cellio | what I believe

Current Mood: thoughtful

Entry tags:

what I believe

In this entry, I talked with

goljerp about the different movements in Judaism and what Reform believes. I'm moving the discussion here to talk about what I believe.

There is a famous story about a gentile who approached Rabbi Hillel and asked him to explain all of Torah while standing on one foot. (In other words, summarize!) Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go and study." I'm not nearly as succinct as Hillel, so I'm going to sit while I write this. :-)

Prelude: When I began my explorations into Judaism, I thought the Reform movement advocated mostly ignoring halacha and making things up as you go. I was under the impression that real scholarship didn't happen there and that it was basically a feel-good religion without the rigor (intellectual and spiritual) that I was looking for. I was wrong. I began my investigations with the Conservative movement, but ultimately ended up with Reform.

There are two (related) reasons that I am not a Conservative Jew. The first is that I do not believe the Torah is the precise word of God -- which is not to say that it's not important, just that it's not divinely authored. The second is that I believe the decisions about interpretation properly rest with the individual, not with a rabbinic assembly. (Nothing prevents an individual from deferring to a rabbinic body, but I believe that's the individual's decision to make.) There is also a second-order effect: there are flaws in the halachic process as it has evolved. I'll talk about each of these points below.

Torah

I have trouble accepting the traditional interpretation of divine authorship. And while I don't claim the expertise necessary to evaluate all of the biblical scholarship that casts doubts on that account, I recognize that there are valid questions there. I do believe in a revelation at Sinai (pretty much as described); I just think the account was written by men, with God's input.

You know how sometimes you'll stay up half the night having a fascinating, detailed discussion with a good friend, and maybe later you'll try to write down what happened? I think it's something like that. God talked to Moshe and reinforced certain points as especially important, and Moshe (and maybe others later) wrote it all down. (There is also internal evidence that the teaching as written down is incomplete -- places where it says "do this as I have instructed you" but the instructions aren't there. The traditional interpretation is that this is the proof for the Oral Law having been given at Sinai.)

There is a body of Torah analysis that depends on precise word choices -- and sometimes on spelling errors and gemmatria and stuff like that -- to reach conclusions about halacha and "what God really meant". I don't buy into that, because I don't necessarily believe God chose all the words. But I do believe that God was involved; the Torah is not something that was just made up by men! And some points are brought up several times in the Torah, and I believe that indicates things that were especially important. (Shabbat is one of those repeated themes.)

So the Torah is a source of truth, but not an infallable or sole one.

Autonomy

Partly because of the above, it falls to each of us to learn, interpret, and understand. "Go and study", as Hillel said. But also because rabbis are not like (Christian) priests, who are presumed to have a closer connection with God than the rest of us. We all have a connection with God (if we want it), and we (pretty much) all have the capacity to learn (if we put our minds to it).

"Israel" means "[he who] wrestles with God". It does not mean "[he who] just shuts up and does what he's told". I think there's a message there.

So, we all have not only the privilege but the obligation to come, through study and thought, to our own conclusions about what behavior God demands of us. We do not do so in a vacuum, of course; it would be silly to disregard work that others have done. But the responsibility falls with the individual -- and if I err, it is entirely on my shoulders.

More on halacha

If the direct chain of transmission of halacha ever existed, it has long since been broken. Rashi, the Rambam (Maimonides), Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch), etc were smart, learned people, but not the sole inheritors of the tradition, in my opinion. The Orthodox principle that you can never contradict a ruling made by a previous generation is wrong, in my opinion -- and ill-advised, given the the lengths they'll go to to "reinterpret" -- but never contradict, heaven forbid! -- past rulings. This don't-contradict-your-predecessors attitude goes back at least as far as the Talmud; I am reminded of a discussion in Tractate Pesachim where the rabbis of one generation said "do this during the day" and a later generation said "by which they really meant 'night'". Day, night -- what's a little semantic difference among colleagues? (I am not making this up.)

And then there are all the fences ("gezeirot"), the laws that the rabbis invented that aren't really Torah law per se but are just there to protect us from accidentally violating Torah law. Chicken with milk is a good example of this. The Torah says "do not seethe a kid in its mother's milk". Even if you generalize kid to all animals, how can you apply it to chickens? Chickens don't have milk. But the rabbis said that, as a precaution lest we become confused, we also don't eat chicken with dairy.

(In case you're wondering, I do follow that halacha -- not becuase I believe that's really what the Torah says, but because of a sense of klal Yisrael (unity, sort of). It's a major point with a lot of people; it does me no real harm to follow it; it adds a degree of mindfulness to my observance that would not otherwise be there; and besides, this way my kashrut-observant friends can eat from my kitchen.)

In interpreting halacha, I personally draw a distinction between intention and side-effect. (Halacha, for the most part, does not.) For example, pushing an elevator button does in fact kindle a light (usually), in the button, but I don't desire that light, and in fact I can do just fine without it. This is different from turning on a reading lamp, where my purpose is to turn on the light. So, while I will take the stairs and try to arrange to not need an elevator, if I need one, I'll use one. The rest is stringency to help me remember that Shabbat is different from other days.

This is the sort of question that I wrestle with in many areas. It's a situation that's probably unique to Reform. If an Orthodox or Conservative Jew has a question about whether something is permitted, he asks his rabbi, who (for example) opens up the Shulchan Aruch and finds the answer. (Ok, the SA isn't the final word on any subject these days; allow me my rhetorical device, please.) If it's a truly new situation, it probably gets sent off to the rabbinical authorities for an answer. The Reform Jew, however, works it out for himself, with whatever guidance he seeks out. (I ask my rabbi for input on lots of things, for instance.)

Now, it's true that many Reform Jews don't work it out, nor do they seek out answers, and many people -- including some within the Reform movement -- believe that there are no obligations. On the other hand, I've met plenty of Orthodox Jews who are not at all learned (and can't explain even basic principles), and who don't seem to care, and are publicly observant but don't worry about it otherwise. In neither case should the movement be judged by some of its members.

Wow, that was long. And I feel like I've left a bunch of stuff out, but it'll have to wait.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Just a reminder to myself that I have a side rant on rules hacks vs the spirit of the law, but I'm too tired to do it now. It'll probably have to wait until after Shabbat.

This is a very good entry, and there's lots of stuff here which I'd like to discuss with you. However, it's also late for me, and I'm starting to loose it. So perhaps another night!

Looking forward to it!

Shabbat shalom.

Must sleep! Must... sleep...

In light of Israel meaning "[he who] wrestles with God", I find it even more interesting that the religion known today for "competing" with Judaism in the Middle East, at least politically, calls itself Islam, which means "submission [to God]". Interesting dichotomy, that. One wrestles with Him, the other submits to Him.

In no way do I imply that either is better. Just an interesting thought.

Interesting!

Also interesting is that Judaism doesn't claim to be the one true faith; you don't have to be Jewish to merit reward (in this world and the next). I'm not sure exactly what Islam's attitude toward Judaism is, though I know that "people of the book" rate in a way that others do not.

So there's definitely political competition, but there isn't as much religious competition as, say, between Christianity and Judaism.

I would like to better understand your statement about "religious competetion..between Christianity and Judaism". I've pretty much always been in relatively liberal Christian Churches (well, as liberal as Presbyterians get), including the Methodist congregation I currently belong to, so I may have missed this.

Competition (of sorts) for believers is what I meant.

Christianity (I *think* this is broad Christian, not just RC!) teaches that in order to reach heaven/be saved, you have to be a Christian. I think there's provision for people who've never encountered Christianity (in RC that used to be limbo, I think), but if you've heard of it and rejected it, you're damned (going to hell). So there is a natural tendency for Christians to preach to non-Christians to try to convert them, to save them from this fate. This is different from Judaism, which teaches that non-Jews can merit the world to come so there's no need to seek converts.

Perhaps "competition" was a bad word choice. I see it as uni-directional and non-hostile.

So there is a natural tendency for Christians to preach to non-Christians to try to convert them, to save them from this fate.

Actually, it's not a natural tendency. The Bible is rather specific about Christians teaching the words and the life of Jesus to non-Christians. It's part of the responsibilities of being a Christian. I'll try and find the passage this weekend. It's not something that Christians thought up on their own, or just thought would be A Good Idea, it's in the Bible.

I cop out of it because with the availability of information now, if you haven't heard of Jesus, that you probably won't anyway.

I think at this point, we're getting into "theory v practice" :-)

Actually, it's not a natural tendency. The Bible is rather specific about Christians teaching the words and the life of Jesus to non-Christians.

Ok. I thought it was in there somewhere, but didn't know if it was gospels, Paul, or somewhere else, and whether non-RC gives the same weight to some parts (e.g. Paul) that RC does. So I was hedging. :-)

I think at this point, we're getting into "theory v practice" :-)

Probably. :-)

in case people are interested in having someone else do their research... :)

Instances where Christians are commanded to go and preach to non-believers:

Mark 16:15 - "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Luke 9:1-2 - When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Acts 10:42 - "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead."

All quotes are from the New International Version, courtesy of the Bible Gateway. Attempts have been made to quote enough to get relevent context, but you may of course read more on your own.

Thank you for posting this. I can appreciate all of the effort that you have gone through in your search. You make some good points about biblical interpretation.

(Christian) priests, who are presumed to have a closer connection with God than the rest of us.

I have to disagree with this though. Priests or religious do not inherently have a closer connection with God than anyone else. They are people and have all of the faults and features of people. They do have a different role to play in God's plan but then each of us has a our own role too. A priest or religious spends a great deal of time in formation (study and prayer) so they have studied, meditated on, and prayed to God more than most of us but that doesn't mean that we can't strive for a close relationship with God through effort in our own lives.

We all have a connection with God (if we want it), and we (pretty much) all have the capacity to learn (if we put our minds to it).

Yes, this is true.

Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate getting these corrections when I err.

I was thinking of the priestly role as intermediaries. Roman Catholicism teaches (or taught when I was growing up, anyway) that you could not seek absolution directly from God when you sinned; you had to go through the intermediary via the sacrament of confession. I interpreted this to mean that the priests (by their chosen role, not by inherent nature) had a relationship with God that ordinary Catholics didn't. Doesn't mean you still can't strive to improve your relationship with God; I just saw it as an upper bound, so to speak (unless you enter the priesthood).

I've also got to stop using the word "Christian" where the only thing I can base an assertion on is Roman Catholic. There are other types of Christianity. And, as an Episcopalian (sp?) friend pointed out to me not long ago, other types of Catholicism. I don't do it to cause grief; I do it because I grew up being taught that RC = Christianity, and while I know intellectually that it's not true, the roots are deep.

> an upper bound

Still, if I'm not mistaken, even priests - heck, even the Pope - need to go to another ordained priest to perform confession. They can't absolve themselves. So it is an odd sort of beast. :)

I was also a bit uncomfortable with your RC=Christian assertion, but understand that a lifetime of habit is difficult to break.

I'm trying to fix it; sometimes I screw up. And sometimes I (still) have no idea that something I was taught as "Christian" is really just RC, and I discover these by bumping into them...

This is a problem I've fallen into, as well, having grown up RC. I've been very careful in my discussions with Alper to say "I'm not sure about other forms of Christianity, but this is what I was taught as a Catholic."

In truth, I grew up half RC and half Byzantine Catholic. Which is probably why I am the way I am now, since the practice of the Mass is quite different on the surface. So, I got it in my head at an early age that it was ok to worship God in different ways, with different words, in different languages.

I was thinking of the priestly role as intermediaries. Roman Catholicism teaches (or taught when I was growing up, anyway) that you could not seek absolution directly from God when you sinned; you had to go through the intermediary via the sacrament of confession.

I always found this contradictory with what actually happens during a Mass. I know that there is a priest there, but the words that Catholics say seem to indicate something other than strictly priestly intervention:

"I confess to Almighty G-d, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. In my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do, and I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our G-d."

(the very scary thing is that that's from memory)

Doesn't this seem to indicate that absolution can come through prayer, and not necessarily through the priest's intervention?

Not that I'm very Catholic anymore, or that you even care, but it's something that I always found interesting. Why have the need to go into a confessional when you pray for absolution every week at the beginning of Mass?

...and the Baltimore Catechism says that you should question and seek answers...

Thanks for posting this!

Doesn't this seem to indicate that absolution can come through prayer, and not necessarily through the priest's intervention?

Well, just to be hyper-nit-picky here, the actual request at the end of that text is not for absolution; it's for prayer on your behalf. I see this as meaning that when you seek absolution (through the customary channels), these accumulated prayers will help you.

There are actually a couple of answers to this. First of all, you can and should pray to God and ask for forgiveness directly. This is not the same thing as a sacrament but it is working on your relationship with God and so it counts. Reconciliation is also a chance for spiritual direction and guidance. Some priests have a gift for this and some do not. I've experienced a couple of times where the priest said something that was dead on and that helped me a lot. Since we are all human, it is also helpful to hear someone with authority to do so to actually say that you are forgiven since God isn't likely to say it to you directly.

Relevant verses from the Bible include: Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; and John 20:23. I would encourage reading a bit before and after those verses for context.

I think that I reacted kind of strongly to the "competition" comment because I so agree with you on many of your beliefs. I refuse to follow *anything* blindly, and feel that it is my responsibility as a Christian to be educated about Christianity. I also agree that we all wrestle with G-d, and that we all have some kind of relationship with G-d (regardless of what we call hir).

Sometimes, in the broad strokes of faith, we all can see eye-to-eye, which (to me) is one of the beautiful things in life.

Well said, well said. I wholeheartedly agree.

Interestingly, my bias, being Christian but not Catholic (I'm Methodist), was the belief that in RC the priest had to intervene for absolution. Not until

chite posted did I realize evidence to the contrary. Thank you for that insight. Even though I've been to RC services, I never quite caught on to everything going on there.

Lynne, correct me if i've misunderstood confession....according to the rules, you *must* enter into direct confession with a priest and receive absolution from a priest in order to be forgiven of the confessed sins.

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't ever heard of an "all-church" confession, but they didn't use it at Sacred Heart or at my Grandmother's church (RC church in Plum...St. Michael's IIRC). Is this new (like in the last 12-13 years?).

It's always been there, as far as I remember.... It's close to the start of Mass, either right before or right after the "Lord have mercy, christ have mercy" part.

I guess that what I was posting was that it's contradictory. Yes the rules say that there must be direct intervention, yet in Mass (right around the "lord have mercy, christ have mercy" part, we say something of an act of contrition.

So in fact, I think it all comes down to the fact that Catholic rules and traditions contradict each other. Which is one of the reasons that I found it so difficult to be a Catholic.

Ok, here's my attempt at a semi-explanation on RCisms...

The congregational prayer that

chite quoted (very accurately, too) is known as the Confiteor (I confess). It is generally spoken in the Mass before the Kyrie (Lord have mercy, etc). It originated in about the 8th century (or somewhere thereabouts), although the form said today is actually from about 1570. It was originally spoken privately by the priest in preparation for Mass, expressing his unworthiness and asking for grace. It soon became customary for the priest to say it at the foot of the altar, and gradually it came to be regarded as part of the Mass. The generally accepted reason for it is to become aware of our sins and our need for forgiveness, and then (as

cellio said) to ask for prayer on your behalf.

This is not an acceptable replacement for the Sacrament of Penance, however. The confiteor is to place you in a state of being contrite ("sorry for your sins"), which is necessary for forgiveness. Confession is made to a priest because a) God has given them the power to forgive sins (from verses*

mrpeck pointed out), b) a priest is a religious authority figure, a persona of God, if you would, not a friend or a sympathetic confidant, and confessing aloud to him is believed to be more difficult and more likely to be sincere than confessing silently in your head, and c) (again, as

mrpeck said) it is a chance for spiritual direction and guidance.

The official stance of the RC church is that confession to a priest is "the ordinary means appointed by Christ for the remission of sin."** A full confession contains three parts: contrition (which in itself is sufficient if it is perfect and accompanies an intent to confess), confession (act of confessing to a priest), and satisfaction (his absolution and forgiveness of your sins).

Hope that clears up a little...

* Verses that bestow the power to forgive sins on the disciples:
Matt 16:19 - "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
John 20:23 - And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

** quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Sacrament of Penance

*** I used some other sources from Google, but I don't remember what. Sorry.

I think that I reacted kind of strongly to the "competition" comment

Please accept my apology. It was not meant to be confrontational. The context that was in my head didn't make it into the post. :-(

Sometimes, in the broad strokes of faith, we all can see eye-to-eye, which (to me) is one of the beautiful things in life.

Well said.

Wow. We need a "let's talk about religion" group....

But we do that anyway :)

I found

interfaith a while ago, but I'm not really sure if that's the right place. (Better than anything else I've found, but that's not the same thing as "good".) I also found

theology, but its interest list suggests that they mean Christian theology in particular. I don't know how welcome a Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist point of view would be.

Well, heck, there's quite a few of us talking here that are local...we should get together occasionally :-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

what I believe

no subject

no subject

no subject

ahh!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Some verses...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

confession vs confiteor

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject