Jihadist Islam: The New Nazism of Our Time

 

Never underestimate the power and religious fervor of Jihadist Islam, the new and improved version of Nazism of our time.

In his 2012 speech shortly after the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, the President mentioned some thirty-two times that “al Qaeda was on the path to defeat,” “decimated.” Such rhetoric makes Neville Chamberlain look like General Patton in comparison. Cheney is not one of my favorite politicians, but I must give him credit for saying the obvious,  “Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” writes Cheney. “Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is ‘ending’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — as though wishing made it so.” In other words, the Obama Middle East policy has no clothes.

Ditto.

Dear Mr. President,

I hate to tell you this,  although Osama bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is very much alive. In fact, thanks to our rapid departure from Iraq, this terrorist organization controls more territory than at any time of its history. Their lands extend from the ancient city of Allepo, Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq. That’s over 400 miles of territory. In fact, the ISIS and Al-Qaeda even produces yearly reports for their Arab investors. Their leadership has threatened to reconquer Spain, and let’s not forget, Rome! By all accounts,  Al Qaeda has swept to power with the aim of imposing a strict Islamist ideology on Syrians across the large swathes of Syria’s rebel-held north. Al-Qaeda now has re-instituted a Caliphate, an idea that has been endorsed by certain Muslim Brotherhood leaders working in the White House as advisers to the President.

Arab heads are rolling by the thousands, while Christians are crucified in their areas of control.

Is the world a safer place, Mr. Obama?

I don’t think so.

In light of this, I would strongly recommend that you and your administration do not even think of criticizing Israel from doing what she must do to ensure her survival. Israel’s survival is at stake, but so is the rest of the Western world.

Europe is next.

 

Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi — A Rebbe to Remember

Reb Zalman 2005.jpg

Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi (1924-2014) died on July 3rd this past week. The world has lost of one its greatest and most imaginative modern Rebbes of modern times. In the early sixties, he and Shlomo Carlbach were among the earliest followers of Rabbi Schneersohn and their success set the standard for generations of Chabad shiluchim (emissaries).

My experience with Reb Zalman goes back almost four decades to when I was about nineteen years old.  Reb Zalman often used to travel to the Bay Area where he would do a variety of workshops.

In the summer of 1973,  I vividly remember him wearing a rainbow colored Tallit on Shabbat. When I asked him about the significance of his tallit, I remember him explaining to me how each color corresponded to a color of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.

I knew right away that Reb Zalman thought outside the box! Reb Zalman gave me a glimpse of what life might look like outside of Lubavitch.

After returning from vacation, I asked my teachers about him. Chabadniks often describe him as brilliant but somewhat wayward, a maverick of sorts. According to one narrative, young Zalman Schachter asked the Lubavitcher Rebbe if he could succeed him as the next Rebbe of Lubavitch. The Rebbe smiled and politely declined his offer, and said, “I hope that the Moshiach (Messiah) will replace me.”

Over the decades, Reb Zalman outgrew Lubavitch, and he subsequently became his own kind of Rebbe. As a modern Jewish visionary, he was one of the early exponents of interfaith dialogue that went far beyond the stodgy world of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Reb Zalman created bridges of mutual understanding with the Buddhist, Sufi, Hindu, and other religious traditions. He incorporated many of their techniques (e.g., Dervish-dancing) and meditation into Judaism.

He was also the first American Rabbi to be invited by the Dali Lama, who wanted to understand the mystery and lessons of Jewish survival for his own Tibetan community.  Reb Zalman was a pioneer and a visionary who sought to create a new kind of Jewish spirituality that would attract many young Jews who became disillusioned by the vapid and rote forms of Judaism that remain endemic of modern Jewish life.  He often had workshops designed to teach rabbis about the importance of silence—not an easy task indeed!

In my lifetime, I have known some outstanding spiritual teachers. I will remember Reb Zalman and R. Akiba Greenberg as two great giants of spirit who left a lasting influence on me. They were both in many ways, kindred spirits who also personally knew each other.

In retrospect, I would have to say that Reb Zalman had a much greater impact on me than Rabbi Schneersohn. Reb Zalman’s smile was contagious; he was always approachable.  Reb Zalman always took a sincere and personal concern all of his students and followers spirituality. He often recommended interesting meditative exercises to open my spirit to new possibilities. At times, he could be at times painfully honest—but always in a gentle sort of way. Often times, he offered advice to me that I did not solicit. Every year, I would always call him and see how he was doing and his memory was always sharp even to the end. A few months ago, he gave me a lovely recommendation on the cover of my new book, A Shepherd’s Song: The Shepherd Metaphor in Psalm 23 and in Jewish Thought.

As we grew older, Reb Zalman always used to say that we must go “from aging to saging,” a theme that later became of his most important books. For baby-boomers, this is wonder advice for all of us to remember.

Another one of the most important lessons he bequeathed unto a new generation of Jewish spiritual teachers is the importance of learning how to find their own spiritual voice. He also understood the power of the synagogue as a spiritual crucible for renewal and new possibilities.

His love for Jews of all backgrounds made him one of our most endeared rabbinical figures of modern times.

A great man has passed away and all who knew him will miss him.

A Personal Note to Prof. Walter Davis and the Presbyterian Church

  • “Today, we’re coming after the Saturday people; after we finish, we will come after the Sunday people”

My personal history with the Presbyterian Church goes back to the early 1990s, when they accepted me as a student for their doctoral program. In the three years I attended the SFTS (San Francisco Theological Seminary) in San Anselmo, CA., I considered it one of the most important learning experiences of my life. I had some outstanding scholars who served as my professors. Yet, one of the things I discerned early on in my studies, some of the professors seemed a bit more anti-Zionist than I had expected. They weren’t overly anti-Zionist, and they were mild by today’s standard.

The relationship between the Presbyterian Church and the Jewish community was reasonably cordial. In 1987, the PCUSA formally rejected  Replacement Theology:

  • We believe and testify that this theory of supersessionism or replacement is harmful and in need of reconsideration….We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world…  We affirm the continuity of God’s promise of land along with the obligations of that promise to the people Israel.

While I attended the SFTS, I became very friendly with the Walter Davis who was one of the seminary’s top administrators; he was also a Vietnam veteran. We became very good friends for the time I was there. On one occasion,

Walter Davis was one of the Seminary’s most important leaders while I was there. Walt, (who fought in Vietnam) and I became pretty good friends. I remember him taking me aside after I finished attending a lecture given by Lewis Rambo (he is no relation to Sylvester Stallone ). During one 1995 summer session, Walt said to me, “Michael, I really must apologize for the Presbyterian Church’s failure to come to the Jewish people’s aid during the Holocaust.”

Surprised, I thought about his remarks and said to him, “Walt, if you really want your Church to atone for their apathy during the Holocaust, there is something important your Church can do.” He asked, “What can we do?”  I replied, “Be a friend of the State of Israel—have your Church do everything in its power to make a difference in ensuring Israel’s health and stability. Your Church’s work would go a long way in making up what the Church failed to achieve in the dark days of the Holocaust.” Walt promised me that he would see to it that the Church would become a good friend of Israel.”

As the nineties quickly passed, the PCUSA became more and more critical of Israel and its occupation of the West Bank. The PCUSA began articulating some of the worse attitudes that the Vatican II Council tried so hard to expunge from the Catholic Church.

In a recently released document, “Zionism Unsettled,” the PCUSA has gone far from being opposed to a few West Bank settlements; now, it has declared that the ideology of Zionism is really a “Jewish supremacist ideology” that represents “a supremacist misinterpretation of God’s word.”  Zionist leaders are guilty of planning and implementing “ethnic cleansing” just as the Nazis did with the Jews of Europe, “They slaughtered untold numbers of Palestinian men, women, and children. . . ”

Did you know that many Palestinian churches have carefully edited the Book of Psalms, deleting the words “Israel” and “Zion” every time they appear.[1]  Well, I suppose we can look at the bright side and say, at least they didn’t replace “Israel” and “Zion” with “Palestine” and “Hamas.”

And the PCUSA  looks the other way. . .

Christian Palestinian pastors fondly speak about the Exodus as a story about the Palestinians. Observe how Jesus is no longer a Jew; he is a Palestinian—in fact, he is the “first Palestinian revolutionary” according to Rev. Mitri Reheb, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem. American tourists were surprised when they went to Manger Square in Bethlehem over one Christmas to see a banner, “Greetings to the birthplace of the Jesus, the first Palestinian revolutionary.”

How strange. Daniel Pipes writes:

  • The transfer of power of Bethlehem from Israel to the Palestinian Authority just before Christmas 1995 inspired a spate of articles[1] on Bethlehem’s diminishing Christian presence. They noted that a place not long ago 80 percent Christian is now but one-third Christian. For the first time in nearly two millennia, the most identifiably Christian town on earth has lost its Christian majority. The same changes have taken place in two other famously Christian towns, Nazareth and Jerusalem. In Nazareth, Christians went from 60 percent of the population in 1946 to 40 percent in 1983. Jerusalem Christians in 1922 slightly outnumbered Muslims (15,000 versus 13,000): today, they number under 2 percent of the city’s population.[2]

Surprisingly, the PCUSA doesn’t seem to be bothered by this social reality. Instead of condemning the anti-Christian and anti-Semitic Muslims, they enable them through their apathy and stupidity.

At their symposiums on the Christian Palestinians, they have often invited the Palestinian cleric, Father Naim Ateek, whose influence in contemporary Protestantism is immense as a keynote speaker. Ateek’s condemnations of Israel include imagery linking Israel and the Jews to the charge of deicide, which has fueled anti-Jewish bloodshed for nearly two millennia.

Writing in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Adam Gregerman observed that theologians like Ateek “perpetuate some of the most unsavory and vicious images of the Jews as malevolent, antisocial, hostile to non-Jews.” For example, Ateek wrote about “modern-day Herods” in Israel, referring to the king who the New Testament says slaughtered the babies of Bethlehem in an attempt to murder the newborn Jesus.

One last note.

It is ironic that the former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke expresses outrage at the PCUSA for appropriating his description of Zionism as a “Jewish Supremacist Ideology.”  Thank you David Duke, I think you and the PCUSA have a lot in common. By the way, the Iranian news media agencies agree with Duke as well.

One would think that the PCUSA would condemn the suicide bombers and the cult of death that provides hagiographical images of their “martyrs” replete with Israeli body parts. One would think that they would condemn the Islamic theology of necrophilia that inspires young men to kill hundreds in order to have their seventy virgins in Paradise. Worst still, they do not even condemn the Jihadist bloodshed of Christians in the Middle East, who are being slaughtered by the thousands by the ISIS movement in Iraq and Syria.

The moral leadership of the PCUSA is morally bankrupt. Someday, these theologians, academics, and stuffy-shirt thinkers will be remembered for being the moral cowards they really are.  I also believe that the twenty million Presbyterians do not all feel the same as their leadership.

To Presbyterians everywhere, I will conclude with this short remark:

When the Iranian state media and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke salute your anti-Zionist attitude about Israel, you must be doing something wrong.

 



[1] Elizabeth Smith Gamble, Lexington Theological Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1992 pp. 80—90.

 

[2] http://www.danielpipes.org/1050/disappearing-christians-in-the-middle-east.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemöller and Karl Barth: A Tale of Three Anti-Semites — Part 2

Erasmus, the great Catholic humanist scholar said, “If it is Christian to hate Jews, then we are all good Christians”[1] Martin Luther and a host of medieval and modern Protestant scholars would agree.

Just ask Martin Niemoeller.

But wait a minute . . . wasn’t he the person who famously said:

  • First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because  I was not a Jew. Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Impressed by Bonhoeffer, Niemöller added his own rhetorical flourish to Bonhoeffer’s words:

  • The Church of Christ has never lost sight of the thought that the ‘Chosen People’ who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross must bear the curse for its action through a long history of suffering.  The final return of the people of Israel can only take place through the conversion of Israel to Christ. . . .The gospel lesson for the day throws light upon the dark and sinister history of this people that can neither live nor die because it is under a curse which forbids it to do either.  Until the end of its days, the Jewish people must go its way under the burden which Jesus’ decree has laid upon it.

Like Karl Barth (as we will soon see), Niemöller did not shy away from making pejorative remarks about the Jewish converts he had in his church. Such baptized Christians, persecuted as Jews by the Nazis, due to their or their forefathers’ Jewish descent. In one sermon in 1935, he remarked, “What is the reason for [their] obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!”[2]

In defense of Niemöller, he wasn’t an irredeemable anti-Semite. After the war, he later expressed regret about his own anti-Semitism in an interview he had with a West German television station he said: “Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we cannot get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself . . . . Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him . . .”[3] Perhaps his guilty conscience reminded him that someday he would have to answer before the Judge of the World and answer for his dastardly remarks about the Jews, God’s Chosen People, whom he so deeply scorned.

Last and certainly not least, we will now examine the words of the famous Protestant theologian Karl Barth, who has often been described as “the greatest Christian theologian since Thomas Aquinas,” an epithet I would personally and strongly take issue with.

Karl Barth was also famous for his criticism of the Nazi regime. However, he too also subscribed to the idea that the Jew is a nothing more than a “Christ killer,” worthy of temporal and eternal torment for his audacious rejection of the Savior. Barth’s invective language about the synagogue is reminiscent of Martin Luther’s position. The Protestant scholar Chris Boesel carefully annotates the following Barthian references from his Church Dogmatics, Vol. 2.,  For him, he considers “The Synagogue” represents a “sectarian self-assertion”  by which the Jews attempt to “secure, defend, and preserve its existence against God.”  Barth calls this a  “perverse choice.” The Synagogue now witnesses “over against the witness of the Church,” rather than in unity with it. It is now a “typical expression   . . .  of man’s limitation and pain, of his transiency and the death to which is subject.” Synagogue Judaism is “the personification  of a half-venerable, half-gruesome relic, of a miraculously preserved antique, of human whimsicality. It must live among the nations the pattern of a historical life which has absolutely no future.” The Synagogue is “joyless,” persisting in a “cheerless chronology.” It is a “Synagogue of death,” constituting a “wretched testimony.”[4]

In the 1930s, he too charged the Jews with the death of Jesus – something they undertook not “in foolish over-haste” or misunderstanding, but, he asserted, as a “deliberate” act. Then, in 1942, from his base in Switzerland, in his theological work “Church Dogmatics,” Barth castigated Judaism as a “synagogue of death,” a “tragic, pitiable figure with covered eyes,” a religion characterized by “conceited lying,” and the “enemy of God.” If the church needed the Jews, he felt, it was only as a negative symbol, for they are a mirror of man’s rebellion against God, against which Christians must continually struggle.

Amazingly still, Barth—even after the Holocaust—still couldn’t get over his theological animus toward Judaism and Jews. In a letter he wrote to a close friend named,  Dr. Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt in 1967, Barth made a confession that is utterly amazing—especially in light of the Holocaust that took place over twenty years earlier. He writes:

  • I am decidedly not a philosemite, in that in personal encounters with living Jews (even Jewish Christians) I have always, so long as I can remember, had to suppress a totally irrational aversion, naturally suppressing it at once on the basis of all my presuppositions, and concealing it totally in my statements, yet still having to suppress and conceal it. Pfui! is all that I can say to this in some sense allergic reaction of mine. But this is how it was and is. A good thing that this reprehensible instinct is totally alien to my sons and other better people than myself (including you). But it could have had a retrogressive effect on my doctrine of Israel.[5]

Barth’s animus toward the Jewish people is evident within the Presbyterian Church. Walter Brueggemann and a host of lesser thinkers and teachers have become decidedly anti-Zionist and consider Israel an outlaw state. Brueggemann in particular shares a Barthian characteristic that is striking. Barth and Brueggemann love speaking about Israel, “Biblical Israel” in the abstract—but never with reference to the Jew who follows the Torah that Biblical Israel embodies. One gets the impression that Brueggemann finds Judaism, Israel, and the modern Jew to be an annoyance. Jewish Israel is a concept he and other Protestants refuse to accept because of their theology of supersessionism.

What else could one expect from the house that Luther, Erasmus,  Bonhoeffer, Niemöller, Barth, and Brueggemann built?

The fruits of the Protestant churches today and their hatred of Israel are bitter and worthy of oblivion.

If you read the famous “Parable about the Last Judgment” in Matthew 25:31-46, you will see that Jesus left a message in a bottle for the future theologians of the 20-21st century to reflect whenever they think about the Jewish people—Jesus’s own flesh and blood family:

  • “. . . for when I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did so to me.”

Next time Protestant theologians think about the Jewish people and everything we have gone through because of hateful theological supersessionism, they would be wise to remember this parable from their master and teacher.  Jesus’ humanity makes him a wonderful model for people to emulate themselves after—wouldn’t it be nice if his followers took his words more seriously? “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Mark 10:9)

If Barthian theologians have an issue with the Divine election of Israel, I think they ought to take it up with God Himself, and stop slandering God’s people at every opportunity.



[1] Charles Patterson, Anti-Semitism (New York: Walker and Company, 1982), 16.

 

[2]  Martin Niemöller, First Commandment, (London: Lutheran Church Publishing, 1937), pp. 243–250.

 

[3] Martin Niemöller Of Guilt and Hope (NY: Philosophical Library, 1947), 18.

[4] Chris Boesel , Risking Proclamation, Respecting Difference: Christian Faith, Imperialistic Discourse, and Abraham (Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock Publishers 2008), 107.

[5] Karl Barth, Jürgen Fangmeier and Hinrich Stoevesandt (ed.) Geoffrey W. Bromiy (transl. and ed.)  Karl Barth, Letters 1961-1968. (Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark, 1981) No. 260, pp. 261-263.

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemöller and Karl Barth: A Tale of Three Anti-Semites

 

Jesus once said:

 

  • ·                   “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15–20).

 

  • ·                   What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

  • §   NT James 2:14-17

 

Both of these statements contain a fundamental truth: faith by itself has little value unless it can mold and shape a person into an ethical human being. Although the Catholic Church has made a concerted effort to confront and challenge the church to respect Judaism and strive to cultivate better interfaith relations, the Protestant Church has demonstrated repeatedly that they still have a long way to go. 

In some ways, the hatred of the Jew is ancient centers on the concept of “chosenness,” or “divine election,” which gave rise to the doctrine of supersessionism, a.k.a., “replacement theology.” Since the days of the Early Church Fathers, the Jew has been branded by many of the most famous Christian thinkers  as, “Christ killers” worthy of any earthly retribution for failing to accept Jesus and the Church’s authority as the one sole means of heavenly reward. 

  • Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”  But he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” They only shouted the louder, “Let him be crucified!” When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.” And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified. (Mt. 27:22-26).

Mel Gibson especially loved this passage, which he highlights in his film, “The Passion of the Christ.”

Whenever one reads the anti-Israel emanating from many of the Protestant Churches today, one gets the distinct impression that we, as Jews, have been down this road before many times. Naturally, our Protestant churches love to distinguish between the Zionism and Judaism; however, in the years leading up to the Holocaust and the subsequent years that followed the Holocaust, leading Christian theologians made a distinction between the “symbolic” Jew and the “real Jews.” These thinkers had no trouble with the notion of a Jew as an abstraction, but dealing with “real” Jews proved to be irritable and unpleasant. 

When we think about some of the great people who defied Nazism during the Holocaust era, the names Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemöller and Karl Barth are synonymous with courage. Most Jews consider these men to be among the other great righteous Gentiles who stood up for human dignity. 

Yet, we would be deluding ourselves if we think that each of these men “liked” or “respected” the Jewish people.

True, Dietrich Bonhoeffer became famous for saying on the night of Kristallnacht, “If the synagogues are set on fire today, it will be the churches that will be burned tomorrow.” Yet, who could imagine that the same man would say to one of his colleagues, “that the Nazis were merely giving what was owed to the Jews. After all, “they nailed the Redeemer of the world to the cross,” they had been forced to bear an eternal curse through a long history of suffering, one that would end only “in the conversion of Israel to Christ.”[1]

Here is one more example of Bonhoeffer’s animus against the Jews:

  • The Church of Christ has never lost sight of the thought that the “chosen people” who nailed the redeemer of the world to the cross must bear the curse for its action through a long history of suffering…. But the history of the suffering of this people, loved and punished by God, stands under the sign of the final homecoming of Israel [the Jews] to its God. And this homecoming happens in the conversion of Israel to Christ…. The conversion of Israel, that is to be the end of the people’s period of suffering. From here the Christian Church sees the history of the people of Israel with trembling as God’s own, free, fearful way with his people, because God is not yet finished with it. Each new attempt to solve “the Jewish question” comes to naught . . .[2]

Shades of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!

Before I came across this passage, I never realized that Bonhoeffer suffered from religious schizophrenia when it came to the Jews. Bonhoeffer did not regard the Jew as a brother in faith, worthy of ecumenical respect.  He felt no sympathy for the racial anti-Jewish laws passed by the Nazis throughout the lands they conquered, after all, the German government was just carrying out classical Christian doctrines that were in place since the days of the 3rd century, where the Early Church Fathers promoted nothing but hostility toward the Jew. Short of actually killing the Jew, everything was considered permitted—even hard labor. After all, the Jews must suffer for their crimes against the Savior!

Many years ago, my synagogue sponsored a short film on the life of Bonhoeffer and the producer of the film was there as part of the panel. I was curious why Bonhoeffer was never included among the righteous Gentiles in the Va’ad Ashem in Jerusalem, but given his smug theological attitude concerning the Jews—it is not hard to figure out why.

(Part 2 to follow)



[1] Anders Gerdmar Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel. (Boston: Brill, 2008), p. 396. 

[2] Matthew D. Hockenos, A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004), 21.

 

Within the Stillness of Being, God Speaks

The Hebrew word for “wilderness” (מִדְבַּר = midbar) coincidentally shares the same consonants word for the term מְדַבֵּר (mĕdĕbēr =  “speaker”). Philo of Alexandria and some of the Hassidic mystics suggest that the wilderness is precisely where God reveals Himself to His people—and not in the cacophonous uproar of the city, where human beings ignore the Voice of God speaking.[1]

Mother Theresa once said, “We need to find God, and he cannot be found in noise and restlessness. God is the friend of silence. See how nature – trees, flowers, grass- grows in silence; see the stars, the moon and the sun, how they move in silence… We need silence to be able to touch souls.” The silence of nature speaks volumes, but without words—simply by being present to the power of the Divine that infuses its being with life and purpose. [2]

It is no accident that spiritual people throughout history discovered how the דְּמָמָה דַקָּה “still small voice” (1 Kgs. 19:12–13) is the vehicle through which God makes His Presence known, even though this “small voice” more often than not is drowned out by the cacophonous world we live in. According to Michael Fishbane, “The phrase may be a deliberate paradox—an attempt to articulate the voiced silence of God’s presence, through reference to a sound (kol) that is both silently still דְּמָמָה (demāmāh) and audibly thin דַקָּה (dāqǎ).” Fishbane’s Zen-like observation succinctly captures the subtlety of how God communicates, within the stillness of our being—that is where He is heard. This mystery flows from the depths of eternity; pointing to great immensity of the Divine; yet, God’s immensity is never so far removed from the human heart that seeks truth and comfort.

Israel discovers her faith in the wilderness and later constructs a Tabernacle (Mishkan) to symbolize God’s abiding Presence among them. In its precincts, God does not speak “to Moses” rather, Moses hears the Divine Word resonate from within his innermost being and conscience. Throughout Jewish tradition, the Mishkan represents God’s triumph over the forces of chaos. Creating a sacred place within the hostile precincts of the wilderness is a spiritually suggestive metaphor for moderns—for even as we enter our own personal wilderness, God beckons us to make a holy space for God to dwell with us as we traverse the מִדְבַּר.

Book Review: Letters to President Clinton: Biblical Lessons on Faith and Leadership,

 

Rabbi Menachem Genack, In Letters to President Clinton: Biblical Lessons on Faith and Leadership  Sterling Ethos/OU Press, New York, 2013. 288 pages, ISBN 978-1-4549-0791-6. Price: $24.95

President Bill Clinton is in many ways one of the most iconic and beloved presidents of recent history. His congenial manner combined with his ability to speak directly to the people without the help of a teleprompter (unlike some presidents), illustrates how he loved to communicate with people.

Yet, for all of Bill Clinton’s great talents, his life in the White House revealed a man who had human flaws that were reminiscent of King David, or perhaps even King Solomon of the Bible. Combined with his legion of critics, Bill Clinton’s presidency was severely marred by scandal during his second term in office. The rest of the kings of Israel made Kings David and Solomon seem like paragons of virtue in comparison.

Great people frequently have feet of clay. This is, of course, a perennial theme of the Bible. Even the greatest people of the Tanakh suffered from moral defects of varying degrees. Moses loses his temper on a regular basis. By today’s standards—he might have been a candidate for anger management, along with YHWH, whose outbursts of anger results in the destruction of cities and continents.

In the Bible, even God makes mistakes (Gen. 8:21).

Rabbi Menachem Genack is an impressive writer. His newest book,  In Letters to President Clinton: Biblical Lessons on Faith and Leadership, reveals much about the ethical passions of Rabbi Genak. His book will greatly enhance any rabbi’s sermons on the weekly parsha or High Holidays.

A number of prominent rabbis and Jewish leaders added their voices and ensured that the President would be find the words of Jewish wisdom inspirational and relevant to the days he spent in solitude during his term as President. Essays from Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, and others—makes this book intriguing to see; think of it as a record to future generations to read.

The chapter headings in the book underscore the overall arching theme of the book. For example, “Leadership,” “Sin and Repentance,” “Creation,” “Community,” “Faith,” “Dreams and Vision,” and “Holidays.”  Christians in particular will probably enjoy how the rabbis expound many of the most familiar biblical stories from a Jewish perspective.

Here are a few choice examples that caught my attention. Judah in the Bible personifies strength and moral leadership. Yet, he did not always possess these traits. Like Jacob, his father, Judah is a hybrid of darkness and light. “There is no light without shadow and no psychic wholeness without imperfection” and this adage certainly applies to all of various biblical personalities from Adam to Solomon, and countless others. The spiritual process of individuation (becoming a whole and integrated human being) requires that we face our shadowy self that hides beneath a veneer of piety and self-righteousness.

Even early on in the biblical story, Judah emerges as a born leader; his brothers look up to him; they listen to his advice; he commands their attention. Although he was not the firstborn son like Reuben, he might just as well could have been—judging by his demeanor and etiquette.  Yet, despite his natural gifts of leadership, he also has a dark side that is almost as cynical as his father’s. When the brother’s turn against Joseph, plotting to kill him, it is Judah who says:

  • So Judah said, “What will we gain if we kill our brother and hide his body?
    Let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not harm him. After all, he is our brother.” And the others agreed. When the Midianite merchants came by, Joseph’s brothers took him out of the well, and for twenty pieces of silver they sold him to the Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt. (Genesis 37:26-28)

In a section entitled, “The Ascent of Judah,” Norman Lamm points out a priceless insight  when Jacob blesses Judah on his deathbed. He notes that Judah’s greatness derives from the fact that he “rises from his failures. He atones for his sins and goes on to greatness. He redeems himself. The same Judah who counseled his brothers to sell Joseph into slavery now offers his own freedom and his very life to save Benjamin, Joseph’s full brother . . .Judah has now overcome his deficiencies. He has learned from his  mistakes. Judah is a study in growth, in development, a case study how to overcome moral vulnerability and emerge all the stronger” (p. 79-80).

Every time I read this book, I always learn something new and inspiring. I am certain that you will too.

I rate this book 5*out of 5*.

Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel, spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom, is the author of The Lord Is My Shepherd: The Theology of the Caring God (Jason Aronson, 1996) and Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation (Createspace, 2010) and four other books on Jewish theological, biblical and Talmudic subjects.  He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com

Nelson Mandela: A Man who Embodied the Spirit of Joseph & Moses

Nelson Mandela

Parshat Vyigash

Did Joseph really forgive his brothers? The biblical text strongly indicates that he did, one notable 18th century scholar, Hayim Ibn Attar (Ohr HaHayyim) argues that he didn’t. He explains that based upon Noahide law, anyone who had kidnapped or robbed is guilty of the death penalty. Although the victim could forgive the criminal, the law demands that the penalty be carried out.

  • So it was not really you but God who had me come here; and he has made of me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt. (Gen. 48:5).

Still and all, it is unclear whether the brothers felt that Joseph was merely biding his time for revenge; they thought that after their father’s death, Joseph would exact vengeance. This attitude is immediately evident after Jacob dies. In next week’s Torah reading, the brothers verbalize their anxiety and Joseph clarified his earlier thoughts on this matter:

  • ·          Now that their father was dead, Joseph’s brothers became fearful and thought, “Suppose Joseph has been nursing a grudge against us and now plans to pay us back in full for all the wrong we did him!”  So they approached Joseph and said: “Before your father died, he gave us these instructions:  You shall say to Joseph, Jacob begs you to forgive the criminal wrongdoing of your brothers, who treated you so cruelly.’ Please, therefore, forgive the crime that we, the servants of your father’s God, committed.” When they spoke these words to him, Joseph broke into tears.Then his brothers proceeded to fling themselves down before him and said, “Let us be your slaves!” 
  • But Joseph replied to them: “Have no fear. Can I take the place of God? Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve his present end, the survival of many people.Therefore have no fear. I will provide for you and for your children.” By thus speaking kindly to them, he reassured them. Joseph remained in Egypt, together with his father’s family. He lived a hundred and ten years (Gen. 50:15-22).

These verses indicate that Joseph forgave his brothers and he felt sincere about it. It would seem highly irregular, if not downright anti-climactic  for the Book of Genesis to end on such an ambivalent note. To presume that Joseph was stingy with his forgiveness  would have tarnished his sterling quality; Joseph could hardly be called an exemplar to future generations had he been less than magnanimous in the art of forgiveness.

Subsequent Jewish tradition has always taught just as a person has a responsibility to seek forgiveness from a person(s) one has wronged, there also exists a duty on the part of the wronged party to act generously and be receptive to the experience of forgiveness if one sees that the wrong-doer is indeed sincere and penitent. Maimonides stresses this point in his classic study on the Laws of Penitence:

  • Whenever a person who has wronged another asks to be forgiven, he should do so with a perfect heart and with an agreeable spirit. Even if this person has distressed and wronged him exceedingly much, nevertheless, he should not be vengeful or bear a grudge towards him.[1] 

When the brothers found out about Joseph’s real identity, they feared retribution, but Joseph showed them by example how one must treat one’s adversaries. In many ways, it is in my view, the perfect conclusion to the Book of Genesis: Brothers must reconcile.

Why is this story about Joseph so relevant and important for today?

Rarely does the week day Torah reading correspond to the events of the world. Yet, this past week, we saw a divine synchronicity—the death of Nelson Mandela, who in many ways, personified the characteristics of Joseph in the Torah. The personality traits they exhibited reveal parallelisms that are striking.

  • Joseph and Mandela were hated by their brethren.
  • Both Joseph and Nelson Mandela spent years in prison; Joseph spent 22 years away from his home; Mandela spent 27 years away from his home.
  • Joseph ushers a new era of prosperity; Mandela also ushers a new era of prosperity and freedom for his people.
  • Both Joseph and Mandela proved to be great statesmen who brought great prosperity to their countrymen that lasted for decades.
  • By word and deed, Joseph and Mandela taught their people about the importance of forgiveness. Mandela’s words left a legacy, ”No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion.”
  • “People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for loves comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

It may be no coincidence that he died on the last day of Hanukkah. And like the Maccabees, he fought for the freedom for self-determination. Let us hope that leaders in our country will use their influence to bring healing to our nation, so that every person will realize life’s potential through the power of love and forgiveness.



[1] Maimonides, MT Hilchot De’ot 6:6.

Knockout: Combatting African-American Teen Violence (new version 12/1/2013)

 

 

Jesse Jackson once said that he gets nervous whenever he sees a group of young black men standing on a corner doing nothing—and  he’s not the only one.

By now, most of you may have heard about a game called “Knockout.” In places like Crown Heights in Brooklyn, where Jews and blacks live peacefully together, young black hoodlums play this game to see how many Jews they can “knockout” by punching them in the head as these pedestrians walk down the streets. After a person has been knocked out, the black youths dance around the victim and high-five their fellows for their achievement.

The violence perpetuated has caused numerous concussions, disfigurements, and deaths.

The social problem of “Knockout” is getting exponentially larger because many of the large media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC refuse to do a story about it. Jewish communities are reluctant to talk about it as well. The black youths committing the assaults have even filmed videos of the incidents showing the violence and their subsequent celebrations, including some called “Polar Bear Hunting” and “Knock the Jew.” By hiding these hate crimes from the public, the television stations are enabling this kind of behavior to continue. FOX News deserves considerable credit for breaking the story.

Thomas Sowell, an important voice sof the black community, wrote an article for the New York Post. In it, he acknowledges that such assaults on innocents are nothing new:

  • Despite such pious phrases as “troubled youths,” the attackers are often in a merry, festive mood. In a sustained mass attack in Milwaukee, going far beyond the dimensions of a passing knockout game, the attackers were laughing and eating chips, as if it were a picnic. One of them observed casually, “White girl bleed a lot.” That phrase — “White Girl Bleed a Lot” — is also the title of a book by Colin Flaherty, which documents both the racial attacks across the nation and the media attempts to cover them up, as well as the local political and police officials who try to say that race had nothing to do with these attacks.[1]

Shonda Lackey speaks directly to the root of the social problem affecting young black teens.

  • The plain truth is that many young black men are not being raised to be productive members of society. It seems they aren’t being raised at all. Without proper guidance from their mothers and particularly their fathers, black children struggle to develop a healthy sense of self. If these black youths don’t value their own lives, it will be difficult for them to value the life of another human being. The perpetrators involved in the “knockout” attacks don’t seem to care if their target might retaliate. They also don’t seem to care about repercussions such as incarceration. In fact, they appear to think they are invincible. [2]

I think there are several other factors contributing toward the social violence. The “New” Black Panther Party endorses inter-racial violence. The NBPP’s deceased chairman, Khalid Abdul Muhammad identified the “white man” as the “devil” and claiming that “there is a little bit of Hitler in all white people.[3]

You may remember the New Black Panthers King Samir Shabazz from the voter intimidation allegations that were leveled at him in 2008, which was ignored by the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice. In one recent broadcast, Shabazz calls for black Americans to form an army and murder white people in very explicit terms. Here are just some of his comments from the newly discovered 2012 radio broadcast.

  • We gonna need preachers going into the cracker churches throwing hand grenades on early Sunday morning when the cracker got his hands up, ‘please white Jesus!’ Well we gonna throw a bomb in that Godd@mn church, burn up the cracker, burn up the cracker Jesus, and burn up some cracker white supremacy. …You’re going to have to kill some of these babies, just born three seconds ago. You’re going to have to go into the Godd@mn nursery and just throw a damn bomb in the damn nursery and just kill every­thing white in sight that ain’t right.[4]

Attorney General Eric Holder’s behavior is all the more suspicious in this matter.  The Department of Homeland Security said recently that an African-American employee named Ayo Kimathi still runs a racist website predicting and advocating a race war. To date, he has been put on paid administrative leave and is still collecting a paycheck for his job. He has been working there since 2009. His website criticizes whites, gays, those of mixed race, and blacks who integrate with whites.

The NBPP’s ideation is deliberately stoking the fires of hatred by preparing and encouraging  the racial war conflict in the United States.  We have yet to hear from Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and the President himself condemning the violence. We have yet to see Eric Holder label the NBPP as a terrorist organization. Yet, the President had no difficulty posting the NBPP’s political recommendation on the Re-elect President Obama website and  marched with Shabazz back in 2007.[5]

When revelation about this endorsement occurred, I asked: “How would the country like it if the President posted a KKK endorsement on the Presidential website?” You know the answer: people would justifiably feel outraged.

Among prominent liberal African American social leaders, only Al Sharpton has condemned the racial violence.  In fact, he said he would even organize rallies to help prevent the spread of gratuitous violence. He commented, “How would we like it if it were white people preying upon blacks?” I am personally pleased to see Sharpton for taking an ethical stand on this matter.  Continue reading “Knockout: Combatting African-American Teen Violence (new version 12/1/2013)”

Isaac’s Spiritual Initiation as a Biblical Patriarch (new)

 

Popular culture often adds its own midrashic spin to famous biblical stories. The episode known as the Akedah, “The Binding of Isaac” illustrates the harrowing chapter when Abraham almost saw his future go literally, “up in smoke.” Bob Dylan and Woody Allen both add a remarkable subtext to the story where Abraham nearly ritually slaughtered his son as a sacrifice to God.

Dylan sees a dark side to God’s behavior. In his song, Highway Sixty One Revisited, Dylan writes:

  • “Oh God said to Abraham, ‘Kill me a son.’ Abe says, ‘Man, you must be puttin’ me on.’ God say, ‘No.’ Abe say, ‘What?’ God say, ‘You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin’ you better run.’”

Some people experience God as a demonic being that is out to “get us,” if we fail to worship God properly. In the Midrashic imagination, God’s behavior in this instance is reminiscent of Job’s experience. Job, as you probably know, experienced God as an adversary. In fact, the name, “Iyob” means “enemy,” and the identity of this “enemy” remains an enigma throughout this particular biblical book.

Woody Allen offers a neo-Kantian approach to the Akedah story. Like Kant, Allen contends that Abraham actually fails the test.                                       

  • God: “I jokingly suggest you to sacrifice Isaac and you immediately run out to do it.” And Abraham fell to his knees, “See, I never know when you’re kidding.” And the Lord thundered, “No sense of humor. I can’t believe it.” “But does this not prove I love you, that I was willing to donate mine only son on your whim?” And the Lord said, “No, Abraham, that doesn’t prove anything at all. All it proves that lunatics and fanatics will follow any order no matter how asinine, as long as it comes from a resonant and well-modulated voice.”

Woody Allen’s interpretation is one that even some Hassidic Rebbes have embraced. Emil Fackenheim, one of the greatest  Jewish theologians of the Holocaust, recalls the following story told to him by a Hasid:

  • A Hasid once called me: “I want to see you.” I asked, “Why?” He said, “I have something to teach you. So he showed up, about 25 years old, in his black garb and payot [side curls]. What I remember was his question: “Did it ever occur to you that the God who asks Abraham to do the Akeda [binding of Isaac] as a sacrifice, sends an angel to stop it?” And he said, ‘God was fed up with Abraham: when he asked him to sacrifice his son ‑‑ that was the test ‑‑‑ He wanted Abraham to say NO!” [The Hasid might have been surprised to know that Immanuel Kant made the same observation over 2 centuries ago!]

Yes, the story of the Akedah creates cognitive dissonance in us.

How do we differentiate between the voice of God and the voice that mimics and parodies God, but is in reality, the voice of cruelty and evil?

If one examines Midrash Rabbah on the Akedah, the Sages intimated that Satan is the one who instigated this ordeal for Abraham. In symbolical and psychological terms, Abraham’s test consists of differentiating between the true voice of God and the voice that parodies God (Satan).

I believe that the Midrash offers a profound insight.

The Akedah teaches us that there are two types of religiosity. One is authentic and life affirming, the other type of religiosity is a cheap imitation because it doesn’t inspire people to live in accordance with Judaism’s highest principles.

Discerning God’s voice isn’t too hard, for any God who would demand that we sacrifice our children, is hardly worthy of our love or our devotion. God did not want Abraham to kill Isaac ‑‑ He wanted Abraham to just say NO! The prophet Jeremiah makes this point abundantly clear in his condemnation of Molech worship, which had taken root in ancient Israel:

  • Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent, and gone on building the shrines of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind. Therefore the days are surely coming, says the LORD, when this place shall no more be called Tophet, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter (Jer. 19:4-6).

The Talmud adds an important interpretation of the above Scriptural text:

And it is further written, “which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind.” —   This refers to the sacrifice of the son of Mesha, the king of Moab, as it is said, “Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall” (2 Kings 3:27) –  This portion of the verse refers to the daughter of Jephthah. (Judg. 11:13) “nor did it enter my mind”  —  This refers to the sacrifice of Isaac, the son of Abraham.[1]

Unfortunately, we have witnessed the horrors of 9/11 and countless acts of terrorism in the world where parents send their children to maim and destroy in the Name of God. Too often, religious people use God to justify every conceivable evil.

Rav Abraham Isaac Kook once said that a great amount of the world’s suffering is because people have a confused conception of God. As religious people, we must make sure that our thoughts of God are clean and free from the dross of deceptive fantasies that are based on human inadequacies.  Faith in God must enhance human happiness and promote a  reverence for life. Continue reading “Isaac’s Spiritual Initiation as a Biblical Patriarch (new)”