For Easter:
So on Monday one of our Ministers came to my FOCUUS group to conduct a lecture on Judaism. Mark Bellitini is an amazing lecturer, and his way of describing the evolution of a faith, its words and principles, was fascinating and inspiring. Turns out he had been a member of a Liberal synagogue for a while before being called to the UU Ministry, and one of the stories he told of his experiences with the Jewish traditions really stuck out.
Apparently, it is traditional to tell the story of Abraham and Issac during Yom Kippur. You know, the story of God coming to Abraham and demanding his son Issac as a sacrifice, then an angel coming down and stopping Issac's death, proving Gods kindness.
For a Humanist-leaning church such as the one Mark was attending at the time, there are several glaring problems with this story. What kind of God would demand the live of a child? What kind of God would force a man to choose between his faith and the son that he loves? How can you worship a creature that would encourage that kind of thinking? It goes against every Humanist understanding of God.
So, as Mark's radical feminist, bisexual rabbi told it, she focused on a different potential interpretation of the story. She explained that, directly after that section of the Torah, the next portion deals with the death of Sarah, Abraham's wife. Issac is not seen again until after his fathers death. This was not, in fact, a story of God's mercy, but of Abraham's failure in a test.
After all, the only appropriate response when a voice speaks to you in your head and tells you to kill your child is "Fuck off!" Even if it is the voice of your God. Abraham failed the test, and God had to send an angel to ensure that the poor kid didn't get killed by his knife-wielding father. Sarah died from a broken heart, having seen the husband she loved decide to kill her favorite child. Issac was understandably not pleased with his father, and does not appear for a while.
One of the things that Mark pointed out, after the story, was that his Rabbi, while teaching something radically different than the traditional interpretation, was still thought of as 'Jewish' by the rest of the community. Analyzing the Torah for new interpretations is not considered wrong or somehow breaking with tradition; in fact, arguing about the interpretation of certain passages is an integral part of the faith. Yet I have had people tell me that analysis and different interpretations of the Christian Bibles damage Christianity, that different sects shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Christian, and that anything less than complete, unquestioning belief is not real 'faith'.
I certainly don't agree that all Protestants shouldn't call themselves Christian because they base their faith on the Bible and ignore the original church. Yet I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for the people who get so irritated with people who are 'doing it wrong' - I know of certain fundamentalist groups which I find difficult to think of as worshiping the Christ I was taught about. Yet you can't have the one without the other; you can't accept one group as 'right' because they think the same as you while another is 'wrong' just because they don't. Without being able to have dialogue, without accepting that different people value different things in their faith traditions, it is impossible to focus upon the really important things - the connection one has with the 'divine' and the similarities ones group has with another.
The world is a scary, divided place. But saying "we should all band together on my side" just won't work. Somehow, there must be a way to meet in the middle ground and actually accomplish some good. I think that's something every faith tradition could agree on.
Apparently, it is traditional to tell the story of Abraham and Issac during Yom Kippur. You know, the story of God coming to Abraham and demanding his son Issac as a sacrifice, then an angel coming down and stopping Issac's death, proving Gods kindness.
For a Humanist-leaning church such as the one Mark was attending at the time, there are several glaring problems with this story. What kind of God would demand the live of a child? What kind of God would force a man to choose between his faith and the son that he loves? How can you worship a creature that would encourage that kind of thinking? It goes against every Humanist understanding of God.
So, as Mark's radical feminist, bisexual rabbi told it, she focused on a different potential interpretation of the story. She explained that, directly after that section of the Torah, the next portion deals with the death of Sarah, Abraham's wife. Issac is not seen again until after his fathers death. This was not, in fact, a story of God's mercy, but of Abraham's failure in a test.
After all, the only appropriate response when a voice speaks to you in your head and tells you to kill your child is "Fuck off!" Even if it is the voice of your God. Abraham failed the test, and God had to send an angel to ensure that the poor kid didn't get killed by his knife-wielding father. Sarah died from a broken heart, having seen the husband she loved decide to kill her favorite child. Issac was understandably not pleased with his father, and does not appear for a while.
One of the things that Mark pointed out, after the story, was that his Rabbi, while teaching something radically different than the traditional interpretation, was still thought of as 'Jewish' by the rest of the community. Analyzing the Torah for new interpretations is not considered wrong or somehow breaking with tradition; in fact, arguing about the interpretation of certain passages is an integral part of the faith. Yet I have had people tell me that analysis and different interpretations of the Christian Bibles damage Christianity, that different sects shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Christian, and that anything less than complete, unquestioning belief is not real 'faith'.
I certainly don't agree that all Protestants shouldn't call themselves Christian because they base their faith on the Bible and ignore the original church. Yet I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for the people who get so irritated with people who are 'doing it wrong' - I know of certain fundamentalist groups which I find difficult to think of as worshiping the Christ I was taught about. Yet you can't have the one without the other; you can't accept one group as 'right' because they think the same as you while another is 'wrong' just because they don't. Without being able to have dialogue, without accepting that different people value different things in their faith traditions, it is impossible to focus upon the really important things - the connection one has with the 'divine' and the similarities ones group has with another.
The world is a scary, divided place. But saying "we should all band together on my side" just won't work. Somehow, there must be a way to meet in the middle ground and actually accomplish some good. I think that's something every faith tradition could agree on.