In his book The Jewish Gospels, Daniel Boyarin poses a profound challenge to the religious enterprise.
From his historical studies of the early relationship between Judaism and the earliest followers of Jesus, Boyarin concludes that
in antiquity there were Jews who were believers in Christ and Jews who weren’t, but all were Jews. (p. 17)
The definitive separation between Jews who believed in Christ and those who did not came, Boyarin argues, only when emerging powers that claimed allegiance to Christ determined that Judaism and Christianity were incompatible. The break was ultimately achieved by the Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 CE) called by Emperor Theodosius I.
In the end what was accomplished in Nicaea and Constantinople was the establishment of a Christianity that was completely separated from Judaism. … No one before Constantine had had the power to declare some folks not Christians or not Jews. (p. 18)
It appears from Boyarin’s description that the purpose of religion is to draw a line in the sand creating distinctions between belief systems. Indeed Boyarin argues,
For moderns, religions are fixed sets of convictions with well-defined boundaries. We usually ask ourselves: What convictions does Christianity forbid or what practices does it require? We ask similar questions in regard to Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism, the so-called great religions of the world. Such an understand, of course, makes nonsense of the idea that one could be both a Jew and a Christian, rendering it just a contradiction in terms. Jews don’t fit the definition of Christians, and Christians don’t fit the definition of Jews. There are simple incompatibilities between these two religions that make it impossible to be both. (p.8)
The purpose of religion seems to be to divide. Religions major in distinctions. Theology seems to be the process of pointing out differences and preserving the distinctive nature of bodies of belief. So, Boyarin says,
We usually define members of religions by using a kind of checklist. (8)
If you go down the list of world religions, pick the one whose distinctive characteristics you have given the most check marks, that is your religion.
There are according to Boyarin two problems with this procedure.
1. someone has to be making the checklists. Who decides what specific beliefs disqualify a person from being a Jew? Throughout history these decisions have been made by certain groups of people or individuals and are then imposed on other people.
2. Another big problem these checklists cannot address has to do with people whose beliefs and behaviors are a blend of characteristics from the two lists. (pp. 9,10)
In our current cultural context in which all authority is open to question and diversity is highly prized, these are two substantial challenges for the religious enterprise.
In the end Boyarin concludes that
these seemingly innocuous checklists are really tools of power, not simply description. (p. 20)
Whatever one thinks about Boyarin’s argument, he has identified a significant challenge that must be addressed.
We live in a world in which it is increasingly hazardous to emphasizes qualities that point to separation between people. If religion cannot be a force for unity with0ut requiring absolute uniformity, its value as a force for good in the world community is open to legitimate question.
It is fair to ask if Jesus was imagining total agreement on all theological issues when he prayed,
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)
How wide are the parameters of Jesus’ fold? Do we need to agree to a minimum number of points on the check list to know that we have finally made it into the “one flock”?
The fear of course is that, if we allow for the possibility that people whose understanding of faith is not identical to ours may also be listening to the voice of the “one shepherd”, we may lose our distinctive identity. Our faith may be at risk, if we accept that the shepherd may be speaking beyond the narrow confines of the flock as we believe it to be defined.
But, perhaps we do not need to fear. Perhaps our trust in God’s presence and action in our lives can be deep enough to allow for God to speak to people of other backgrounds in ways that work for them, without that needing to diminish our faith. Perhaps we can hold firmly to our beliefs without needing to disqualify those whose convictions differ from ours or without feeling insecure that we do not have complete uniformity.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 24, 2012 at 7:49 am
jaqueline
Here is the gift of post modernism:
“In our current cultural context in which all authority is open to question and diversity is highly prized,….”
“We live in a world in which it is increasingly hazardous to emphasizes
qualities that point to separation between people.”
Here is the problem that describes the hindrance to church growth and legitimacy in the context of post modernism:
“If religion cannot be a force for unity without requiring absolute uniformity, its value as a force for good in the world community is open to legitimate question.”
Here is the response that will allow for growth in the context of post modernism:
“But, perhaps we do not need to fear. Perhaps our trust in God’s presence and action in our lives can be deep enough to allow for God to speak to people of other backgrounds in ways that work for them, without that needing to diminish our faith. Perhaps we can hold firmly to our beliefs without needing to disqualify those whose convictions differ from ours or without feeling insecure that we do not have complete uniformity.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
However it is not just church that is vulnerable to pulling up the draw bridge and strengthening it’s walls because of the fear of diversity. We see it in the rise of conservative hardline politics and tribalism everywhere.
For example one of the reasons many have difficulty with Obama is that he is a true post modernist. He really is the president for our time. He is classic: open, effable, he sees the point of view even of people he disagrees with, he is open to allow people to live the life they need without the government dictating their lives ( how ironic the GOP hate that ) gets the job done without heroics. He looks like he doesn’t have a identity, like he doesn’t have an edge or a back bone. He is classic Boomer 2/ Gen x.
Well many can’t handle it…they want the hero, they want the hardline…because they are uncomfortable with diversity.
Relativism requires relationship… but we are in thrall of individualism and ‘me generation’ and the look out for number one ideal. We are still in hope of a strong leader because we do not want to do the work of leadership ourselves.
Post modernism is calling us to grow…but our selfishness prevents it. So what do we do? We split off into our camps and look for authority and delineate difference to make it distinct instead of diverse.
So … in a way I disagree with: “We live in a world in which it is increasingly hazardous to emphasizes qualities that point to separation between people.” Our world is moving away from enforced acceptance. We are living in a world that is actually delineating the distinction between people via their race, creed, lifestyle, sexuality, because of our insecurity. We are too insecure to reach out and bridge the difference with relationship. We stick to our own. And in THAT context , in the context of seperation being taken to the extreme of enemy identification , it is indeed extremely hazardous.
May 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm
John
Not sure I agree with the author’s thesis about the divergence of Judaism and Christianity, given the diversity of Christian communities in the first two hundred years after Jesus’ life, and given the faith’s adaptations to Greek and other cultures. The Greek influence in early Christianity is at least as important for me as is the Jewish tradition.
May 25, 2012 at 6:24 am
Tress
Why do we have to label everybody and every individual and group according to our own predjudices and abilities to understand ?
If it is for the convenience of learning , empathising , worshipping , helping
each other , or collectively experiencing the unity of this creation, it is fine. Surely,the moment that we view the rest of humanity as them and us, and label the understanding that we have obtained as”the truth” we are limiting our connection and understanding of the creator and the gift of life.
As St Paul said’Now we see through a glass darkly , and then face to face”
Jesus made it simple in his teaching.
In my own understanding , limited and incorrect as it may be.
View the universe that we know with wonder and appreciation and thanksgiving , knowing it to be a microcosm of the wonder that is beyond our understanding ( that we call God)
Help each other and appreciate and husband the earth with love , which itself allows our expanding appreciation and understanding.
We are children , when shall we learn to put aside childish things!
May 25, 2012 at 7:57 am
John
I’m confused: which aspect in all this qualifies as “childish”?
May 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Tress
squabbling about who is right
May 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm
jaqueline
I can hear it now…” mine” , no ” mine” ” mum he said…!! ” “dad,she won’t let me!! ”
” oooh yuck she has…purple hair…”