,
neither are our thoughts His. All these matters relating to Jesus of
Nazareth, and the Ishmaelite (Muhammad) who came after him, only served
to clear the way for the King Messiah to prepare the whole world to
worship God with one accord, as it is written 'For then will I turn to
the peoples a pure language, that they all call upon the name of the
Lord to serve Him with one consent.' (Zephaniah 3:9). Thus the messianic
hope, and the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics of
conversation among those even on far isles, and among many people,
uncircumcized of flesh and heart. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, XI.4. This
paragraph used to be censored from many printed versions because it
contained verses critical of Jesus.)
Modern (post-Enlightenment era) Jewish views
Views on dialogue with non-Jews in general
Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis engage in inter-faith
theological dialogue; a small number of Modern Orthodox rabbis engage in
such dialogue as well. Most Orthodox rabbis do not engage in such
dialogue.
Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United
Synagogue of Great Britain, describes a commonly held Jewish view on
this issue: "Yes, I do believe that the Chosen people concept as
affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its milennial
tradition. In fact, I believe that every people - and indeed, in a more
limited way, every individual - is "chosen" or destined for some
distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some
fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen
for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for
their pioneering services in law and government, the British for
bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for
piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God
to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that
was and is their national purpose."
The German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) taught that
"According to the basic principles of my religion I am not to seek to
convert anyone not born into our laws....We believe that the other
nations of the Earth are directed by God to observe only the law of
nature and the religion of the Patriarchs...I fancy that whosoever leads
men to virtue in this life cannot be damned in the next."
Views on Jewish-Christian dialogue
In practice, the predominant position of Orthodoxy on this issue is
based on the position of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in an essay entitled
Confrontation. He held that Judaism and Christianity are "two faith
communities (which are) intrinsically antithetic". In his view "the
language of faith of a particular community is totally incomprehensible
to the man of a different faith community. Hence the confrontation
should occur not at a theological, but at a mundane human level... the
great encounter between man and God is a holy, personal and private
affair, incomprehensible to the outsider..." As such, he ruled that
theological dialogue between Judaism and Christianity was not possible.
However, Soloveitchik advocated closer ties between the Jewish and
Christian communities. He held that communication between Jews and
Christians was not merely permissible, but "desirable and even
essential" on non-theological issues such as war and peace, the war on
poverty, the struggle for people to gain freedom, issues of morality and
civil rights, and to work together against the perceived threat of
secularism.
As a result of his ruling, Orthodox Jewish groups did not operate in
interfaith discussions between the Roman Catholic Church and Jews about
Vatican II, a strictly theological endeavour. However, the Rabbinical
Council of America (RCA), with Soloveitchik's approval, then engaged in
a number of interfaith dialogues with both Catholic and Protestant
Christian groups.
Soloveitchik understood his ruling as advising against purely
theological interfaith dialogue, but as allowing for theological
dialogue to exist if it was part of a greater context. Bernard
Rosensweig (former President of the RCA) writes "The RCA remained loyal
to the guidelines which the Rav had set down [concerning interfaith
dialogue] and distinguished between theological discussions and
ethical-secular concerns, which have universal validity. Every program
involving either Catholic or Protestant churches in which we
participated was carefully scrutinized.... Every topic which had
possible theological nuances or implications was vetoed, and only when
the Rav pronounced it to be satisfactory did we proceed to the
dialogue."
An RCA committee was once reviewing possible topics for an inter-faith
dialogue. One of the suggested topics was "Man in the Image of God."
Several members of the committee felt that the topic had too theological
a ring, and wished to veto it. When the Rav [Soloveitch] was consulted
he approved the topic and quipped, "What should the topic have been? Man
as a Naturalistic Creature?!"
(Lawrence Kaplan, Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of
Modern Orthodoxy Judaism, Summer, 1999)
The basis for Soloveitchik's ruling was not strictly legal, but
sociological and historical. He described the traditional Jewish-Chistian
relationship as one of "the few and weak vis-ŕ-vis the many and the
strong", one in which the Christian community historically denied the
right of the Jewish community to believe and live in their own way. His
response was written in the light of past Jewish-Christian religious
disputations, which traditionally had been forced upon the Jewish
community. Those had as their express goal the conversion of Jews to
Christianity. As recently as the 1960s many traditional Jews still
looked upon all interfaith dialogue with suspicion, fearing that
conversion may be an ulterior motive. This was a reasonable belief,
given that many Catholics and most Protestants at the time in fact held
this position. Reflecting this stance, Rabbi Soloveitchik asked the
Christian community to respect "the right of the community of the few to
live, create and worship in its own way, in freedom and with dignity."
Many traditional rabbis agree; they hold that while cooperation with the
Christian community is of importance, theological dialogue is
unnecessary, or even misguided. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that
"Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is
Christianity because it rejects Judaism." (Disputation and Dialogue:
Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, Ed. F.E. Talmage, Ktav,
1975, p. 291.)
In later years, Solovetichik's qualified permission was interpreted in a
progressivley more restrictive fashion. (Tradition:A Journal of Orthodox
Thought, Vol. 6, 1964) Today, many Orthodox rabbis use Soloveitchik's
letter to justify having no discussion or joint efforts with Christians
at all.
In contrast, some Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Eugene Korn and David
Hartman hold that in some cases, the primary issue in Confrontaton no
longer is valid; some Christian groups no longer attempt to use
interfaith dialogue to convert Jews to Christianity. They believe that
the relationship between Judaism and Christianity has reached a point
where Jews can trust Christian groups to respect them as equals.
Further, in most nations it is not possible for Jews to be forced or
pressured to convert, and many major Christian groups no longer teach
that the Jews who refuse to convert are damned to hell.
In non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism, most rabbis hold that Jews
have nothing to fear from engaging in theological dialogue, and in fact
may have much to gain. Some hold that in practice Soloveitchik's
distinctions are not viable, for any group that has sustained discussion
and participation on moral issues will implicitly involve theological
discourse. Thus, since informal implicit theological dialogue will
occur, one might as well admit it and publicly work on formal
theological dialogue.
Ground Rules for a Christian Jewish Dialogue
Conservative Rabbi Robert Gordis wrote an essay on "Ground Rules for a
Christian Jewish Dialogue"; in all Jewish denominations, one form or
another of these rules eventually became more or less accepted by
parties engaging in Jewish-Christian theological dialogue.
Robert Gordis held that "a rational dialogue conducted on the basis of
knowledge and mutual respect between the two components of the religio-ethical
tradition of the Western world can prove a blessing to our age." His
proposed groundrules for fair discussion are these:
(1) People should not label Jews as worshipping an inferior "the Old
Testament God of Justice" while saying that Christians worship a
superior "God of Love of the New Testament." Gordis brings forth quotes
from the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) which in his view prove that this view is
a misleading caricature of both religions that was created by selective
quotation.
(2) He holds that Christians should stop "the widespread practice of
contrasting the primitivism, tribalism and formalism of the Old
Testament with the spirituality, universalism, and freedom of the New,
to the manifest disadvantage of the former." Gordis again brings forth
quotes from the Tanakh which in his view prove that this view is a
misleading caricature of both religions, created by selective quotation.
(3) "Another practice which should be surrendered is that of referring
to Old Testament verses quoted in the New as original New Testament
passages. Many years ago, Bertrand Russell, whose religious orthodoxy is
something less than total, described the Golden Rule 'Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself' as New Testament teaching. When the Old
Testament source (Leviticus 19:18) was called to his attention, he
blandly refused to recognize his error."
(4) Christians need to understand that while Judaism is based in the
Hebrew Bible, it is not identical to the religion described in it.
Rather, Judaism is based on the Bible as understood through the
classical works of rabbinic literature, such as the Mishnah and Talmud.
Gordis writes "To describe Judaism within the framework of the Old
Testament is as misleading as constructing a picture of American life in
terms of the Constitution, which is, to be sure, the basic law of the
land but far from coextensive with our present legal and social system."
(5) Jews must "rise above the heavy burden of historical memories which
have made it difficult for them to achieve any real understanding, let
alone an appreciation, of Christianity. It is not easy to wipe out the
memories of centuries of persecution and massacre, all too often
dedicated to the advancement of the cause of the Prince of Peace.....[It
is] no easy task for Jews to divest themselves of the heavy burden of
group memories from the past, which are unfortunately reinforced all too
often by personal experiences in the present. Nevertheless, the effort
must be made, if men are to emerge from the dark heritage of religious
hatred which has embittered their mutual relationships for twenty
centuries. There is need for Jews to surrender the stereotype of
Christianity as being monolithic and unchanging and to recognize the
ramifications of viewpoint and emphasis that constitute the multicolored
spectrum of contemporary Christianity."
Gordis calls on Jews to "see in Christian doctrine an effort to
apprehend the nature of the divine that is worthy of respect and
understanding" and that "the dogmas of the Christian church have
expressed this vision of God in terms that have proved meaningful to
Christian believers through the centuries." Gordis calls on Jews to
understand with tolerance and respect the historical and religious
context which led Christians to develop the concepts of the Virgin
Birth, the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection, even if Jews
themselves do not accept these ideas as correct. Similarly, Gordis calls
on Christians to understand with tolerance and respect that Jews do not
accept these beliefs, since they are in contradiction to the Jewish
understanding of the unity of God. (Source: "The Root and the Branch",
Chapter 4, Robert Gordis, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962)
Recently, over 120 rabbis have signed the Dabru Emet ("Speak the
Truth"), a document concerning the relationship between Judaism and
Christianity. While affirming that there are substantial theological
differences between these two religions, the purpose of Dabru Emet is to
point out common ground. It is not an official document of any of the
Jewish denominations per se, but it is representative of what many Jews
feel. Dabru Emet sparked a controversy in segments of the Jewish
community. Many Jews disagree with parts of it for a variety of reasons.
Views on Jewish-Muslim dialogue
Many Jewish groups and individuals have created projects working for
peace among Israelis and Arabs, most of which have as one of their goals
overcoming religious prejudice.
The viewpoint of Conservative Judaism is summarized in Emet Ve-Emunah:
Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism. This official statement
holds that
"As Conservative Jews, we acknowledge without apology the many debts
which Jewish religion and civilization owe to the nations of the world.
We eschew triumphalism with respect to other ways of serving God.
Maimonides believed that other monotheistic faiths, Christianity and
Islam, serve to spread knowledge of, and devotion to, the God and the
Torah of Israel throughout the world. Many modern thinkers, both Jewish
and gentile, have noted that God may well have seen fit to enter
covenants with many nations. Either outlook, when relating to others, is
perfectly compatible with a commitment to one's own faith and pattern of
religious life. If we criticize triumphalism in our own community, then
real dialogue with other faith groups requires that we criticize
triumphalism and other failings in those quarters as well. In the second
half of the twentieth century, no relationship between Jews and
Christians can be dignified or honest without facing up frankly to the
centuries of prejudice, theological anathema, and persecution that have
been thrust upon Jewish communities, culminating in the horrors of the
Shoah (Holocaust). No relationship can be nurtured between Jews and
Muslims unless it acknowledges explicity and seeks to combat the
terrible social and political effects of Muslim hostility, as well as
the disturbing but growing reaction of Jewish anti-Arabism in the Land
of Israel. But all of these relationships, properly pursued, can bring
great blessing to the Jewish community and to the world. As the late
Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel put it, "no religion is an island."
Views on dialogue with non-monotheists
A small number of modern Jewish theologians such as Yehezkel Kaufman and
Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz have suggested that perhaps only the Israelites
were forbidden to worship idols, but perhaps such worship was
permissible for members of other religions. (Yehezkel Kaufman, "The
Religion of Israel", Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960; J. H. Hertz,
"Pentateuch and Haftorahs" Soncino Press, 1960, p.759). Most Jewish
theologians disagree, saying that the original meaning of the text was
to condemn idolatry in total. However, a growing number of Jewish
theologians question whether Hindus and Buddhists today should be
considered idolaters in the Biblical sense of the term. Their reasons
are that modern day Buddhists, Hindus and others (a) do not literally
worship "sticks and stones", as the idolaters in the Tanakh were
described doing. Their beliefs have far more theological depth than
ancient pagans, and they are well aware that icons they worship are only
symbols of a deeper level of reality, (b) they do not practice child
sacrifice, (c) they are of high moral character, and (d) they are not
anti-Semitic. As such, some Jews argue that not only does God have a
relationship with all gentile monotheists, but that God also maintains a
relationship with Hindus, Buddhists and other polytheists.
Intra-religious pluralism
Intrareligious pluralism refers to relationships between different
denominations within the same religion.
Most of Haredi Judaism views all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism to be
misguided, not authentic, and even heretical. Haredi Jewish groups such
as Agudat Yisrael, the National Council of Young Israel, and the Satmar
Hasidim teach that no cooperation or religious dialogue is permitted
with non-Orthodox Jewish organizations for any purposes. No religious
dialogue is allowed with non-Orthodox Jewish individuals except for the
sole purpose of converting a person to Orthodoxy. On the other hand,
there has been a growing debate within the Orthodox Union in America
about the success of the Chabad-Lubavich outreach program. Many Orthodox
groups are now thinking of adopting such practices to bring other non
practicing Jews into the fold of Orthodoxy.
Many Modern Orthodox rabbis, including a few in the Rabbinical Council
of America and in the United Kingdom's United Synagogue, hold that in
certain instances it is permissible for Orthodox Jewish groups to
cooperate with non-Orthodox Jewish groups, and that there is no problem
with Jews of any denomination engaging in honest religious dialogue.
All of the non-Orthodox denominations, including Conservative Judaism,
Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism teach that all Jewish
denominations, including Orthodox, should work together, and that there
is no problem with Jews of any denomination engaging in honest religious
dialogue.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_of_religious_pluralism
Back to Religion
|
|
