[First posted in 2015 on the occasion of the visit of ‘Rockstar’ Pope Francis to the Philippines. Here is the original introduction:
During the visit of Pope Francis to the Philippines, a ‘sea of humanity’ —as media practitioners term the nonstop-overwhelming-welcome and send-off—was phenomenal. Those of us on the sidelines (the non-Catholic flock) watched the TV coverage that was ‘in your face’, like it or not. In fact, Philippine media on ‘hangover’ had already started speculating about a return visit. Nothing wrong in watching a pope that—thankfully and long-overdue—expresses views that run counter to traditional thinking with regards the Church’s stand on controversial ‘No-No’ issues such as divorce, homosexuality, birth control.
It is one thing to obey church dogma and another to obey YHWH’s Torah. ‘Oh, but aren’t they one and the same?’ you might think? Think again. This Pope also continued to open the way for dialogue between differing faiths while on this visit, by inviting the heads of other world religions. (Note: Photo below is not from this visit.)
Here’s an old MUST READ first posted September 22, 2012; a sequel to No Religion is an Island – Abraham Joshua Heschel. And to save you time and trouble looking for the Conclusion, here’s the post: No Religion is an Island – Conclusion – “Revelation to Israel continues as a revelation through Israel.”
To give credit where credit is due: “Continuing excerpts from the speech of Abraham Joshua Heschel delivered in 1965 to a congregation of Christian theologians, please refer to first article; this was included in the collection of essays published and edited by his daughter Susanah Heschel, a MUST OWN treasure of a book for people of faith. This lecture is included in the section of essays categorized under the same title. Reformatting and highlights ours.”—Admin1]
Image from www.mb.com.ph
The first and most important prerequisite of interfaith is faith.
It is only out of the depth of involvement in the unending drama that began with Abraham that we can help one another toward an understanding of our situation. Interfaith must come out of depth, not out of a void absence of faith. It is not an enterprise for those who are half learned or spiritually immature. If it is to lead to the confusion of the many, it must remain a prerogative of the few. . . .
Both communication and separation are necessary. We must preserve our individuality as well as foster care for one another, reverence, understanding, cooperation. In the world of economics, science, and technology, cooperation exists and continues to grow. Even political states though different in culture and competing with one another, maintain diplomatic relations and strive for coexistence. Only religions are not on speaking terms. Over a hundred countries are willing to be part of the United Nations; yet no religion is ready to be part of a movement for United Religions. Or should I say, not yet ready?
Ignorance, distrust, and disdain often characterize their relations to one another. Is disdain for the opposition indigenous to the religious position? Granted that Judaism and Christianity are committed in contradictory claims, is it impossible to carry on a controversy without acrimony, criticism without loss of respect, disagreement without disrespect? The problem to be faced is how to combine loyalty to one’s own tradition with reverence for different traditions. How is mutual esteem between Christian and Jew possible?
A Christian ought to ponder seriously the tremendous implications of a process begun in early Christian history. I mean the conscious or unconscious de-Judaization of Christianity, affecting the Church’s way of thinking, its inner life as well as its relationship to the past and present reality of Israel—the father and mother of the very being of Christianity.
The children did not arise to call the mother blessed; instead they called the mother blind.
Some theologians continue to act as if they did not know the meaning of “Honor your father and mother”; others, anxious to prove the superiority of the Church, speak as if they suffered from a spiritual Oedipus complex.
A Christian ought to realize that a world without Israel would be a world without the God of Israel. A Jew, on the other hand, ought to acknowledge the eminent role and part of Christianity in God’s design for the redemption of all men. . . . Opposition to Christianity must be challenged by the question:
What religious alternative do we envisage for the Christian world?
Did we not refrain for almost two thousand years from preaching Judaism to the nations?
A Jew ought to ponder seriously the responsibility involved in Jewish history for having been the mother of two world religions. Does not the failure of children reflect upon their mother? Do not the sharp deviations from Jewish tradition on the part of the early Christians who were Jews indicate some failure of communication within the spiritual climate of first-century Palestine?
Judaism is the mother of the Christian faith.
It has a stake in the destiny of Christianity. Should a mother ignore her child, even a wayward, rebellious one? On the other hand, the Church should acknowledge that we Jews, in loyalty to our tradition, have a stake in its faith, recognize our vocation to preserve and to teach the legacy of the Hebrew Scripture, accept our aid in fighting anti-Marcionite trends as an act of love.
Is it not our duty to help one another in trying to overcome hardness of heart, in cultivating a sense of wonder and mystery, in unlocking doors to holiness in time, in opening minds to the challenge of the Hebrew Bible, in seeking to respond to the voice of the prophets?
No honest religious person can fail to admire the outpouring of the love of man and the love of God, the marvels of worship, the magnificence of spiritual insight, the piety, charity, and sanctity in the lives of countless men and women, manifested in the history of Christianity. Have not Pascal, Kierkegaard, Immanuel Kant, and Reinhold Niebuhr been a source of inspiration to many Jews?
Over and above mutual respect we must acknowledge indebtedness to one another. It is our duty to remember that—-
—it was the Church that brought the knowledge of the God of Abraham to the Gentiles.
—-It was the Church that made Hebrew Scripture available to mankind.
This we Jews must acknowledge with a grateful heart.
The Septuagint, the works of Philo, Josephus, as well as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the Fons vitae by Ibn Gabirol would have been lost had they not been preserved in monasteries. Credit for major achievements in modern scholarship in the field of Bible, in biblical as well as Hellenistic Jewish history, goes primarily to Protestant scholars.
Image from barclaylittlewood.com
The purpose of religious communication among human beings of different commitments is mutual enrichment and enhancement of respect and appreciation rather than the hope that the person spoken to will prove to be wrong in what he regards as sacred.
Dialogue must not degenerate into a dispute, into an effort on the part of each to get the upper hand. There is an unfortunate history of Christian-Jewish disputations, motivated by the desire to prove how blind the Jews are and carried on in a spirit of opposition, which eventually degenerated into enmity. Thus any conversation between Christian and Jew in which abandonment of the other partner’s faith is a silent hope must be regarded as offensive to one’s religious and human dignity.
Let there be an end to disputation and polemic, an end to disparagement. We honestly and profoundly disagree in matters of creed and dogma. Indeed, there is a deep chasm between Christians and Jews concerning, e.g., the divinity and messiahship of Jesus. But across the chasm we can extend our hands to one another.
Religion is a means, not an end.
It becomes idolatrous when regarded as an end in itself. Over and above all being stands the Creator and Lord of history, He who transcends all.
To equate religion and God is idolatry.
Does not the all-inclusiveness of God contradict the exclusiveness of any particular religion? The prospect of all men embracing one form of religion remains an eschatological hope. What about here and now? Is it not blasphemous to say: I alone have all the truth and the grace, and all those who differ live in darkness and are abandoned by the grace of God?
Is it really our desire to build a monolithic society: one party, one view, one leader, and no opposition? Is religious uniformity desirable or even possible? Has it really proved to be a blessing for a country when all its citizens belonged to one denomination? Or has any denomination attained a spiritual climax when it had the adherence of the entire population?
Does not the task of preparing the Kingdom of God require a diversity of talents, a variety of rituals, soul-searching as well as opposition?
Perhaps it is the will of God that in this eon there should be diversity in our forms of devotion and commitment to Him. In this eon diversity of religions is the will of God.
In the story of the building of the Tower of Babel we read:
The Lord said: they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do? (Genesis 11:6).
These words are interpreted by an ancient rabbi to mean: What has caused them to rebel against me? The fact that they are one people and they have all one language . . .
For from the rising of the sun to its setting y name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:11).
This statement refers undoubtedly to the contemporaries of the prophet. But who are these worshippers of one God? At the time of Malachi there was hardly a large number of proselytes. Yet the statement declares:
All those who worship their gods do not know it,
but they are really worshipping me.
It seems that the prophet proclaims that all men all over the world, though they confess different conceptions of God, are really worshipping one God, the father of all men, though they may not be aware of it.
Religions, I repeat, true to their own convictions, disagree profoundly and are in opposition to one another on matters of doctrine. However, if we accept the prophet’s thesis that they all worship one God, even without knowing it, if we accept the principle that the majesty of God transcends the dignity of religion, should we not regard a divergent religion as His Majesty’s loyal opposition? However, does not every religion maintain the claim to be true, and is not truth exclusive?
The ultimate truth is not capable of being fully and adequately expressed in concepts and words. The ultimate truth is about the situation that pertains between God and man.
“The Torah speaks in the language of man.”
Revelation is always an accommodation to the capacity of man. No two minds are alike, just as no two faces are alike. The voice of God reaches the spirit of man in a variety of ways, in a multiplicity of languages. One truth comes to expression in many ways of understanding.
[Continued in Part 3: No Religion is an Island – Conclusion – “Revelation to Israel continues as a revelation through Israel.”]
Reader Comments