Reflections on an Interfaith Conference

By Rabbi Leonard Gordon

From January 10-14, 2012, a small group of Jewish and Protestant leaders came together under the joint leadership of the National Council of Synagogues (NCS) and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC).  The meetings, held at an Episcopal Conference Center in Florida, examined the topic “How We Define Ourselves as Jews and Christians in North America: Questions of Religious Identity.”  The discussions reached beyond the topics of the major presentations to include shared experiences concerning the state of religious education and commitment in our communities, and about how to preserve interfaith dialogue during times of political tension.  At the table were leaders of the Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform movements on the Jewish side, and the Presbyterian, Episcopal, Greek Orthodox, United Church of Christ and Quaker traditions on the Christian side.  The NCS and the NCC have introduced these sessions in the hope of building relationships; sharing ideas; and distributing educational materials of value to both communities.

In this report, I would like to provide an overview of the teachings we shared and some of the pressing topics we addressed.  I was pleased to represent the USCJ as a newly elected officer of the NCS.

JUDAH, THE ORIGINS OF JUDAISM, AND CONTEMPORARY SHEILAISM

Although the Orthodox movement is no longer an official part of the NCS, our first speaker was an Orthodox rabbi, David Gutterman, headmaster of the David Posnack Jewish Day School.  Rabbi Gutterman introduced a text study that centered around the figure of Judah, asking what traits of the biblical figure were central to his name being adopted by the Jewish people.  We focused on traditions about Judah’s willingness to acknowledge error; his connection to learning; and his commitment to mutual responsibility.  Having established these major values as being part of Judaism’s core, Rabbi Gutterman directed our attention to texts that emphasize the overriding importance of Judaism’s legal and behavioral traditions, and the importance of continuity as a core value.  Finally, in looking at the contemporary Jewish community, he introduced three themes that would guide all of our conversations: the fluidity of identity; the sovereign self and the rise of individual; and cafeteria forms of religious belief and practice, which was famously described by Robert Bellah in 1985 as “Sheilaism.”

LITURGICAL REASONING: MOVING FROM TEXT TO CONTEXT

The head of interreligious affairs and Associate General Secretary of the NCC, Dr. Antonios Kireoploulos presented the second introductory text study, offering an exploration of Christian liturgy as a guide to issues of identity.   We moved from readings and prayers dealing with the birth of Jesus, to his circumcision, to the epiphany – from viewing Jesus from the perspective of his humanity to that of his divinity.  While many parallels between Jewish and Christian worship and theology emerged in this conversation, a core distinction surfaced as well: in Christianity, there is a movement from God as creator to God as redeemer to God as sustainer.  In Judaism, we move from creation to revelation (how we sustain our lives in this world) to the future hope of redemption.

AN OVERVIEW OF IDENTITY IN THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

On our second day, we were joined by Professor Alan Berger of Florida Atlantic University who delivered a comprehensive, if compressed, overview of the history of Jewish identity with special emphasis on the contemporary situation.  In dealing with maintaining identity in a “rapidly changing, multicultural, interreligious world,” Judaism has resources, especially in the rabbinic traditions of “these and these are the words of the living God” and the idea that Torah presents 70 faces to the world.  Ultimately, Berger’s presentation was hopeful, imagining that Jewish life would continue to renew itself and that, despite many challenges, the “ever-dying people” (in the phrase of the historian Simon Rawidowicz), would endure.

“MORALISTIC THERAPEUTIC DEISM”

In her response to Dr. Berger, Rev. Nicole Diroff (United Church of Christ), who works at the Interfaith Center in Philadelphia, focused on a study on youth and religion.  The study presented striking parallels between the religious lives of Christian and Jewish youth, both responding to the cultural norms of contemporary America.  Of particular interest was the finding that the religious outlook of teens often deviates from the traditional faith commitments of their home congregations.  The report calls this phenomenon, “moralistic therapeutic deism,” the belief that religion should make people feel good about themselves; that happiness is the goal; that good people go to heaven; and that God is not involved in human affairs, unless He is needed.  In the discussion that followed, we shared ideas about best practices in engaging teens, and planned to continue such discussion in future meetings.

MOTION AWAY AND MOTION TOWARDS: BAPTISM AND IDENTITY

For the next presenter, Rev.  Dr. Jay Rock of the Presbyterian Church USA, the baptismal covenant represents the choice of the individual Christian, a choice continually reaffirmed at Easter, to turn from sin towards God.   There is an action orientation in the Christian life as the individual makes a commitment to “continue . . . persevere . . . proclaim . . . seek . . . serve . . . and strive” (in the language of the baptismal liturgy).   The choice to adhere to Christianity is one that takes place today in multiple contexts, and Rev. Rock helpfully located contemporary Christian identity along grids of nationality, ethnicity, race and class.

IS JEWISH IDENTITY A CHOICE?

Playing off Rev. Rock’s emphasis on choice in the establishment of Christian identity, my response focused on texts in which Jewish sources (including biblical, rabbinic, medieval and modern times) emphasize that Jewish identity is given to us and is not something the individual Jew can reject.  Given that tradition, and faced with the fluidity of identity that characterizes the postmodern American religious scene, how can Judaism make a compelling case for its claim of obligation?  My collection of texts follows below.

LOOKING AHEAD

Our final sessions focused on reviewing our meeting and planning for upcoming gatherings.  A number of topics were suggested for further inquiry, ranging from political discourse in religious communities during a presidential election season to how we promote social justice in our communities.  Individual conversations focused on shared concerns about organizational and congregational life during a difficult economic climate and a wide range of national and international issues.  Central to the mission of the dialogue, relationships were strengthened and there was a hopeful sense that the conversation will continue.

NCS NEWS

Under the leadership of its Executive Director, Rabbi Gil Rosenthal, the NCS is prepared to take a major step forward by launching a website that will include information about its partners in dialogue; papers presented at conferences; and information about the NCS’s history and goals.

APPENDIX: Rabbi Leonard Gordon, Response to Rev. Dr. Jay Rock “Defining Ourselves as Christians”

Is Jewish Identity a Voluntary Choice?

TEXT ONE (Biblical):  Deuteronomy 29: 13-14

I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here this day.

From the commentary in:  ETZ HAYYIM BIBLE:

The souls of all future Jews – present at this moment, as they had been at Mount Sinai (Midrash Tanhuma)

What right did our ancestors have to impose the obligations of the covenant on us?  Why do we have to feel bound by their actions?

TEXT TWO (Rabbinic): Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah 2b – cited by Rabbi Jill Jacobs

According to the Bible, at the moment of revelation, “[the people] stood underneath the mountain.” According to the traditional interpretation of this strange biblical locution, God uproots Mount Sinai from the ground and holds it over the people, saying, “If you accept the Torah, fine; if not, here shall be your grave” (Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah 2b). The implication seems to be that the Jews accepted Torah only through coercion.

TEXT THREE (Medieval): Can a Jew abandon Judaism? (from Jewish Life and Learning web site)

TEXT FOUR (MODERN):  Brit Goral – Covenant of Fate (as explained by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth)

Our ancestors became a machaneh (camp) in Egypt, forged together in the crucible of slavery and suffering. They were different. They were not Egyptians. They were Hebrews – a word which presumably means “on the other side, an outsider.” Since then, Jews understand that we are thrown together by circumstance. We share a history all too often written in tears. Rabbi Soloveitchik calls this the covenant of fate (brit goral).

This is not a purely negative phenomenon. It gives rise to a powerful sense that we are a part of a single story, that what we have in common is stronger than the things that separate us.

Our fate does not distinguish between aristocrats and common folk; between rich and poor; between a prince garbed in the royal purple and the pauper begging from door to door, between the pietist and the assimilationist. Even though we speak a plethora of languages, even though we are inhabitants of different lands . . . we still share the same fate. If the Jew in the hovel is beaten, then the security of the Jew in the palace is endangered. “Do not think that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king’s palace” (Esther 4: 13).
This also leads to a sense of shared suffering. When we pray for the recovery of a sick person, we do so “among all the sick of Israel.” When we comfort a mourner, we do so “among all the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” We weep together. We celebrate together. This, in turn, leads to shared responsibility: “All Israel are sureties for one another.” And this leads to collective action in the field of welfare, charity and deeds of loving kindness.