"The Empty Throne" got name-checked on a podcast!

Rabbi Adam Chalom's "Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation Podcast" is great. You can find it on the itunes store, and search the archives for a podcast title that sounds interesting to you. Rabbi Chalom is an excellent and humorous speaker, a confident and educated voice for Humanistic Judaism. And he referenced this blog on his podcast! Specifically, it's title, and the first post ever, in which I explain the title of the blog. While he doesn't exactly do the title justice (Yes, Rabbi, there should be a throne, and it should be left empty-- the beauty of an aniconic symbol), it's still pretty cool that he mentions the blog.

Listen to the episode in which he references The Empty Throne here.

What will we teach the kids to say?

**This is my entry (not the winner) from Moment Magazine's recent "Elephant in the Room" contest, responding to the question "What does it mean to be Jewish without belief in God?"

           I’ve been Jewish with God, and I’m currently Jewish without God—a fundamental difference, yet still I’m Jewish. When I was Jewish with God, every word, every act, was an opportunity to fulfill my purpose, obeying commandments, studying Torah, or meditating on God. God was One, which made everything else—my personal plans, values, and all aspects of worldliness—two, at most. In my opinion at that time as a Ba’al Teshuvah, Judaism, like all religions, was a theocentric philosophy and lifestyle.

           What does it mean to be Jewish without belief in God? I ask my students this question in my class “Judaism Beyond Belief.” I make the students draw extended metaphors for Judaism, placing God somewhere in the picture. For some, Judaism is a flower, and God the sun—without the sun, it wilts, and blooms no more. For others, Judaism is a car, and God the engine—without the engine, no movement, only idleness and rust. One student, a budding Humanist to be sure, drew Judaism as an onion, with God as a layer—without this layer, many other rich layers remain.

           As a Jew without God, I continue to be dedicated to these other rich layers, although the centrality of God in the religion leads to some awkwardness in my adoption of the tradition. I sing niggunim (no words!) instead of prayers at services. Or I stay up all night studying on Shavuos, and then leave before the sunrise morning minyan. I embrace the radical reading of Passover as a holiday of universal liberation, glossing over the clearly religious nationalist message at the core of the Haggadah text.

           My partner and I are both post-Conservative, atheistic Jews. This Friday night we will be hosting our first Shabbos dinner as a married couple. How will we bless the wine? We are facing the fact that Judaism without God, first and foremost, is whatever we want it to be. Our current plan is to recite the traditional Kiddush (to make our more traditional guests comfortable, and to satisfy the part of ourselves that finds comfort in the tradition) and to recite secular blessings created by Humanist Rabbi Sherwin Wine and Morris Sukenik. In this manner we will stay true to our religious pasts and our present secular values.

           Doubtless, the question of the meaning of Judaism without God will be raised again when we have children. What will we teach the kids to say—the traditional or the secular humanist blessings, or both? What reason will we give for each? What will we have besides nostalgia to offer, if we want our kids to learn Hebrew and sing about God’s creation and covenant? We will teach them that to be Jewish without God means to find beauty and wisdom on the outer edges of a religion that values learning, family, ritual, art, nature, and social justice—all of which we seek to embrace, casting aside its pre-scientific, pre-democratic, pre-feminist roots.

Do you believe in God1 or God2?

This entry was originally posted on State of Formation in June 2011.

Some people who don’t believe in God still want to believe in “God.” The result is a modified type of God-idea. Call the new kinds God2.

God1s are characterized by “classic” God attributes, most notably will and power, or put more simply, agency. Without agency, there is no God1—no Creator, no Judge, no Redeemer, etc. The advance of the scientific, naturalistic world-view has driven God1s back into the far-reaching “gaps” in our knowledge. In the ancient near east a God1 could send or withhold rain, and even cause localized earthquakes (Num. 16:30-33). With modern meteorology and plate tectonic theory, those who attribute natural disasters to an angry God1 are challenged to explain at what point in the natural chain of cause-and-effect God1 intervened.

Before we move on to God2s, let’s first take into account options for modifying a God1 belief in the modern world.

1)      A deistic approach forces God1 into the gaps at the extreme edges; for example, when someone claims that God is responsible for the Big Bang. God1’s agency is here limited to the ultimate first action—quite the honor, but also a far-cry from the natural and historical interventions previously allowed.

2)     While not a modern move, one also can witness a profound limitation placed on God1 in the move from Deuteronomic to Christian theology, that is, the move from this-worldly to next-worldly reward and punishment. A God1 whose justice reigns over heaven and hell is powerful, but certainly nothing like the God1 whose justice reigns on Earth. However, the mystery of life-after-death still keeps a large, inviting space open for belief in God1.

3)     The God1 of limited theism (found in books like Harold Kushner’s When Bad Things Happen to Good People) has greater agency than a Deistic God1, but is still severely limited. Frankly, I find the limited God1’s agency very confusing. What does it mean if God1 can’t put out a fire, but can inspire courage in the heart of a firefighter? (Kushner 139-142) How does that work? What exactly are the dynamics and boundaries of God1’s psycho-emotional powers, and do they move atoms at all?

Regardless, these modified God1 beliefs express the desire to harmonize an agential God with a mostly-naturalistic world-view.

God2 is any “God” that lacks agency, that is, will and power. Here are some kinds:

1) Mordecai Kaplan’s God2 is a power without will—a force. Also known as “the power that makes for salvation,” adherents of Kaplan’s theology relate to this God2 by identifying in nature and history the developments that foster human flourishing. Kaplan’s God2 is not just a symbol—in calling his God2 “God” he is attempting to point out the existence of an objective force in the world—but his God2 clearly lacks the distinct agency of a God1.

2) The God2 of pantheism is identical with the world. Being all things, pantheistic God2 doesn’t choose sides or make a plan, so It doesn’t have much of a will. Being all things, this God2 is powerful, but only in the sense of being like Tillich’s “power of being” (aka ground of being aka being-itself). This is not the kind of power that God1 seekers care about. A siddur will not get you far if you are looking to pray to the God-that-is-all-things. Anyhow, it’s an awkward God to worship. Sure there’s probably a lot of good poetry about God2 (Rumi?), but the popular praise-request-thank model of prayer doesn’t seem to fit with such an amorphous God.

3) Another God2 borders on the symbolic—the God2 of definitive metaphors like “God is love” or Gordon’s Kaufman’s “God is serendipitous creativity.” As an out atheist, it’s hard for me not to read those phrases as anything other than closeted atheism. That’s “God” used as an exclamation point, not as a proposition. All of the meaningful content is in the second half of the sentence; all “God” does to the idea is give it a name, and affirm its utmost importance.

What all of these God2 share is that they are descendants, once-removed, of God1. In order to read God2 into any part of the western religious canon, a lot of ironic reading (aka allegorical interpretation) is necessary. A God2 is likely to be factored into a scenario of salvation, but one can never say literally that “God2 saves,” as if God2 were a specific agent that could identify problems, have motivation to act on them, and act on them. In all of these God2 examples, God2 will save you, but only at the pace and power of human progress. And a God stripped of supernatural power loses a lot of appeal for most people. Think of all the images of “God” that are dependent on the God1 model: Creator. Father. King. Judge, Shepherd, Friend. Redeemer. Savior. Can the word “God” be cleansed of all these personalistic images? Please—“God” is a name! It’s a proper noun—that’s instinctually (because grammatically) personalizing. And so to say that God2 “speaks,” “wants,” or “loves,” is to speak very equivocally.

Indeed, the phenomenon of belief in God2 is founded on a desire to equivocate. The term “God” gathers a variety of significations, and many people want to hold on to some while letting go of others. Insofar as “God” functions to tie together rhetoric about ultimate meaning, cosmic explanation, and ethical direction, it is an unacceptable loss for some people to lose “God” when they begin to doubt the existence and power of a God1. They still desire an ultimate point of reference, on account of the orientation and instruction such a point of reference provides. The need for sense and order backs the desire for monotheism, and so “God” simply holds a central place in the individual and communal psyche. And so, modern-minded folks still seek out a one-principle to hang their hope on, to call “God.”

But should God2 be called “God”? What is a God without will and power? Yes, the word “God” carries many significations—but are certain significations essential? Does God2’s lack of agency disqualify it from deserving the label “God”? Think of what the mass of people right now, and throughout history, mean and meant by “God.” To them, God is a conscious over-being with the power to save and the right to judge and kill. That’s God1 aka God. What can you do with a God2?

(**An addended love-note to God2 lovers: Sorry! Also here’s where we agree—(1) the world is interconnected; (2) self-conscious life is the closest thing there is to “the Universe contemplating itself”; (3) transcendence is still available even without the supernatural; (4) people are indeed capable of great good.)

"Judaism: Religion of Reason" One book, Two book-reviews

I wrote 2 reviews of www.mesora.org founder's new book "Judaism: Religion of Reason."

Here is a link to my review of the book on JewishBoston.

And here is a link to a different review I wrote for Jewschool.

Enjoy!

Matt Lowe's Humanist Sheva Berachot (for Jewish Weddings)

1)      We are blessed by the fruit of the vine, by which we mark and share our joy together.

2)     Glorious is each thing, for “all things are beautiful in their time.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

3)     We are blessed by the serendipitous creativity of evolution that produced humans among an almost-infinite variety of creatures.

4)     We are blessed by the generational chain of human life, by which we receive and pass on our life and our values. We are blessed by the serendipitous creativity of evolution that produced humans among an almost-infinite variety of creatures.

5)     May humanity rejoice in its work to make the world safer for all children. We are blessed by the work that transforms the world and expresses our hope for future generations.

6)     Let us gladden the loving couple, so they may enjoy gladness like the legendary gladness of paradise. Praised be the ones who gladden the loving partners.*

7)     Praised be those who increase joy and gladness, loving partners, exultation, song, pleasure and delight, love and great-love compassion, peace and friendship. May we work and hope for the day when, all over the world, all people regardless of religion, race, class, gender and orientation will hear the voices of joy and gladness, voices of loving partners, the jubilant voices of those joined together in love, the voices of young people feasting and singing. Praised be the ones who cause loving partners to be glad together.*

*by Rabbi David Gruber, with edits

Shmuly Boteach teaches you can be good without God!

Shmuley Boteach, the Rabbi often known for surfing, writing books about sex, and posing poor defenses of religion in debates against New Atheists, has written a response to Albert Mohler's tweet calling Anthony Weiner to Christianity.

About halfway through the article, he writes something that, to me, is the definition of secularism as a value, and a powerful statement that goodness is not dependent on religious belief.

It is not faith that guarantees our morality but rather an ironclad commitment to righteous action, be we atheists or theist.

Full article here