In my latest
blog on Huffington Post-Canada, I provide an introduction to what I hope will be a series on the modern misunderstanding of the nature of religion and the subsequent effect on dialogue within the society. The focus of this specific post is the fact that most people actually only see religions in terms of methodology while, in fact, they present differing views on the basic nature of existence itself.
My original title for the post, btw, was The Struggle of Religion but it was changed by the editors.
Please see
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rabbi-ben-hecht/modern-religion_b_3034462I .html#slide=more277523
Please feel free to comment there or here.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
3 comments:
That's probably true when the Religion starts out
Organized religions nowadays are primarily institutional and societal, and frequently off-message. The "Truth" takes a back-seat to self-perpetuation or self-preservation...
Exceptions - There are some "free associations" such as Nishma that are centred about ideas.
Tangentially
Every debate carries the baggage of pre-suppositions, unspoken assumptions, etc. that colour our perceptions
It's a wonder that any one can communicate at all. :-)
Best Regards,
RRW
R Hecht,
You write: Herein lies the disconnect to which I refer. Individuals from both sides in addressing each other ignore this chasm of perspective and speak solely within their own terms, not addressing the other within the other's parameters of understanding. This makes discussions between the two groups most challenging as one speaks one way while the other speaks another way. How can we discuss any topic touching upon religion if we do not even recognize this rift in our ability to communicate?
I think this point is also made along the way by R JB Soloveitchik zt"l in his article Confrontation (Tradition 1964 v6n2):
Second, the logos, the word, in which the multifarious religious experience is expressed does not lend itself to standardization or universalization. The word of faith reflects the intimate, the private, the paradoxically inexpressible cravings of the individual for and his linking up with his Maker. It reflects the numinous character and the strangeness of the act of faith of a particular community which is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community. Hence, it is important that the religious or theological logos should not be employed as the medium of communication between two faith communities whose modes of expression are as unique as their apocalyptic experiences. The confrontation should occur not at a theological but at a mundane human level. There, all of us speak the universal language of modern man. As a matter of fact our common interests lie in the realm of faith, but in that of the secular orders.8 There, we all face a powerful antagonist, we all have to contend with a considerable number of matters of great concern. The relationship between two communities must be outer-directed and related to the secular orders with which men of faith come face to face. In the secular sphere, we may discuss positions to be taken, ideas to be evolved, and plans to be formulated. In these matters, religious communities may together recommend action to be developed and may seize the initiative to be implemented later by general society. However, our joint engagement in this kind of enterprise must not dull our sense of identity as a faith community. We must always remember that our singular commitment to God and our hope and indomitable will for survival are non-negotiable and non-rationalizable and are not subject to debate and argumentation. The great encounter between God and man is a wholly personal private affair incomprehensible to the outsider - even to a brother of the same faith community. The divine message is incommunicable since it defies all standardized media of information and all objective categories. If the powerful community of the many feels like remedying an embarrassing human situation or redressing an historic wrong, it should do so at the human ethical level. However, if the debate should revolve around matters of faith, then one of the confronters will be impelled to avail himself of the language of his opponent. This in itself would mean surrender of individuality and distinctiveness.
Thank you for including the Rav's words in this discussion. While I do believe that there is an overlap between what I wrote and the words of the Rav, I think there is a distinction in focus that, perhaps, even further highlights the complexity of the issue.
We both were referring to the subjective nature of religion. The Rav, though, was highlighting this fact as it should apply in dialogue between people of faith. The significance of the subjective nature of religion cannot be ignored -- I would add, in explanation, even amongst individuals who have an objective perspective of religion as well.
What I was referring to, however, was the perception within our secular world of religion as solely subjective -- a simple methodology without any perceived basis in some faith construct. This approach has the effect of trivializing religion and that over-extension of subjectivity what was my concern.
This is not to say that my view and the view of the Rav are the same. One could even possibly argue that they are inherently different. I do think, though, that there is much overlap.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment