August 18, 2003

YOU’RE RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE RIGHT

To invoke Dr. King’s “I have a dream” would be too melodramatic. To cite a less reputable King’s vacuous plea, “Can’t we all just get along?” would be to trivialize the issue. So, somewhere between Rev. Martin’s and (li-havdil) Rodney’s calls for unity comes my appeal, my dream, for Jewish theists and Jewish humanists to scuttle the invectives and celebrate a common ground from which they both could take a few life-sustaining lessons.

Part of me laments the necessity of stirring the ashes of this centuries-old debate that seems to rear its head anew. Resurrecting the issue while the Jewish world is, as always, in such a mess, is like worrying about rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We should have figured it out long ago.

Nonetheless, could we please take a moment’s respite from our us-versus-them contentiousness, and instead, reason together? Here are three foundations on which a common ground can be established, so that even the humanists, ethical culturists, and believers in the Divine imperative might pause, offer each other a little more mutual respect and a lot more ahavat Yisrael:

1. Let us acknowledge, even celebrate, that the primary thrust of the mitzvot is not so much the enhancement of the Jewish condition as it is of the human condition. We might even go so far as to say that the well-worn shibboleth of “Jewish identity” does not give Judaism sufficient credit. For, Jewish identity may be a critical virtue, but it is merely a vehicle – perhaps the most potent vehicle for Jews – to attain our highest human identity. One might even call this notion “revealed humanism.” Not an oxymoron.

We have an enormous body of ethical mitzvot that unambiguously confirm this notion. Not surprisingly, the Prophet summarizes “what God requires of you” in humanistic terms – “do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God.”

Moreover, the Rabbinic tradition has even interpreted many of the ritual mitzvot as driven largely by humanistic ideals: Tefillin are in large measure about mustering intellectual, spiritual and physical resources to do the work of God. Inserting Ba-Meh Madlikin into the Shabbat service ensures that latecomers will be escorted safely home, not left to walk the treacherous streets alone. The Seder cannot start without inviting the hungry into our homes. Tzedakah is incorporated into the weekday Shacharit ritual. The Shabbat challot are covered so that we do not “embarrass” them by blessing the wine first. And, who can tell me where the rituals of the Shabbat or Yom Tov table end and where the human fellowship begins? Is Shalashudes, or the Purim Seudah or Simchat Torah simply about rituals?

2. Just as humanistic Jews are at peril by stripping Judaism of God, mitzvah-observant Jews run the risk of threatening the luster and texture of Jewish peoplehood, by ignoring, even denigrating, the rich cultural legacy of Judaism. Yes, we are a religion with a mitzvah-driven action plan. But, we are also a repository of literature, theater, music, cuisine, dance, art, language, poetry – some of it not entirely “religious,” but still consummately Jewish, and certainly not a source of shame.

In earlier times, a premier American orthodox institution could build a major fundraising event around a concert by Cantors Rosenblatt and Hershman. No denying that today they would draw a bigger crowd with Schlock Rock and a Dougie’s rib buffet.

Perhaps some of the music of the Yiddish stage is a tad too bawdy for religious sensitivities. Yet, tell me how relatively steeped today’s ba’alei teshuvah and their mentors are in the magnificent compositions of the Cantorial Golden Age or the courts of Moditz, Ger, Bobov, Lubavitch, versus the disco-wannabe Miami Boys Choir or the warbling of Mordechai ben David. And, how many of the same folks are aware that the much-maligned Hava Nagilah is a song composed by the Klausenberger Chasidim? Who has read and tortured his/her soul over (the heretic?) Bialik’s pathos in Ha-Masmid?

Will someone please acknowledge that sucking the cultural legacy from Judaism leaves a stark moonscape of robotic yes-and-no Judaism, just as surely as sucking out God denatures Judaism of its limitless spiritual potentials and sense of driving imperative?

3. Let me suggest that truly ethical humanists believe in “God” more than they may realize. Perhaps it is not the fully refined, intimate vision of God to which we of religious commitment subscribe. But, let us at least concur that the threshold definition of God is the sum (to my belief, infinite) total of all the creative and moral forces at work in the universe. So long as a professing humanist believes in the world’s limitless promise of creativity and moral rectitude – that these are the very essence of the world and humanity at their best – then this too is a kind of belief in the Divine.

I call it “threshold,” because it will not entirely satisfy a believing Jew (or Christian). But, it is light years ahead of folks who believe that the world is condemned to failure, meaninglessness and the law of the jungle. Somehow, I cannot see a humanistic Jew eagerly concurring, “All we are is dust in the wind.”

Please indulge me in my dream, and do not be too quick to condemn me as a luftmensch. The common ground will not be established without everyone trying a little harder, and frankly, sometimes it seems that no one is trying at all. Please do not let this continue to degenerate into a wrong-versus-right disputation. We need save that for Saddam and Yasser. This is about Jews arguing with Jews. So, let it be a lovers’ quarrel, no more. Argue the details if you must, but at least savor all that we do really share. Nu, can’t we all just get along?

No comments: