Whither Judaism?

A few years back Leonard Bernstein, the celebrated composer and former Musicalische Director of the New York Philharmonic, delivered a series of lectures called "The Norton Lectures" at his alma mater Harvard (in New Haven?) The title of these informative but intellectually global monologues was "Whither Music?:- The Unanswered Question". This question had in fact been posed by Sir Charles Ives around the early twentieth century. After asking the question in the first lecture, Bernstein proceeded to relate the whole history of music (and the world as well!) in terms of [Noam] Chomskyan transformations of universal linguistic megatruths and proved that ma is everywhere - since Wagner despised Hanslick and Tristan und Isolde ultimately transform from love-death [liebestot] to redemption through love [as Tony and Maria]. The latter of which must, of necessity, be borrowed from the seething, writhing, lurid chromaticisms of Tristan und Isolde which have been obviously derived from Orpheus's incestuous longing to be nursing once again at the primaeval breasts of his voluptuous mutter - Q.E.D.! Of course the major corollary is that the etymology of "harmonic series" ultimately comes down to the aboriginal word for "Bach" which is slavic for "Monteverdi".

During my psychiatry rotation in medical school I was taught to recognize certain abnormal disease patterns by particular "rules of thumb". The rule of thumb for schizophrenia was:- "If you are talking to a person, ask him a question, then twenty seconds later cannot remember what the question was, chances are one of you is schizophrenic!" Well, needless to say, early through the first Norton lecture I was about to commit either Bernstein or myself. Nevertheless, we both persevered and round about near the end of the eighth and ultimate lecture, the Maestro finally decided to try and answer the original question (which I was delighted to see at least one of us still remembered!)

Although Bernstein never quite did inform us which way music was going, he did tell us which way it was not going, namely "away from the harmonic series." I would like to start out by suggesting that:-

God is to Judaism as the harmonic series is to music.

Therefore, in allegorical accord with Bernstein, the future of Judaism (or of religion, in general, for that matter) is not likely to be without God as its foundation. With this premise, Universalist Unitarianism becomes analogous to atonalism - unless, of course, the universalism becomes more firmly grounded in Unitarianism.

To be a [Free]Mason a man must first and foremost believe in the existence of a Supreme Being. It is precisely the Masonic sense of the universal brotherhood of Man, rooted upon the belief in a "Supreme Architect of the Universe", that makes me suggest that in Freemasonry is found the true heir and successor to the mainstream of Jewish [and Gentile] religious thought. The umbrella which it offers all men of good will everywhere not despite diversity of belief, but because that diversity shares a Common Base, is reminiscent of the original spirit of Judaism - as well as the original spirit of Christianity and Islaam. Unlike orthodox Judaism, Christianity, or Islaam, however, but similar to Universalist Unitarianism, it does not require any rigid, dogmatic creed or system of beliefs attempting to comprise and yet supersede all others. Though, again, unlike Universalist Unitarianism it does require a belief in Deity. Nevertheless, the beauty of Freemasonry is that it succeeds precisely as it strives to avoid conflict with anyone's belief structure, religious or otherwise.

What about Reform Judaism? Is not that likely to represent the mainstream of Jewish confrontations with the modern technological era? But is reform Judaism really Jewish? What about the conservative movement? How can we go about to attempt to answer these questions?

Accepting the initial premise that any mainstream of Jewish thought must be grounded upon a belief in God, the next logical question is how universal should be its thrust? Make no mistake about it, ever since Judaism lost the proselytizing wars to Christianity in the Roman times it has been a very separatist, elitist, and private enterprise. St. Paul did not have to be the marketing genius he was to realize that simple faith was a lot easier for the goyim to accept than thousands of petty regulations - not the least of which included penile desecration. Poor Peter and James tried to reconcile Resurrection with HaLachah,but where are their followers now? Paul's tremendous financial successes with the Gentiles for years carried Peter and James's failures among the Jews.

So, what of it? Should Judaism open up? Who among the Jews should say that it is now okay to abrogate the Law of Moses? I still harbor animosity against St. Paul (so did Peter and James) because he dared to say it back in the days of the Mishna. However, is not that in fact what the Conservative movement has done to a certain extent, or what the Reform movement has done to an even greater extent? Jesus NEVER ever implied that it was alright to disobey even one letter of The Law.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:16-20)

Large groups of Jews have obviously been disobeying The Law from BEFORE the time Moses gave it to us right through all recorded biblical [T(orah) N(eviyim) K(etuvim)] history up to the day after tomorrow! So why do we treat It so reverently? Is it not because it is our history, our genealogy, our love affair with God? Ok, let us continue to treat it with honor and respect, but obey it?

Dare I ask The Question? What about Jesus? Isn't it time he was proudly accepted by the mainstream of Judaism as a son, instead of as an outcast? The Beatitudes are certainly comparable in beauty and majesty to any of The Psalms. From his followers came the concept of immortality which our Mishnaic fathers not only embraced but, as has already been shown, attempted to steal! Does Christianity have nothing in it that we can learn from? Shouldn't it be considered as the daughter [religion] it really is?

Listen to David Rankin, a Universalist Unitarian minister has he attempts to define what he feels constitutes a true "Christian":-

There are many reasons why some people are angered and confused by the term, "Unitarian Universalist Christian."

First: There is the belief that since Unitarian Universalist churches are not Christian churches, you will not find Christians within them. It is a belief that does not recognize the diversity and richness of our tradition.

Second: There is the belief that since the minister should attempt to represent all church members, he or she should not hold to a particular theological position. It is a belief that would turn our ministers into masters of empty ceremonies.

Third: There is the belief that since Christianity is a singular theological tradition, it is impossible for the adherent to appreciate other traditions. It is a belief that does not perceive how a committment to one object may actually heighten the awareness and appreciation of others.

Fourth: There is a belief that since Unitarian Universalism is progressive and Christianity is reactionary, they are basically incompatible. It is a belief that is blind to the reactionary element of Unitarian Universalism and the progressive elements of Christianity.

Finally, there is the belief that since ministers are notoriously vague in expressing their personal opinions, it is not politically wise to be a partisan in theology. It is a belief that all young ministers should consider as they dream of freedom in their pulpit. It is more difficult to be honest in theology than in any other ealm.

Be prepared! I have appeared in the pulpit to speak on every conceivable topic..., but I have never experienced the controversy caused by one simple sermon on Christianity.

People will listen to a dry intellectual, who is merely quoting from the works of others:

People will listen to an eastern guru, who does not pronounce a single intelligible word;

People will lsiten to a chic revolutionary, who lives in the suburbs and exists on the stock market -

but Christianity is a little too personal, alittle too close, and a little too threatening for some of our people. All tolerance is forgotten.

It is not an unusual reaction (and I must confess - I often enjoy the heat it engenders), for one of the most explosive questions in the entire history of civilization has been:"What is a Christian?"

It was a question that deeply troubled the disciples of Jesus while he still walked on earth. "Who is he?" "what does he mean?"

It was a question that divided the leaders of the Early Church immediately following his death. "Who was he" "What did he say?"

It was a question that consumed the energies of a thousand theologians; that split the movement into a hundred factions; that resulted in bitterness, persecution, war, and inquisition.

So Unitarian Universalists are not immune from the passion and prejudice stimulated by the question:"What is a Christian?"

(from "Confessions of a Unitarian Universalist Christian"
by David Rankin)

h

And what of Islaam as well? Is that not another cousin religion? What can we learn from our Muslim relatives? Why shouldn't we accept them as valid "people of The Book" as their Prophet taught them to regard us? Why don't we actively study that religion, as well as ALL religions, for the purpose of opening our minds and learning more?

I guess what I am asking is, why don't we become more like Universalist Unitarians but who believe in God and yet still revere our past? Or why don't we become more like FreeMasons who accept all monotheistic religions as valid and worship their God at one and the same alter? Isn't that what Abraham had in mind when he smashed all his father's idols? Where did that concept get lost? Lo yihyeh? (Thou shalt have no other gods before me?) More importantly, how do we get it back?

There are plenty of liberal religions around. My perception of the bulk of those is that they mostly flounder around with no clear cut purpose in mind. I wonder if Reform Judaism and Universalist Unitarianism might not soon make a marriage together, and whether this union might not attract liberal Episcopal, Catholic, and Conservative Jewish elements. I cannot say. But I strongly believe that Judaism, if it is to survive in any form today, must make some significant adaptations, and that these must at the very least take the form of more openness and pliability. In short, the mainstream of Judaism, as I see it, must be in the mainstream of universalism. If it continues to divide humanity, instead of bringing humanity together, then does religion not deserve to die? If the "highest common bond among humanity" is lost, what will be the ultimate fate of man?

Aside from being more open and accepting of the ideas and concepts of other faiths [and of maintaining the intellectual honesty not to claim that those ideas and concepts were yours all along] - what else could characterize modern Judaism? If HaLachah loses the force of law, what could replace it? What else would then constitute a Jewish identity? Again, I wonder if we should not go back to Abraham as the father of Judaism, as he is considered to be the father of Islaam (through Ishmael) and the ultimate father of Christianity. Abraham, for obvious reasons, was deprived of the light of Torah to guide him. Nevertheless, he did establish a covenant [Ha Brit] with God. Circumcision is a continuing sign of that covenant, and, for that reason alone, I would suggest it for all those who want to maintain a special physical link to Abraham, Ishmael, Issac, Jacob, Esau, Jesse, David, Solomon, Jesus, Peter, and Mohammed.

A physical sign has predominantly cultural and historical implications, however. The concept of a moral covenant to somehow complement or replace the written guidelines to faith and practice would appear to be necessary. For that reason, I would suggest in addition to a Sefer Ha Torah, a Sefer Ha Brit - a "Book of the Covenant" in which each Sukkot or Simchat Torah, every congregant could inscribe his "New Year's Resolution" or "Covenant with The Almighty". This could be some type of behavioral change or commitment which the individual promises His Maker he will try to adhere to during the coming year. Rosh Hashanah could be the holiday to evaluate the promise/performance ratio, and Yom Kippur still the "Day of Atonement." Every Shabat, in addition to holding up the Sefer Ha Torah (or Sefer Ha Gospel or Sefer Ha Q'ran or Sefer Ha Baglavidta or whatever), the Sefer Ha Brit could be prominently displayed, paraded, and celebrated as a constant reminder to everyone of the holy commitment he has made to HaShem.

It seems funny and somewhat paradoxical to me that here I am suggesting changes to other Jews, and yet I feel in my bones that the fate of these changes will likely be perceived no better among the Jews than the fate of suggestions of other Jews who have suggested changes to other Jews - and that fate is to be much better received among the gentiles than it is to be among the Jews for whom it was originally intended! (Any resemblance of this paragraph to the writings of Kafka is not unintended.)

These changes are, however, and should continue to be perceived as, mere suggestions for revitalizing religion in general, as well as a religion, in particular.

Religion is one of the few aspects of life in which to know is to be ignorant, is it not? The religious philosophy which I espouse
can be derived from the works of Kierkegaard who also believed that it is impossible to know God, and that if one wished some kind of religious experience one therefore had to make a "leap to faith". I call this process "agnostic theism", and I wonder whether or not it is one of the better religious approaches for the scientific, intellectual, and probing minds of the "information age"?

The main question I see that remains is "once you justify the concept of a single non-verifiable leap, haven't you just opened Pandora's box to endless possibilities of belief structures?" The answer to which is, I suppose, "Yes". It is precisely this concept which provides for tolerance among all agnostic theists because anything however probable becomes possible. It is in this sense, too, that although I cannot accept the Greek/Paulian "trinitarian" leaps for myself, I do not view them as any less likely than any other concepts which are or may come around - and this applies equally well to "Torah ... al piy Adonai b'yad moshe" (Torah from the lips of The Lord in the hand of Moses) or Mohammed as Allah's prophet. It is precisely this concept, as well, which provides the very core upon which Freemasonry is founded, i.e., pure and simply a "belief in God."

Now, does anyone remember the original question which titles this chapter? Not unlike Bernstein, I have wandered a bit. And not unlike Bernstein, I have probably altered the question to its negative form and then tried to answer it. More simply put: -

Whither Judaism - yes?
It is anyone's to guess.
Whither Judaism not?
Far away from our HerrGott!