Thanksgiving Class (Part 3)

We’ve been discussing how to read the verse in Micah (4:5) which foretells that the nations will walk in the name of their gods, while the Jews will forever walk in the name of the Lord our God. The classical commentaries read the two halves of the verse as contrasting. The nations worship of their gods will last only until the end of days (when they recognize the true God), or, even worse, the false gods will lead those nations to ruin and destruction. Yet, both R’ Morris J. Raphall in his Thanksgiving sermon of 1858 and R’ Shmuel Rabniowitz addressing Pope Benedict XVI at the Western Wall in 2009 read the verse as affirming, opening a door to religious inclusivism.

Is there room for such inclusivism or pluralism in Jewish theology?

A thesis that accepts this approach was formulated by the 18th century German Talmudic scholar, and anti–Sabbatean, R’ Yaakov Emden. In his work Luach Eres (see article on page 531 here), he asserts that the blessing of the Amidah prayer against heretics is not referring to anyone of another (non-Jewish) religion. In fact, he says, anyone who truly believes in a different religion (even the most distorted and confused of them) with a full heart has not sinned. However, if one were to convert from the religion they believe in for external reasons, such as for money, fame, revenge, or lust, such a person is a meshumad, a rebel or destroyer. Even were that person to convert from the religion they truly believe to Judaism, such a person is not a convert.

R’ Emden continues providing theological opening for R’ Raphall and R’ Rabinowitz:

However, one who worships their god since he knows nothing else and recognizes no other, if he does so from a pure heart, he is free from sin. And we do not hold back from him the rewards he deserves for his proper intent. For our Sages say as follows, “the righteous of the nations of the world have a share in the world to come.” Furthermore, Jeremiah praises them, “Does a nation rebel against its god, though it is not truly God?” (unless, of course, one forsakes their original religion for they believe they have found the truth elsewhere for then they do so not as a rebellion). And it says, “All the nations shall walk each in the name of their god,”... For God wants the (proper intentions of the heart, for he seeks all hearts.

R’ Emden’s thesis leaves many unanswered questions. How can the prohibition against idol-worship be violated if one who truly believes in their own religion is free from sin? What if a Jew believes in the truth of another religion, is such a person free from sin? Perhaps R’ Emden would limit his contention to monotheistic religions, similar to R’ Raphall’s reading of Micah, “Each denomination may follow its own ideas of divine worship,” the divine is the one God, the style of worship is different. However we address these issues R’ Emden’s theology is (perhaps unknown to R’ Raphall) a basis of unity to R’ Raphall’s vision.

I have no stake in the internal Christian controversy of salvation by works or by grace. While there may be Jewish scholars who would be uncomfortable with the formulation of R’ Emden, it is the rare traditional Jew that would exclude the righteous of other faiths from eternal reward. Lewis, however, has to deal with this question and does in The Last Battle. We have discussed this elsewhere, but in our context Lewis’ inclusion of Emeth in the Narnian eternity suggests he agrees with R’ Raphall’s pluralistic statement, “Every religious body adopts practically the same rendering of the words of the prophet. (Micah iv.5.) “Each denomination may follow its own ideas of divine worship and we will adhere to our idea!”

Next, we'll turn back to our Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva (those who have repented)! 

Thanksgiving Class (Part 2)

In our last post we questioned R’ Raphall translation of the verse in Micah (4:5) which he reads as, “Each denomination may follow its own ideas of divine worship and we will adhere to our idea!” This translation suggests acceptance of religious pluralism with regard to the worship of God. Before examining other readings, let us examine the context in which this verse is found.

The fourth chapter of Micah begins with perhaps one of the most concise yet moving visions of the end of days. Using the JPS translation:

1. But in the end of days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow unto it.
2. And many nations shall go and say: 'Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3. And He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
4. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken.

Then comes the verse quoted by R’ Raphall followed by a break in the text indicating the end of the topic. The context of verse 5 makes R’ Raphall’s translation seem even worse. After all, it seems pretty clear that in this future time, all peoples will come to Israel to learn how to worship God. Meaning, they will no longer follow their own way. Furthermore, the end of verse 4 is a classic closing of a prophecy. What is the point of verse 5 at all?

Standard translations fit better both in terms of the actual Hebrew words and the context of the verse. The JPS translation reads, “For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.” Notice the use of “but” as contrast between “peoples” and “us” as opposed to R’ Raphall’s “and.” Looking at Christian translations, the New American Standard Bible makes the contrast even greater by saying, “Though all the peoples walk Each in the name of his god, As for us, we will walk In the name of the LORD our God forever and ever,” adding the word “though” at the beginning of the verse.

The classic commentators appear to be working off of this type of translation contrasting the gods of the “peoples” and the LORD. Radak says simply that until the end of days each nation will walk in the name of their gods. However, they will then return to the proper path with the coming of the Messiah. Rashi sharpens the contrast even further reading the verse as the peoples will walk towards ruin and destruction due to their worship of idols. So, where is R’ Raphall coming from?

The verse in Micah for a similar purpose many years later. In 2009 Pope Benedict XVI became the first pope to visit the Western Wall. On that occasion R’ Shmuel Rabinowitz appropriately quoted King Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the first Temple in which he asked that prayers of all people, Jew or non-Jew, be accepted at the Temple. “Rabbi Rabinowitz also quoted from the prophet Micah (4:5) "For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.”

Again, we see this verse used to welcome an alternative religious practice. Is there a theme undergirding this acceptance?

We’ll explore further in our next post.

Thanksgiving Class (Part 1)

The following is Part 1 of a class I gave this past Thanksgiving. The central theme of the class is religious pluralism. How far is any religion (though I am talking mainly of Judaism here) willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of other religions? Certainly, this is a complex topic and I do not pretend to adequately address it here. Rather, I speak here only through a particular sermon given on Thanksgiving Day 163 years ago.

While neither the class that I gave nor this post are centered on The Chronicles of Narnia, I do reference the meeting of Emeth and Peter in The Last Battle and, since my recording didn’t work, I figured I may as well write up the class somewhere. The style and themes here are a bit different than what I usually write on this blog, but I hope you enjoy it anyway.

New York Governor John A. King declared November 18, 1858, as a day of, “general Thanksgiving and praise to an Almighty God," and invited all, "to unite in so just an acknowledgement of His power and goodness and of our dependence on His mercy and forbearance.” On that day, the Reverend Dr. Morris J. Raphall ascended the podium at New York’s B’nai Jeshurun (Greene Street) Synagogue and gave a Thanksgiving sermon published by The Occident. R’ Raphall, originally from Stockholm, first served as Rabbi in Birmingham, England, and assisted British Chief Rabbi Solomon Hirshcell. Though later to be known perhaps infamously for his attack on Abolitionists who were using the bible to condemn slavery (though he too condemned the slavery of the Southern States), R’ Raphall was central in bolstering a modern Orthodoxy. In the words of Prof. Jonathan Sarna, R’ Raphall demonstrated that, “a rabbi could combine Jewish and general learning, matchless oratory, and a thoroughly modern demeanor while still adhering scrupulously to the strict demands of Jewish law.”

R’ Raphall began his Thanksgiving sermon invoking the governor and expressing his gratification that this year’s Thanksgiving Proclamation was not limited to a specific denomination (religion or sect):

Standing where I do - calling to mind how often in my thanksgiving discourses I have been compelled to take exception to the wording of proclamations, and how some of the daily papers were pleased to take me to task on that score - it is to me, and I am sure to you likewise, a source of sincere gratification, that for the last two or three years the Governor’s invitation, with equal good taste and justice, has been so worded, that our rights, our feelings, and even our prejudices, have no cause to take umbrage; but that, whilst Catholic and Protestant, Trinitarian and Unitarian, flock to their places of worship, and each denomination, according to its forms and tenets, pours forth thanks to the Universal Father, we of the House of Israel can likewise repair to our sanctuary and take part in the solemnity of the day, thus verifying the words of the Psalmist (133:1), “How good, how delightful it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”

While certainly the ultimate vision of Judaism is that all humanity should “form one gathering to do His will,” (as stated in the High Holiday prayers), R’ Raphall’s quotation of the Psalmist in this context is questionable. After all, usually the term "brethren" is reserved for fellow Jews. Nonetheless, a German contemporary of R’ Raphall, R’ Samson Rafael Hirsch uses the same verse in differentiating between God’s declaration “good” and “very good” in the Creation story. Good, says R’ Hirsch, is each individual thing that God created. However, after six days of creation when God saw the entirety of creation as “brethren dwelling together in unity” and the unity and harmony of each creation in the whole, He declared it, “very good.”

R’ Raphall continues along these lines:

Yes, it is good! We acknowledge it! It is delightful! We feel it! “Brethren,” even as the prophet declares, “have we not one Father?” (Malachi 2:10) Called into being by His will - formed in His image, we and our fellow-citizens are brethren; and though our creeds may differ, and our modes of worship be dissimilar, yet we all confess “One God hath created us.” “Dwell together in unity!” “Together;” not separated by fanaticism. “In unity;” not arrayed against each other by inequality of rights. No one tolerated; for here no one can arrogate to himself the right to grant toleration. And no sect dominant; since there is none so daring as to usurp domination. But, really and fully, according to the true intent and meaning of the worlds, “together and in unity.”

This section of R’ Raphall’s sermon is understandable. R’ Raphall rejoices in the fact that Jewish citizens of the United States are like everyone else and, thus, true unity can be achieved. However, he now starts to tread on some thin theological ice.

Every religious body adopts practically the same rendering of the words of the prophet. (Micah iv.5) “Each denomination may follow its own ideas of divine worship and we will adhere to our idea!” Such is the liberty of conscience granted by Revelation, the Law of God; such is the liberty of conscience proclaimed in the Constitution, the law of these United States.

First, the quoted verse from Micah sounds wrong. Micah speaks harshly against the idol worship of Samaria and prophesied God’s retribution against the nations who will continue to bow to the “works of their hands.” Second, does the Law of God really grant such “liberty of conscience?” Is Judaism really just fine with other ideas of divine worship?

We’ll try to figure this out in our next post.

Thanksgiving Class

In my annual Thanksgiving class this past Thursday, we studied the first section of a Thanksgiving sermon given by Rabbi Morris J. Raphall on the Thanksgiving commemorated in New York in November 1858. R' Raphall quoted the verse in Micah (4:5), "Though all the nations walk each in the names of its gods, we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever." R' Raphall, against the reading of the traditional commentators, uses this verse to speak of interreligious unity. 

In that context I quoted the story of Emeth, the Carlomene in The Last Battle who achieves salvation. I think Emeth is a fascinating character and one who we will speak about in greater length in the future. 

Unfortunately, I failed to record the class so I'm considering writing up the relevant sections here over the next few days. Stay tuned... 

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Eustace (Part 2)

The conversion of Eustace comes on Dragon Island. It is there that Eusatce is transformed into a dragon and then de-dragonned by Aslan himself. However, we have a glimpse of an improved Eustace even before this fateful encounter.

The Dawn Treader lands on Dragon Island on the heels of almost two weeks of violent storms. The storms have left the Dawn Treader a “crippled discolored hulk” and already immediately upon landing a huge amount of work needed to be done. Eustace, of course, is not interested in participating and decides to sneak off to a place in the mountains to rest. The climb was not an easy one but he plugged away.

It is here that Lewis makes the following remark:

This showed, by the way, that his new life, little as he suspected it, had already done him some good; the old Eustace, Harold and Alberta's Eustace, would have given up the climb after about ten minutes.

In other words, Eustace’s process towards conversion had already begun. How? What was it that made him no longer the “old Eustace”?

Maimonides (Teshuva 2:4) (based on the Talmud) outlines the paths towards repentance. The last is that the repentant is exiled from his place. Maimonides explains that exile causes someone to be humble and low of spirit. Eustace was certainly exiled from his home to a land he could have even imagined. However, it does not appear he has been very humbled. In fact, his pride shows through even after the end of the storm when attempts to steal water.

Still, Eustace does undergo some humiliating experiences. He is publicly chastised by Caspian for stealing water, and is demonstrably not trusted by Caspian and the crew of the Dawn Treader. His hand is skewered by Reepicheep. He is offered as a slave and no one wants him (a scenario described as the final curse in the rebuke section of Deutoronomy 28:68). Perhaps these experiences left him with more humility and hence more resilience in the face of the obstacles.

Furthermore, Eustace has, if even by osmosis, been experiencing “the right kind of books.” He has heard stories of adventure and courage, of bravery and honor. Perhaps some of this has seeped into his unconscious. Or, perhaps it is simply the hardships he has suffered (and he has certainly suffered) that just gave him greater strength to overcome adversity.

In Screwtape Proposes a Toast, Screwtape (a senior demon) asserts, “The great (and tooth-some) sinners are made out of the very same material as those horrible phenomena, the great Saints.” In Eustace, the first step towards repentance is not, cannot be to make him a saint. The first step is to grow the material. True, the material can be used for sin (would the old Eustace have been brave enough to steal water in the first place?). But that material can be transformed for good. And the suffering, embarrassment, and environment experienced on the Dawn Treader moves begins this growth.

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Eustace (Part 1)

There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it

The second great penitent of the Narnian Chronicles is Eustace Clarence Scrubb. We are introduced to Eustace, the cousin of the four Pevensie children, at the very beginning of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:

There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it… He didn't call his Father and Mother "Father" and "Mother", but Harold and Alberta. They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotallers and wore a special kind of underclothes.

Lewis’ disgust with Eustace and the environment in which he was raised is immediately obvious.

Continuing further in the first chapter we find that Eustace never read the right kind of books (he read books with information, not of adventure and fantasy), that deep-down he liked bullying people, and had little imagination. In The Silver Chair we learn that he would constantly curry favor and dance attendance for the school bullies.

Eustace’s behavior on the Dawn Treader reflects his upbringing and personality. He views himself as far superior to others, he is impossible to satisfy, and he is quick to point out what’s wrong in any situation but refuses any attempt to solve anything. Borrowing from our previous definitions, we would say he is the very opposite of valiant.

Despite these very negative characteristics it would be a stretch to say Eustace is evil. He is stuck-up, immature, a whiner (kvetch), and a spoiled brat, but not evil. In fact, in his own eyes he’s a pretty good guy. This point is underscored by contrasting Eustace with Edmund. In fact, it is Edmund himself who makes the contrast: “Between ourselves, you haven't been as bad as I was on my first trip to Narnia. You were only an ass, but I was a traitor.”

One might think being an ass rather than a traitor would make penitence easier for Eustace than it was for Edmund. Via Screwtape, Lewis tells us this is not so, “The great (and tooth- some) sinners are made out of the very same material as those horrible phenomena, the great Saints.” To turn from sinner to saint one needs a change of direction. But how does one create a saint from a soul that is small and flabby (paraphrasing Screwtape)? From those whose minds are so muddled they do not understand the source of character of the prohibitions they are breaking? And indeed, at the beginning of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Eustace considers himself a good person who tries to help others by showing them the facts.

How does one resurrect such a soul?

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Trumpkin

An interesting twist of teshuva or religious renewal is when the subject that instigated the renewal is itself not a believer. For some, renewal is sparked by the beauty of the Heavens, the intensity of an experience, or the intricacies of logic. In these situations there need not be a sentient being in the renewal process. However, in other situations it is a fellow human who helps or sparks the renewal. What happens if that fellow loses, or never held, the beliefs or religion that he caused to flower?

The mishna in Ethics of the Fathers addresses this point stating, “One who brings many to righteousness will not come to sin.” The gmara explains, “Such that he should not be in Hell while his students are in Heaven.” Not surprisingly, the commentaries wrestle with how this can be accorded with the doctrine of free will, but that is not our issue at the moment.

Lewis may be attempting to contend with this issue in Prince Caspian. To review, Caspian has long been emotionally attached to the stories of Old Narnia told by his Nurse, and is surprised and delighted when they are verified by Doctor Cornelius, his tutor. However, he is not sure of the continued existence of Old Narnia until his sudden flight from the royal castle ends at the home of actual Old Narnians: Trufflehunter the Badger, Trumpkin the Red Dwarf, and Nikabrik the Black Dwarf. It is in their home where we are witness to the following exchange:

"Do you believe all those old stories?" asked Trumpkin.

"I tell you, we don't change, we beasts," said Trufflehunter. "We don't forget. I believe in the High King Peter and the rest that reigned at Cair Paravel, as firmly as I believe in Aslan himself."

"As firmly as that, I dare say," said Trumpkin. "But who believes in Aslan nowadays?"

"I do," said Caspian. "And if I hadn't believed in him before, I would now. Back there among the Humans the people who laughed at Aslan would have laughed at stories about Talking Beasts and Dwarfs. Sometimes I did wonder if there really was such a person as Aslan: but then sometimes I wondered if there were really people like you. Yet there you are."

To Caspian, the mere existence of Old Narnia proves the existence of Aslan. But Trumpkin (and Nikabrik) themselves do not believe in Aslan.

The story of Caspian’s revolt unfolds very differently for two non-believing dwarves. Despite his (unwilling) role in bringing Caspian to the truth of Aslan, Nikabrik is unable to himself recognize Aslan. His arrogance and thirst for power ensure that he cannot trust and could never blindly follow another. Had Caspian met only Nikabrik his momentary belief in Aslan would likely have dissipated. Nikabrik hated Caspian, could not see the good in him, and therefore could never be a true teacher. Nikabrik’s Old Narnians would be no better than the conquering Telmarines.

Yet, even for Nikabrik all is not lost, as Caspian says, “I am sorry for Nikabrik though he hated me from the first moment he saw me. He had gone sour inside from long suffering and hating. If we had won quickly he might have become a good Dwarf in the days of peace.” Thus, Peter allows Nikabrik to be buried with his people.

Trumpkin, however, swears loyalty to Caspian and proves a worthy subject even when he disagrees with the king. Hence, he is willing to travel to Cair Paravel to search for assistance that may be divinely sent even though he doubts the possibility of such an event. He explains, “You are my King. I know the difference between giving advice and taking orders. You've had my advice, and now it's the time for orders.”

It is no wonder that Trumpkin is one of only three ‘valiant’ characters in the Chronicles! His bravery, trust, and child-like willingness to jump into the unknown pays great dividends. He meets the Pevensie children and eventually Aslan himself. Trumpkin’s properly placed loyalty to an earthly king allows him to actuate loyalty to the True King. The unwitting teacher became the trusted student.