Torah from Narnia on the (Virtual) Road

I recently received invitations to be on two wonderful podcasts which may be of interest to everyone: 

First, I would like to thank R' Drew Kaplan for having me on his Jewish Drinking Podcast. R' Drew's podcast explores Jewish halakhic, historic, and theological issues surrounding wines and spirits with an impressive array of guests. R' Drew and I spoke about an article I wrote for Tradition a few years back entitled, "Grape Juice: the Solution to Prohibition" (found here). The podcast will likely go live sometime in May or June. 

Second, I'm looking forward to speaking with David Bates from Pints with Jack. David, with his co-hosts Matt Bush and Andrew Lazo, do an amazing job exploring and analyzing the works of C.S. Lewis, especially in bringing the theological to the practical. I've been listening to a number of their episodes and will likely make some comments soon. Unfortunately, they don't spend much time on the Chronicles of Narnia, but maybe they can be convinced to go "further up and further in." David also does a great job finding insightful guests and I'll be part of their "Ecumenical Lewis" series in April. I don't think they've had too many Jewish guests in the past so hopefully this will be enlightening for all of us. 

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Rilian

Moving from Voyage of the Dawn Treader to The Silver Chair we find additional ba’alei teshuva, those who have returned to the true religion and teachings of God. For the sake of these posts, we are not considering those who have done some wrong and repent. From that perspective the entire story of the Silver Chair is one of repentance: Jill showing off and admitting her sin, Jill and Eustace failing the signs, eating the talking stag of Harfang, and much more. Rather, we are interested in individuals who have undergone a momentous change in their worldview, from one that is anti-God or ignorant of Him, to that of a true belief in the Divine.

In the Silver Chair the central penitent is, of course, Prince Rilian. Once the slave and tool of the Lady of the Green Kirtle, Rilian returns to being a worthy prince, and then king, of Narnia. Now, one may quibble with characterizing Rilian as a penitent. After all, he was enchanted by the Lady of the Green Kirtle and forced to do her bidding. He was not responsible for his actions and thus never a sinner in the first place. Let us analyze this and see where the culpability lies. We might find our own experiences in Rilian’s story.

Prince Rilian is the only son of his father the great King Caspian the Seafarer and his mother the Queen, the Star’s daughter. While on a pleasure trip in the northern part of Narnia as a young knight, Rilian’s mother is killed by a huge venomous worm. He appears to have sworn vengeance against the worm and for days returns to the place of his mother’s death to hunt for it. 

However, after about a month Rilian started to change. Though he continued to ride out every day, it no longer seemed that he was tired and worn out from seeking the worm. Rilian takes into his confidence the Lord Drinian who rides with Rilian to the place of the Queen’s death. There he sees the most beautiful lady beckoning the young prince. The next day Rilian disappears, presumably having followed the lady into either unknown lands or to his death.

Of course, we know what actually happened. The lady was the Lady of Green Kirtle, Queen of the Underland. She casts an enchantment over Rilian such that he no longer remembers who he is - except for an hour every day and during that time he is bound to a magical Silver Chair. He remains under the enchantment until he is saved from the Silver Chair by Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill.

With that as background, let us return to our question. Is Rilian a ba’al teshuva (a repentant)? Or is he someone who was forced against his will to forget the proper upbringing of his youth? It is true that he was under an enchantment, but the first move towards evil, the initial step away from God, was on his own volition.

How often do we experience this ourselves? How often does one wrong turn, one mistake in judgement lead inexorably down a steep slope of moral degeneracy that we feel unable to escape from? On that slide we lose our way and no longer remember who we are and what we are meant to represent. Still, even in that state, every once in a while, we wake up, we remember our true selves and what we ought to be. But we feel that our hands are tied, that we are unable to escape. Is it true? Are the bonds really that strong? Could we not free ourselves had we sincerely wanted to?

Rilian, as we know, cannot do it on his own, but he is sent help. Three saviors cut his cords, freeing him to return to himself. At that moment he still has a choice. By making the right choice he can become a loyal servant of Aslan, but the wrong choice will force him back under the enchantment.

We will return to this in our next.

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Eustace (Part 4)

We’ve spent the past few posts discussing Eustace’s transformation from “an ass” to a hero of Narnia. The climax of this transformation is the undressing of his dragon shell by Aslan and his subsequent baptism in the mountain well. A priori, this scene is based on the verses in Ezekiel (11:19 and 36:26) in which God says he will remove the people’s hearts of stone and replace them with hearts of flesh. Only then will they be able to return to following in God’s ways. Similarly, Eustace the dragon cannot undress himself. Aslan must do it. Eustace recalls that Aslan first makes a tear, “so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart,” and after his baptism Eustace transforms back into a boy.

There is, however, a reversal of chronology between Ezekiel and Eustace. In Ezekiel the people have sinned, they have not repented. God’s intervention enables the people to follow God’s ways and save His Name from desecration. The people themselves have no desire to repent, God must spur them to do so.

Perhaps surprisingly then, the actual parallel to God’s ‘heart transplant’ is not Eustace un-becoming a dragon, but Eustace becoming a dragon! As a dragon Eustace changes his ways. As a dragon Eustace perceives the wrong he has done. As a dragon Eustance follows the ways of a true repentant as outlined by Maimonides. Had Eustace been transformed back into a boy without meeting Aslan all evidence suggests he would have remained a penitent and, with the guidance of his cousins, Caspian, and Reepicheep, would have come to recognize Aslan. So, why have the meeting in the first place?

In our last post I suggested that perhaps this differentiated (Lewis’) Christianity and (my) Judaism. Lewis requires a repentant to have a direct encounter with God before full acceptance into the faith. I don’t believe Judaism has such a demand. Of course, one cannot be a religious Jew without recognizing God. However, the inspiration and path to becoming religious need not be a particularly direct revelation from God. Rather, the path may traverse tradition and history, or even nature and science.

Eustace's return was catalyzed by his transformation into a dragon. His subsequent path towards God was not due to direct revelation but by his understanding the good in helping others. He looked outwards from himself and eventually that would bring him back to God. Lewis provides Eustace with an (unnecessary in my mind) shortcut via revelation from Aslan. 

Narnian Ba'alei Teshuva: Eustace (Part 3)

Eustace’s transformation from a dragon back into a boy is, without question, a quintessential moment of spiritual cleansing modeled after the verse “And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). However, it is as a dragon that Eustace becomes a repentant. True, he has not yet apologized for his misdeeds (a necessary step in attaining forgiveness for sins between man and his fellow), but already as a dragon his character changes significantly. “It was, however, clear to everyone that Eustace's character had been rather improved by becoming a dragon. He was anxious to help.”

Actually, it is as a dragon that Eustace follows the way of a repentant. In our last post on Eustace, we quoted the ways of repentance outlined by Maimonides. Here they are in his words (translated to English):

Among the ways of repentance are, for the penitent to continue to cry out in tearful supplication before the Name, to bestow alms according to his means, and to distance himself exceedingly from the thing wherein he sinned, to have his identity changed, as if saying: "I am now another person, and not that person who perpetrated those misdeeds", to completely change his conduct for the good and straight path, and to exile himself from his place of residence, for exile atones iniquity, because it leads him to submissiveness and to be meek and humble-spirited.

Let’s see how Eustace follows (more or less) these ways:

1. “Cry out in tearful supplication” - Eustace cries when first meeting his comrades as a dragon
2. “To bestow alms according to his means” - Eustace brings back many goat and swine carcasses as provisions for the ship
3. “To distance himself exceedingly from the thing wherein he sinned” - Eustace was ashamed to be with others against whom he had sinned
4. “To have his identity changed” - Eustace was transformed into a dragon
5. “Change his conduct for the good and straight path” - Eustace's character had been rather improved by becoming a dragon
6. “Exile himself from his place of residence” - Eustace is exiled from England into the world of Narnia

And so, partly via a change of heart and partly due to events that were outside of his control, Eustace follows Maimonides’ ways of repentance.

This leaves us a bit of a quandary. While a dragon Eustace is already acting like a penitent. Were the spell such that the moment Eustace repented he would be immediately transformed back into a boy, he would have transformed and become a different, and better, boy. But that’s not what happens, first Eustace needs to meet Aslan. Why?

I wonder if it is here that Judaism and Christianity part ways. Given that all of what we do depends on God's help. Still, how much direct intervention from God is necessary? Was Aslan's direct intervention necessary to change Eustace's heart? It doesn't appear that way. Eustace could have been an evil dragon. He could have sought revenge against Edmund, Caspian, and Reepicheep. But he doesn't because he realizes the error of his ways.

He could get even with Caspian and Edmund now. But the moment he thought this he realized that he didn't want to. He wanted to be friends. He wanted to get back among humans and talk and laugh and share things. He realized that he was a monster cut off from the whole human race. An appalling loneliness came over him. He began to see that the others had not really been fiends at all. He began to wonder if he himself had been such a nice person as he had always supposed.

All of this is done without direct intervention by Aslan.

In fact, in Ezekiel, God's intervention allows for a change of heart.  Aslan's direct intervention comes after Eustace's change of heart. 

We'll explore this further in our next post. 

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.