Berghahn Books

The Impact of Misrepresentation of Another Religion's Conception of the Divine onInterreligious and Intercommunal RelationsAuthor(s): Jack CohenSource: European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe, Vol. 22, No. 1, THE INTERFAITHENCOUNTER (Winter 88/Spring 89), pp. 13-17Published by: Berghahn BooksStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41444360 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Berghahn Books is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Judaism: AJournal for the New Europe.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

43. Quoted by Knitter, op. cit., p. 206. 44. Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean , SCM,

London, 1987. 45. I am grateful to Clifford Longley for pointing out to

me these possibilities. 46. John Hick, op. cit. 47. Knitter, op. cit., p. 231. 48. Race, op. cit., p. 148.

The Impact of Misrepresentation of Another Religion's Conception of the Divine on Interreligious and Intercommunal Relations*

Dr Jack Cohen

Theology in our day has taken on an emphasis and been given a focus which, while not altogether new, changes the mood of the enterprise. I refer to the fact that theology is currently tied in with politics to the point at which we now speak of political theology. Of course, the discipline has always had political implications. The Hebrew prophets and Jesus and Mohammed all had messages for the rulers of their day. All sought to generate radical change in the conduct of their societies and in the policies of governments. Yet they and their disciples never formulated explicit conceptions of statehood as implicit in or flowing from their views of God and his will. Prof. Hava Lazarus- Yafeh, a distinguished Hebrew University scholar of Islamic culture, has declared that, "... although in theory classical Islam never knew any dichotomy between church and State and was concerned with all aspects of life including the political sphere, it never really developed any theory of the state or clear vision of a political structure."1

The same can be said of classical Judaism, whether in its biblical, rabbinic or medieval philosophical ideas. When Maimonides, for example, in the 12th century, wrote in his Mishneh Torah, about the laws of monarchy, he

* Paper delivered at a symposium of Christians, Jews and Muslims, "Understanding the Other", 29 May - 2 June 1988, jointly organized by the International Council of Christians and Jews and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, St. Augustin, Bonn, F.R.G.

Interreligious and Intercommunal Relations

expressed an halakhic position which had no serious political bearing; he described a condition that would pertain only in a distant, unpredictable messianic era. Nor can Augustine's City of Gody or all its insights into political behaviour, be seen as employing theology for political ends. Contrast all this with Christian liberation theology, Gush Emunim political messianism and Khomeinism, and one grasps immediately that religious thought, particularly in theology, has been considerably overhauled.

The great danger in and for religion today is that it has become a tool in the hands of political extremists. Thus, the natural problem of how to harmonize political philosophy and theology on behalf of a universally accepted social morality has been distorted into one of how to use religion to reinforce chauvinistic purposes. The Jewish philosopher, Mordecai M. Kaplan, has stated forcefully the proper function of religion: "With the help of God, the Cosmic Spirit that impels man to transcend himself, man might learn to use the forces of nature for his salvation instead of for his self-annihilation. To invoke and activate that help should be the function of every institutional religion which seeks to make the world safe for man and man safe for the world."2

Before we can investigate effectively our respective misrepresentations and misin- terpretations of the other's view of the Divine, we are duly bound to acknowledge that some, perhaps many, of the presuppositions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam render objective consideration of the faith of the other (or others) difficult to attain. This difficulty is manifest in the preface to the collection of papers delivered at the interdisciplinary symposium on religion and political society which took place in 1970: "... since the authority of religion is divine, and thus absolute, introducing religion into socio- political affairs frequently brings about the absolute sacralization of these affairs. As a result, political religions emerge which transform the categories of history - time and space - into categories of political myth."3 Here, in a nutshell, is our real problem. If our religions are based on a set of divine absolutes, how can we possibly avoid claiming exclusive possession of truth, falling prey to blind triumphalism and assuming a tone of agressiveness, from self-confident missioning to violence, that have characterized the past history of our religions and continue to

13

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Interreligious and Intercommunal Relations

plague much of the world today? Given our predilection for sanctifying our own myths, how can we possibly search sympathetically and emphatically for that which is universally valid in alternative conceptions of the Divine?

Nonetheless, our presence here bears witness to the consensus among us that dialogue is a valuable and necessary instrument for self- criticism and self-understanding and for the improvement of relations between our religions. Our dialogue is a rejection of the idea that faith systems are necessarily exclusive or mutually antithetical or essentially incommensurable. We recognize that we are all heirs to a positive strain in humanity which, throughout the ages, has compelled thoughtful souls, loyal to their own communities and traditions, to transcend the seemingly unsurmountable barrier to contact with and respect for diverse cultures, alien thoughts and foreign peoples.4 Together with Kaiman Bland, we respond affirmatively to his questions: "Can humanity overcome what separates it from the Divine? Can we escape the confines of our transient earthbound existence and establish an unbreakable connection with the eternal source of all being?"5 We are, I hope, prepared to commit ourselves to the proposition that the search for the source of all being must be a co-operative one.

I have implied that our capacity for self- transcendence is proportional to our intellectual humility and to our ability to distance ourselves from absolutistic pretensions. To spread this mood we must overcome several impediments to our knowledge of the traditions of others, including conceptions of the Divine. These impediments include our proneness to ignorance and stereotyping and our tendency to become exclusivistic, isolationist or imperialistic.

I suggest that more than we misrepresent one another's ideas about deity, we are ignorant of them. By "we" I refer not so much to the select group of professional scholars of theology in every religion, whose business it is to know the theological positions of other faiths. (In passing, however, it should be said that even scholars are not immune to innocent misrepresentation. We can forgive such innocence. All of us suffer from our linguistic limitations and our inability to master the subtleties of other cultures. But we cannot afford to overlook the deliberate misrepresentation that is sometimes employed as

14

a weapon in interreligious conflict.) Let me return, however, to the ignorance which afflicts the masses of communicants, whose religious literacy rarely extends beyond the bounds of their own tradition and who, by and large, are sadly deficient even in the grasp of their own spiritual heritage. Ask a Jew about the meaning of the Trinity. He will most likely scoff at what to him is a departure from monotheism. Ask him to tell you about Muslim conceptions of the divine, and he will describe the physical delights of heaven. To such a Jew, Islam is a simplistic, other-world belief. Similarly, a noted psychiatrist, Richard M. Lowenstein, has stated that, "Christians of simple faith still tend to recall only those aspects of the God of the Jews which are the most akin to the spirit of evil: His anger and vindictiveness."6

A Muslim, in turn, is likely to derogate Jewish and Christian views of God as primitive versions of the transcendent Deity revealed in pure form to the seal of the prophets, Mohammed. He might be especially critical of Christianity which, in his mind is close to polytheism. Moreover, the Jew, Christian and Muslim cited in these examples are unable to articulate or to document the specifics of their representations. All of these reactions are examples of ignorance rather than evidence of bad intentions. They are also stereotypes of an innocent but harmful kind, stemming most often from miseducation or inadequate education. They bespeak a static mind.

Most stereotypes, however, are motivated and fuelled by antipathy, hatred or some other destructive attitude toward the out-group. Here, too, the mis-information or distortion can be attributed to a closed mind and serves to seal even more tightly that mental state. When ignorance is innocent, there is at least the chance of bringing reliable information to the attention of the illiterate - particularly if that information is communicated by a member of his own community. Dealing with stereotypes is obviously more problematic, for one must first dispel emotional resistance. Unquestionably, in such a case, factual teaching alone will be ineffective. Both the innocent ignorance of the masses and the widespread stereotypes of which they are victims are products, in large measure, of strategies developed by nearly all religions to avoid self-transformation. Even though more enlightened religions would like to effectuate a

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tolerant, multicoloured humankind, they are reluctant to expose their own biases to critical examination. They prefer the comfort of believing that they have exclusive possession of divine truth, and they therefore separate their adherents from too much familiarity with the tenets of others.

We must learn to distinguish between the kind of separateness which is essential to authentic self-development and the kind of isolation - physical or intellectual - which is born of fear of foreign influence. In my own tradition, for instance, the biblical conception that we Jews are a people destined by God to dwell alone, has often led to self-ghettoization. That isolation expresses both the fear Jews have felt before the power of non- Jewish religions and their sense of superiority at the possession of the only divine religion - dath elohith. Whatever the reasons and rationales for this isolation, it has guaranteed general ignorance among many Jews of the spiritual richness of other faiths.

Exclusivism leads not only to isolation, as in the case of the Jews. It can and does often take on the character of a drive for power and domination, of a passion for what might be termed "soteric imperialism", the desire to convert the world to one's own certainties. The belief of Christians and Muslims in the absolute truth of their doctrine and its divine source led the Church and Mosque to proselytism and frequent resort to policies of urging or enforcing Gleichschaltung. That the exclusivist trend in Christianity and Islam has generally led to proselytization rather than self-effacement is not surprising. These two religions, after all, constitute enormous conglomerates of believers. They would have to engage in something resembling the kabbalistic cosmic tzimtzum (self- contraction) in order to acquire a status similar to that of isolationist Jews who withdraw from contact with the gentiles. Nor would the self- isolation of Christianity and Islam have the same measure of justification that it has for Jews who wish to avoid exposure to an outside world still rife with anti-semitism. Nevertheless, there are notable exceptions in the Christian and Muslim worlds. To cite just one example: although the Muslims of Saudi Arabia are part of a vast Muslim continuum, their culture is isolated to the extreme, even, it seems, within the Islamic universe. Two religions, numbering hundreds of

Interreligious and. Intercommunal Relations

millions of members, professing to be universal in spirit, know little about each other's spiritual life. At the same time, they view the various religious groupings in the rest of mankind as fair objects of their missionizing but hardly as subjects for appreciation and as potential sources of their own expanded spirituality. The net result, again, is ignorance.

By this time, you are aware of some of my difficulty with the subject of this paper. The fact is that we all have good reason to misinterpret and misrepresent other religions. Doubtlessly, Christians and Muslims can quote statements and point to actions of Jews who speak of the God of vengeance as being the characteristic Jewish conception of divinity. After all, despite the Bubers and Heschels and Kaplans, they can always find a choice tit-bit of bigotry and theological outrage in the vituperations of the Meir Kahanes.

On our point, we Jews have every reason to represent as a mockery a Christian God of love whose priests once tried to save the souls of our forebears by burning their bodies at the stake and some of whose present-day followers are inspired by their never-ending Jew hatred and belief in Jewish deicide. To the best of my knowledge, Adolf Hitler was never excommunicated.

Christians and Jews need only point to the totalitarianism of some Muslim states and the second-class status of non-Muslims in them to put the lie to Muslim depictions, of Allah as the God of universal mercy, compassion, love and justice. In summary, our religions are all composites of many views and doctrines, from the most exalted spirituality and morality to the crassest forms of paganism and chauvinism.

Religions have to be assessed both essentially and existentially, as faith and as manifestation. Although most religionists prefer to identify their faiths in terms of a pure, eternal and unchanging revelation, their effort inevitably fails to convince. The historical record clearly delineates the changes and conflicting opinions that have characterized every religious tradition. Moreover, even if we insist on associating a religion with a particular set of beliefs and doctrines, these are never embodied faithfully and uniformly in the conduct of all those who claim to adhere to that faith. It turns out that what seems at first glance to be a mis- representation of our religion is at least a true

15

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Interreligious and Intercommunal Relations

reference to an undeniable condition of certain facets of it or of the behaviour of some of our co-religionists. Nonetheless, there are undeniable differences in mood between those who deliberately select the worst aspects of another's concept of divinity and those who endeavour to be fair in their depiction and evaluation of the other's normative theological direction. The effect of the first approach is to stir enmity or a sense of superiority in the minds of the in-group. An attempt at objectivity is not synonymous with objectivity; we can easily misconstrue the extent to which our prejudices betray us. But the dedication to objectivity at least minimizes the common attraction to stereotypes.

These observations might seem banal unless we realize that attributing the worst to the other is usually in direct proportion to our insistence that divine certainty is the essence of our own historic heritage. While it can be argued that historical revelation need not lead to exclusivism, in practice that has been the outcome in our three religions. At best, our religions have been ambivalent. Even the editor who put together in one book the prophets who were identified as Isaiah included not only verses of priceless universalism but also others which indicate an Israelocentric vision of God's plan for the future humanity. In the 8th century B.C., Isaiah could prophecy: "In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, for that the Lord of hosts hath blessed him, saying: 'Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance'." (20:24-25). About two centuries later, another Isaiah could say with equal fervour, "and kings shall be. thy foster fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers. They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth and lick the dust of thy feet and thou shalt know that I am the Lord . . ."(49:23). Again, "for that nation and kingdom that will not serve thee (Israel) shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." (60:12)

Such ambivalence is deeply rooted in the human psyche, both of individuals and collectives. We all seek the maximum and optimum fulfilment for our egos, and while in our better moments we realize that our salvation cannot be achieved without our taking on the full burden of our interdependence with all other humans, it is hard for us to accept the necessary

16

limitations on our appetites and aspirations that the responsibility of interdependence thrusts upon us. In order to understand the nature of this difficulty, we have to heighten our awareness of the confusion in theological discourse regarding the substance of and the relationship between the particular and the universal.

Usually, these two concepts are presented as contradictions, it is said that the particular gives rise to the chauvinistic whereas the universal is a prime category of all noble, moral values. Actually, all religions are particular in their polities; they are all marked by organizational otherness, distinguished by unique symbols and practices and demanding in their commitment and loyalty. So-called universal religions, however, are often no less an expression of the particular than those that are confined to specific peoples. This occurs because those who claim universal truth for their faith system are thereby often tempted to deny the same privilege to others. They are oblivious to the possibility that their absolutes are more expressive of their psychological need for certainty than they are embodiments of truth. In brief, the conflict in religion is not between particularism and universalism but between universal particularism and chauvinistic particularism on the level of polity and between an ecumenical universalism and imperialistic universalism in regard to doctrine.

The quest for divine truth is thus a hazardous endeavour. The only way it can be conducted with probity and moral excellence is for us to learn how to hold our most sacred convictions with a light touch. None of us, of course, will consent to compromise principles we hold dear, but the compromise that is essential in human relations is never between principles but between persons and groups. Compromise in matters of faith is impossible, but agreement to expose ourselves to one another in trust and brotherhood is the ineluctable prerequisite for our spiritual growth. Only thus can we prevent our particularism from becoming chauvinistic or being mired in an already clinging chauvinism.

The spirit of my remarks can be illustrated in the evaluation by the historian Prof. Müller, the American contribution to religious liberty. The doctrine of religious freedom in America did not emerge spontaneously as a kind of revelation. It was born out of conflict between different

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Why Should the Holocaust be Remembered and Therefore Taught?

religious visions. I quote a passage from a lecture by Prof. Müller delivered in 1954 at the bicentennial celebration of the founding of Columbia University. He argued against the attempt "to prove that somehow in the very genes of the Protestant churches, and despite anything they may have said or done in the 17th century, the principle of liberty was latent. In this view, American history is seen as a steady translation into actuality of a potentiality inherent in the covenanted churches of Massachusetts, in Presbyterian synods of Philadelphia, in the vestries of Virginia, although neither New England nor the Scotch Irish nor even the planters of the Old Dominion had the slightest suspicion of its existence. If to this version of man proposing but God disposing, we can somehow add a conviction that the Almighty was especially conducting America by the hand of his providence, we then manage to put ourselves into a happier relation with our ancestors, even though at the same time we have made them into a collection of libertarian Typhoid Marys, carrying unwittingly the germs of a contagion to which they themselves were immune."7

In summary, I am not too bothered by our misrepresentations of one another's religion, as reprehensible and as dangerous as they are. They are all rather transparent examples of ignorance or deliberate distortion or prejudice. But the methods of correction are available for all of us to use, I am far more disturbed by our blindness to the blights in our own traditions. If, in our deliberations here, we can help one another to a higher self-conscience, our symposium will have been a blessing for all of us.

Notes 1. "Political traditions and responses in Islam", in

Totalitarian Democracy and After , Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1954, p. 128.

2. The Religion of Ethical Nationhood , Macmillan, New York, 1970, p. 8.

3. J. Moltmann et al. , Religion and Political Society , San Francisco, London, 1970.

4. Kaiman P. Bland, The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction and the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with the Commentary of Moshe Narboni , Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, 1982.

5. Ibid. 6. Christians and Jews , International Universities Press,

New York, 1952, p. 100. 7. "The location of American religious freedom , in

Religion and Freedom of Thought , Doubleday, New York, 1954, p. 14.

Why Should the Holocaust be Remembered and Therefore

Taught?

Lecture delivered by Dr EliSübeth Maxwell at Yarnton Manor on 17th March 1988

Between 10 and 17 July 1988, Remembering For the Future , an international conference, took place in Oxford and London on the subject of the Holocaust. Its aims were as follows:

1. To bring together people from a number of countries who have been worried for a long time about the problems raised by the Holocaust and have been studying and giving it a lot of thought, in order to enhance international co-operation and collaboration in this all important work.

2. To share with the public questions about what the implications of the Holocaust are for everyone of us in our time and for the future.

3. To ensure a place for the teaching of the Holocaust in schools, universities and theological colleges in order to develop a general awareness.

4. To raise the fundamental and disturbing question of how such mass slaughter could happen in the heart of what is referred to as Christian Europe. Since Christianity is preaching a gospel of love, how could millions of Christians stand by or participate?

5. To learn to detect danger signs which precede the takeover of power by demagogues who play on people's fears to turn one group into a scapegoat, thus making them vulnerable to attacks.

6. To fight disinformation and falsification of history and positively to promote the publication and dissemination of the oral and written testimonies of witnesses of Nazi crimes who very soon will no longer be among the living.

7. To create a climate of understanding and trust in which members of all faiths, animated by mutual respect and a desire to build a peaceful future, can discuss their respective beliefs and learn about each other's traditions.

17

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.30 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions