People of Faith
I used to think that being a Christian was at least partially about subscribing to a school of thought that would afford me a good bit of emotional safety. Of course I knew the main thing was to grow in my relationship with Jesus as my personal Saviour, but I also found a great deal of comfort in the idea that I was part of a larger body of assured believers who were further along in their relationship with Christ and could offer guidance and direction when I had questions. Now I take more comfort in the questions and the lack of concrete answers, than in the things the assured believers say. And as my focus has become less narrow and less about feeling safe, it has become a lot easier to see that we're all people of faith, no matter what our religion of choice happens to be. We're all in this together.
The following is from a sermon by Rabbi Eric Yoffie at the Houston Biennial Union for Reform Judaism 68th General Assembly, on November 19, 2005 in Houston, TX. It's refreshing to know that others in the faith community take issue with some of the propaganda that comes from the Christian Right. You can view the entire sermon by clicking on the link above, but this is an important excerpt:
In 1960, John F. Kennedy was attempting to become the first Catholic to be elected president of the United States. Under pressure to confront “the religious issue,” Senator Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12 to clarify his position on the relationship between religion and state. Listen well to his words:
“It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference…. I believe in an America…where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.”
This statement was greeted by acclaim by the Protestant leadership of this city and by the religious leadership of America. And Senator Kennedy’s words remain a superb statement of how government and religion should interact in this great country. That being so, what do we have to say to our fellow Americans on the Religious Right, here and elsewhere, who challenge these principles?
...We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism. We are appalled when “people of faith” is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?
So we ask our neighbors on the Religious Right to take note: We are religious Jews, gathered in Houston to study, pray, and commit ourselves to God. And yes, we are generally liberal in our politics. But our liberalism flows directly from our religious commitments. And we worry that you don’t understand what this means, or what it means for anyone to be a liberal religious believer.
What it means is this: that we bring a measure of humility to our religious belief. We study religious texts day and night, but we have no direct lines to heaven and we aren’t always sure that we know God’s will.
It means believing that religion involves concern for the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it just feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy.
It means that “family values” require providing health care to every child and that God cares about the 12 million children without health insurance.
It means valuing a child with diabetes over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic, and seeing the teaching of science as a primary social good.
And it means reserving the right for each person to prayerfully make decisions for herself about when she dies.
It also means believing in legal protection for gay couples. We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way. But we cannot understand why any two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other should be denied legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society. We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. And today, we cannot feel anything but rage when we hear about gay men and women, some on the front lines, being hounded out of our armed services. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry.
All of these views are deeply rooted in our religious beliefs and texts. We are surprised that when it comes to the Hebrew Bible, a text we hold in common, your reading of its message is so different from ours. As for the New Testament, we claim no expertise, but our liberal Christian friends point out that there is much there that supports our approach. Jesus healed the sick, so he might have some concern for those 45 million Americans without insurance who are unable to see a doctor; he was not a hater, so would surely not join in demonizing gays; and he spoke constantly of the poor and the marginalized. In general, the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian, has far more to say about caring for the poor than about eradicating sexual sin.
In short, there are alternative ways for deeply religious people to understand the important issues of the day; we need to talk to one another about these matters; and we suggest, humbly, that there may be things that you can learn from religious liberals in these discussions.
...And while we bring no preconditions to the table, our starting point will be Senator Kennedy’s starting point forty-five years ago: that tolerance is an American value and a religious necessity; that religion is far too important to be entangled with government; that we need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else; and that we all need to put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world.
Let the dialogue begin.
The following is from a sermon by Rabbi Eric Yoffie at the Houston Biennial Union for Reform Judaism 68th General Assembly, on November 19, 2005 in Houston, TX. It's refreshing to know that others in the faith community take issue with some of the propaganda that comes from the Christian Right. You can view the entire sermon by clicking on the link above, but this is an important excerpt:
In 1960, John F. Kennedy was attempting to become the first Catholic to be elected president of the United States. Under pressure to confront “the religious issue,” Senator Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12 to clarify his position on the relationship between religion and state. Listen well to his words:
“It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference…. I believe in an America…where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.”
This statement was greeted by acclaim by the Protestant leadership of this city and by the religious leadership of America. And Senator Kennedy’s words remain a superb statement of how government and religion should interact in this great country. That being so, what do we have to say to our fellow Americans on the Religious Right, here and elsewhere, who challenge these principles?
...We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism. We are appalled when “people of faith” is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?
So we ask our neighbors on the Religious Right to take note: We are religious Jews, gathered in Houston to study, pray, and commit ourselves to God. And yes, we are generally liberal in our politics. But our liberalism flows directly from our religious commitments. And we worry that you don’t understand what this means, or what it means for anyone to be a liberal religious believer.
What it means is this: that we bring a measure of humility to our religious belief. We study religious texts day and night, but we have no direct lines to heaven and we aren’t always sure that we know God’s will.
It means believing that religion involves concern for the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it just feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy.
It means that “family values” require providing health care to every child and that God cares about the 12 million children without health insurance.
It means valuing a child with diabetes over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic, and seeing the teaching of science as a primary social good.
And it means reserving the right for each person to prayerfully make decisions for herself about when she dies.
It also means believing in legal protection for gay couples. We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way. But we cannot understand why any two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other should be denied legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society. We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. And today, we cannot feel anything but rage when we hear about gay men and women, some on the front lines, being hounded out of our armed services. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry.
All of these views are deeply rooted in our religious beliefs and texts. We are surprised that when it comes to the Hebrew Bible, a text we hold in common, your reading of its message is so different from ours. As for the New Testament, we claim no expertise, but our liberal Christian friends point out that there is much there that supports our approach. Jesus healed the sick, so he might have some concern for those 45 million Americans without insurance who are unable to see a doctor; he was not a hater, so would surely not join in demonizing gays; and he spoke constantly of the poor and the marginalized. In general, the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian, has far more to say about caring for the poor than about eradicating sexual sin.
In short, there are alternative ways for deeply religious people to understand the important issues of the day; we need to talk to one another about these matters; and we suggest, humbly, that there may be things that you can learn from religious liberals in these discussions.
...And while we bring no preconditions to the table, our starting point will be Senator Kennedy’s starting point forty-five years ago: that tolerance is an American value and a religious necessity; that religion is far too important to be entangled with government; that we need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else; and that we all need to put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world.
Let the dialogue begin.
posted by Jen Austin at 6:40 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for sharing this, Jen. As you know, my parents converted from Judaism to Christianity when I was a young child and they raised us to appreciate both faiths. I am very happy that my parents did not feel the need to teach me to hate my Jewish relatives. We were never told that they were going to hell, that their faith was inferior to ours. Although we did hear anti-Christian remarks from some relatives, I believe now it is because of their fear of being "preached to" over Thanksgiving dinner.
Christians can learn so much by embracing our brothers and sisters of other faiths. Although we may not agree on the path to salvation, or have exactly the same view of God, we can all teach each other how to live in harmony.
There are so many similarities among the many faiths of the world---I wish that would be a focus instead of just focusing on the differences.
My parents' focus on Judaism didn't take away from our Christian faith. I don't know why so many people in the Christian Right think that appreciating other faiths somehow diminishes their own. It's sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home