Fiddler On The Fence

It's not only about G-d. Everyone believes in G-d – even atheists. They deny it and use other terminology, but they have the same questions about the origin of everything that we all do. If they choose to ascribe it all to gravity, as Stephen Hawking does, or the laws of science in general, it is hard to disavow the idea that even the laws of science had to come from somewhere. Unless you believe that they always existed – that they are eternal.

“Believe.” “eternal.” “the laws of science had to come from somewhere.” Those are religious ideas and bespeak a deity of some sort – even if it's science itself. And unless one accepts ancient mythologies, or is an adherent of of a polytheistic religion, it is likely that you accept the concept that there is only one G-d.

Larycia Hawkins, a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, decided to wear a headscarf during the Advent season as a gesture of solidarity with Muslims. In doing so, Hawkins quoted Pope Francis, saying that Christians and Muslims "worship the same God."

Professor Hawkins (Political Science) was suspended from her position at a Christian college because her statement was in conflict with the principles that the college was teaching. I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but I accept the formulation of Pope Francis that she cited. My only modification, and it's certainly not a minor one, is that the beliefs about that G-d, and the ways that we worship, vary greatly. While the non-Abrahamic religions may have other teachings, Islam and Judaism among others rely on post-biblical interpretations for authority (and Catholicism credits the Pope with infallibility in understanding faith and morals), Protestant doctrine is different and, according to Wikipedia,

“The belief in the Bible [i]s the highest source of authority for the church.”

moreover

“The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between G-d and the people.”

Their view is that every believer must read the Bible, and all would practice according to their own understanding without the need for ordained priests as “mediators” between G-d and themselves. It's very democratic, which makes it very attractive.

But it's certainly not the path of Islam or Judaism. Both rely heavily on authority, and assume a greater understanding of the holy doctrines, by an educated, if not necessarily ordained, minority. Both teach and follow ancient traditions. Unfortunately, for many Muslims that extends beyond the peaceful adherence to religious principles and mandates the spreading of their rules to everyone, by whatever means are necessary. And that includes force. Too many believe that until Islam and its laws are universally accepted, they must continue war on those who reject their precepts. And we see evidence of that war every day.

Judaism has a different approach however. It's not a proselytizing religion and doesn't force its precepts on anyone. Which is not to say that its practices are accepted by all Jews. In fact, Jewish history is filled with disputes about the meaning of the laws and precisely how they should be observed. But the arguments and different opinions – even if rejected – are preserved for the edification of future generations and even minority views may have some standing. Minority opinions may become the “traditions” of various Jewish communities, and there is wide variation in practice, even among the orthodox, without the need to conceal any of the ancient traditions. Disagreements may exist but violence is not the way they are usually settled. Just more disputes and debates. And there are plenty of them. As they say, “Two Jews, three opinions.” So there are many occasions when an individual may be uncertain about the “correct” practice – when two different traditions seem equally reasonable. Or unreasonable.

But there are rules for the interpretation of the laws. The main source, of course, is the Bible. That's the case with all of these religions. After all, it's the word of G-d. Fine. But it's not always clear what is meant, so there's a need for interpretation and for guidelines. Is everyone who reads the Bible equally capable of interpretation? Judaism has accepted the principle that the most important criterion is antiquity. The longer ago an authority lived, the more reliable is his opinion. After all, he's closer to the time of the giving of the Law, to the time when all of Israel heard the words of G-d.

That's the problem though. The words of ancient sages are, too often, viewed as dispositive. They're final. But while we treat them as divine they're nothing more than the words of men. However much inspiration and wisdom they contain, however well they have stood up through the years, however they may have been accepted by others, they are the words of men. And there is ample room for interpretation of these words as well. Not every interpretation, especially some of the more recent ones, is consistent with the underlying philosophy of the religion, but the encouragement of discussion by those conversant with the views of our sages, gives Judaism much of its strength. As does honest disagreement whose aim is to understand and fulfill G-d's wishes. "These and These Are The Words of the Living God."

Humans can never know G-d's wishes. We may adopt traditions with the intent to fulfill them, but we can never be sure. Different religions worship in different ways, as do different branches of a single religion. Our practices are ours, and we mustn't force them on others. Intent is what counts. Important as it is to follow the words of our sages, to respect the authority of their erudition and the wisdom of their rulings, unless the underlying purpose of your actions and traditions is to do what you believe G-d wants of you, you are following the words of men.

Get off the fence.