Is the Religious Right good or bad for the Jews? By Alan M. Shore

The story is told of a Jewish visitor to New York in the days when the Dodgers called Brooklyn home. The fans of “Dem Bums” were wildly celebrating the one and only World Series victory ever achieved while they played at Ebbets Field. “What’s going on?” the visitor asked his American cousin. “The Dodgers won! The Dodgers won!” the cousin cried, slapping him on the shoulder. The visitor was speechless with bewilderment. Then he ventured to ask, “Is this good or bad for the Jews?” continued on page 2

Jews and the Religious Right “Is this good or bad for the Jews?” is a question that is asked by Jews whenever we have found ourselves buffeted by the forces of history and the prevailing winds of the host culture. It is perhaps understandable that we have been such sharp-eyed observers of changes in the political and social climate. Again and again, Jews have been deprived of even the most fragile of footholds in societies that have tolerated our presence for a time, only to turn against us overnight. Only in America did we find a way of life that did not depend on the whim of this or that defender of the faith or feudal lord—a way of life that rested on the legal guarantees that undergird the social contract. The constitutionally held principle of separation of church and state is regarded as most precious by the Jewish community. In recent times, the United States has seen a resurgence of the presence of religion in the political arena. Books like Kingdoms in Conflict by Chuck Colson, The Naked Public Square by Richard John Neuhaus and The Culture of Disbelief by Stephen L. Carter have made the case for an active Christian political presence whose purpose is to reassert Christian faith as a factor to be reckoned with in the arena of public policy. Movements such as the Moral Majority and the more recent Christian Coalition have sought to apply these ideas. Is this good or bad for the Jews? The response of the vast majority of American Jews to the rise of the Religious Right speaks for itself. It is, by and large, one of utmost suspicion. This is so for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the ancient, wellgrounded fear that a reunion of Christian doctrine and political power spells hardship for Jews. The persecutions in Germany, Russia, Poland, England and Spain are simply too vivid to forget. Again and again, history has shown that

The constitutionally held principle of separation of church and state is regarded as most precious by the Jewish community.

when Church and State unite, Jews suffer. Therefore, it ought not be surprising that when Pat Robertson speaks in terms of a “Christian” America, Jews interpret his words as a threat. Or that when Patrick Buchanan conjures up the symbol of a cultural “holy war,” the image is more than figurative to many Jews. The militant tone of some frustrated politically conservative Christians worries many Jews who shudder at the thought of them as a force in law making. The element of religious faith is only a part of the deep antipathy many Jews feel for the Religious Right. Another component is plain old politics. Until now, the most recent concerted efforts to bring Christianity into the political arena have come from the conservative end of the spectrum. This, almost more than anything, has raised red flags among Jewish voters. But it is not only Jews who feel discomfited by the Christian Right. Evangelical Christian authors and teachers such as Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis of Sojourners, and Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller, all of whom would identify more with a politically liberal ideology, hold the view that “the almost total identification of the Religious Right with the Republican majority in Washington is a dangerous liaison of religion with political power.”1 Jewish social activists do not object to religious language in politics per se. Many rallied around Dr. Martin Luther King despite the fact that Dr. King unabashedly clothed his call for racial justice in biblical imagery, much of it from the New Testament. But when that same kind of imagery is enlisted by a Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition or his successor, former Republican Congressman Randy Tate, the reaction is quite different. The plain fact is that many Jews feel almost no empathy with most of the conservative causes that a Reed or a Tate embody. Many Jews would characterize the Religious Right as mindless Bible-thumpers.

ISSN 0741-0352 EDITOR: SUSAN PERLMAN DESIGN: KNEE DEEP CORRESPONDENCE ART DIRECTION: PAIGE SAUNDERS

2

The dramatic rise of the Religious Right, and especially the Christian Coalition, poses some serious questions for the American Jewish community.

Jews and the Political Left “Why are all Jews leftists?” Richard Nixon was said to have queried Henry Kissinger. Though this is an overstatement, it is a perception many non-Jews have. Again, the reasons are rooted in Jewish history. Since the late nineteenth century Jews have traditionally affiliated with leftist political parties and causes. Very early on, the leftists projected a far more inclusive image that attracted the immigrants who would soon become citizens and voters. The interests of the poor has been the province of leftist political forces. If you were poor, downtrodden and a minority, your home was in the Democratic Party, the party of the masses, or some party or movement further to the left. The legacy of those early days has provided a firm foundation for Jewish solidarity with many present day liberal causes. Part of that legacy is a deep-seated antipathy on the part of many Jews toward the Republican party—the party of the privileged, perceived as the bastion of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant aristocracy; a group not known for its warmth toward Jews. Of course there are exceptions. But for the most part, it was known that the Republicans stood for the status quo and that unless you were white, Protestant and native born you, were unwelcome. In the case of the Jews, it was the cause closest to the hearts of Jewish social activists that placed us most squarely against Republican standard bearers.

Many Jews would characterize the Religious Right as mindless Biblethumpers.

Labor and Liberalism On the other hand, the cause that Jews espoused most passionately was the American labor movement. Poor working conditions and their attendant social unrest provided a most important impetus for Jews to migrate to the new world in the first place. ISSUES is a forum of several messianic Jewish viewpoints. The author alone, where the author’s name is given, is responsible for the statements expressed. Those wishing to take exception or those wishing to enter into dialogue with one of these authors may write the publishers and letters will be forwarded.

The Jews brought their passion for workers’ rights with them, and found they were warmly received by Democrats, Socialists and even Communists. Soon there was a Jewish press. Abraham Cahan’s Jewish Daily Forward provided a focal point for political radicalism. The message of workers’ solidarity soon branched out into other agendas for social change. It should not come as a surprise that for many Jews faith became non-essential. It became fashionable to view the old-world religion as just another outmoded convention that deserved to be left behind. For many, agnosticism and atheism became synonymous with progressive politics. This identification has left a lasting imprint on American Jewish political consciousness.

Jewish Culture and the Religious Right Politics is not the only factor in play when we look at the chasm between Jews and the Christian Right. There are also cultural reasons. Jews have thrived in urban centers. It has been largely in cities that we have made our communities and contributions. Conversely, conservative Christians identify with Middle America, small towns and suburbia. Many love to point to large cities as places riddled with crime and all manner of social ills. But in demonizing large urban centers as the chief culprits of societal breakdown, the Religious Right alienates many Jews who thrive on city life. Culturally, the cities are settings for diversity of expression— religiously, artistically, and in all aspects of daily life. We Jews, as a people, are highly committed to the preservation of such cultural pluralism. Conservative Christians are not known for their eagerness to celebrate such diversity. Add to this mix the flagship causes of the Religious Right—pro-life issues, school prayer, and the opposition of “special continued on page 7

UNITED STATES: P.O. BOX 424885, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94142-4885 CANADA: P.O. BOX 487, STA. Z, TORONTO, ON MSN 2Z6 UNITED KINGDOM: P.O. 1BE, LONDON, W1A 1BE SOUTH AFRICA: BOX 1996, PARKLANDS 2121 Printed in the U.S.A. ©1997.

3

lan Shore presents a good overview of the historical, social, cultural and religious aspects surrounding Jews and the Religious Right. He leaves us with the question, “Where does God want us to stand?” As a politically liberal yet theologically conservative Jew for Jesus, I’ve had to answer that question for myself. Back in the sixties, before I was ‘for Jesus’ I saw the civil rights activists of that era as my heroes. I’d like to believe that they would have still been my heroes even if my theological understandings put me in the category of a Jesus-believing Jew. I’d also like to think that my opposition to the Vietnam War in the seventies would have been consistent with my present faith. Certainly, there have been many issues since that have been categorized as being for or against the “Christian position.” With a few exceptions (the most notable of which is a concern for the rights of the unborn) I think sincere believers can be on both sides. A phone poll conducted for the Gallop International Institute in 1996, which compared the attitudes of 507 Americans who identified themselves as evangelicals with 503 others, shattered some stereotypes. For example, 64 percent agreed that a person can be both politically liberal and a good Christian. Nevertheless, most evangelicals are politically conservative and most Jews are politically liberal. Why is it that secular, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Jews tend toward liberal or leftist ideology regardless of their religious commitments? And why is it that Bible-believing Christians tend toward conservative or right-wing theology? Perhaps it has something to do with the vantage point from which each is looking at the nature of humanity. There is not a Judeo-Christian tradition so far as human nature is concerned. Bible-believing Christians see all people as inherently sinful, not merely because they believe in the teachings of original sin but because of observed behavior. The New Testament makes this very clear when it says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”1 But this is not merely a New Testament concept; the Jewish prophets offered this pronouncement of the sinful nature of people as well. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned each one to his own way.”2

A

4

So Where Do I Stand? Confessions of a politically liberal, theologically conservative Jew for Jesus Susan Perlman

On the other hand, the rabbis teach that the moral nature of man is neutral. The belief that there are two inclinations in every human being—one toward evil and one toward goodness—figures strongly in rabbinic thought. Jewish teaching says that the character of a person is determined by which of these two inclinations has the greater influence on behavior. Both inclinations control average people.3 But even if the evil impulse is part of our makeup, the rabbis say “we are not bound to sin.”4 We are capable of choosing the noble or good response and, therefore, can effectuate good for ourselves and our society. Here we can see some of the differences of emphasis. The person to the left might say, “poor living conditions create deviant people” whereas the person to the right might say, “because people are innately sinful, evil conditions and behavior are inevitable.” The leftist says, “change the external conditions and the inner person will be improved.” The rightist says, “change the inner man and conditions will be improved.” The liberal says, “people are perfectible—just provide educational opportunities and give the disenfranchised a head start on meeting human needs, and they can build a better society.” The conservative says, “when you give people endowed with a sin nature the opportunity to be educated, you end up with clever opportunists who serve self rather than society.” The leftists tend to trust structures more, to see government programs in place to alleviate the human condition. The conservatives tend to put their trust in standards of conduct. Of course these reflections are generalities and most people are a hybrid of the above. Yet they reflect certain theological suppositions that remain even when a person or a people abandons their faith. Culture tends to stamp the human soul with certain axioms and ideals even though they’re no longer supported by a theological undergirding. Perhaps that is why our Jewish people, most of whom no longer hear the voice of the prophets, still feel a commitment to social justice, alleviating the distress of the impoverished and treating all people as though they are created in the image of the Almighty. Perhaps that is why we Jews have a basic belief in the dignity of humankind continued on page 6

5

continued from page 5

and in the perfectibility of society even though many have abandoned the means by which that perfection was to be achieved—Torah. For example, many Jews today cannot give a good reason for not eating pork, but with ringing conviction can proclaim that it is wrong to exploit the poor. What they fail to realize is that the dietary rules come from the same source as the teaching of moral behavior— Torah. Eliot Abrams of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of the book, Faith or Fear—How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, understands this dichotomy. He argues persuasively that the greatest threat to American Jews is not the Christian Right, but the willingness of Jews to abdicate their own religious responsibilities. Writing recently in National Review, Abrams makes the case that a Jewishness that bases itself on affiliation with liberalism and social activism alone at the expense of commitment to religious faith is a Judaism that will not survive: “But it is now clear that it is not possible to transmit this irreligious Jewishness successfully, as the Hebrew prayers have it, l’dor vador—from one generation to the next.”5 Michael Medved, national film critic, echoes the same concern: “Eating bagels and watching Woody Allen movies won’t insure the future of Judaism, but studying Torah can.”6 To a certain extent the phenomenon of taking political or social positions based on theological underpinnings one no longer adheres to is prevalent in Christianized society as well. Most people in this country who call themselves Christians have long set aside a belief in Jesus’ atoning death for their sins and his resurrection. Yet, in some way they still believe that human nature is sinful and when given an opportunity, people will act sinfully and selfishly. This Christianized

6

position is taken by people who have not thought through the fact that if there is no God, there is no sin. So the belief in the pervasiveness of sin drives a Christianized society to distrust big faceless governments and their programs. It makes the individual responsible to see that no political leader, no teacher or teaching is allowed to prevail unless it seems submitted to standards based on a Scripture long forgotten. Perhaps the real problem is this: Most of those whom we commonly recognize as Jews do not take the God of Israel seriously. And most of those whom we recognize as being Christians are merely Christianized people who have never made Jesus Lord and Savior of their lives. Orthodox Jew and columnist for the Jewish Week of New York, Gary Rosenblatt, told his readers not to fear the Christian Right: “If we’re serious about our Judaism and honest about seeking a corrective to our own assimilationist problems we have to realize that we have more in common with religious Christians than we care to admit—about morality, values and respect for the Bible.” If Rosenblatt, Medved and Abrams would look to Torah for answers, perhaps they would conclude as I have that political change for the better is at best temporal; the human heart—Jewish and Gentile, liberal and conservative—needs changing through the new birth and that has implications for all eternity. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Romans 3:23. Isaiah 53:6. Soncino Talmud, Ber.61b. Gen. R. xxii.6. Elliott Abrams, “Can Jews Survive?” National Review, 19 May 1997, p. 38. Natalie Weinstein, “Stop Worrying about Christian right, movie critic says” Northern California Jewish Bulletin, 13 January 1995.

Many Jews would characterize the Religious Right as mindless Biblethumpers.

continued from page 3

The constitutionally held principle of separation of church and state is regarded as most precious by the Jewish community.

rights” for homosexuals—and it’s no wonder it finds so few friends among the Jewish community. Rabbi James Rudin, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, comments, “The dramatic rise of the Religious Right, and especially the Christian Coalition, poses some serious questions for the American Jewish community. While the United States is increasingly a multireligious, multiracial, and multiethnic nation, groups like the Christian Coalition often appear to be advocating an exclusivist America, an America that, in the critical arenas of politics and governance, would bestow special preference upon its own particular brand of Christianity.” 2

Jewish missionizing and the Christian Right Another aspect of the conflict between the Religious Right and the traditional political profile cultivated by our people is one that has direct bearing on Jewish believers in Jesus. It is the connection that writer Jeffrey Goldberg attempts to draw between the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, and Jewish evangelism. Writing in New York Magazine, Goldberg vilified Robertson not just because he is a religious conservative, but because he alleged that the American Center for Law and Justice, the legal advocacy group connected with his organization, went to bat for the Jews for Jesus organization in a discrimination case against the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York. For Goldberg, Robertson’s viewpoint as a Christian conservative moves in tandem with what he refers to as “a far more pernicious form of anti-Semitism—one that wants to see the world rid of Jews. . . a movement that uses deception and distortion to convert Jews to Christianity.”3 The article concludes by quoting Rabbi James Rudin, who succinctly sums

The dramatic rise of the Religious Right, and especially the Christian Coalition, poses some serious questions for the American Jewish community.

up the position taken throughout—”If Robertson is using his empire to foster something that aims for the spiritual extinction of Judaism, then he’s no friend of the Jewish people.”4 And of course by extension, anyone who is a friend of Robertson’s might be advocating Jewish extinction as well. This scare tactic can be seen even more clearly in an article by Barbara Simon in the Winter ‘96 issue of Reform Judaism. She labels Jewish believers in Jesus as “Jewish apostates. . . who sit in the inner sanctum of the religious right’s secretive coordinating body, the Council for National Policy.” She goes on to say that high on the agenda of the CNP is “the eradication of church-state separation, the constitutional wall that thwarts their theocratic vision of America at the dawn of the third millennium.” Where do Jewish believers in Jesus fall on the political spectrum? Not surprisingly, most are caught between two poles, each of which exerts a powerful pull. Most resonate with Jewish activism in the righteous social causes of our day and want to be “on the side” of those championing the poor, the powerless and the disenfranchised. That pull transcends party affiliation as a motivator. Jewish believers in Jesus feel reluctant to follow any political party or cause in an uncritical way. Their question goes beyond “Is this good or bad for the Jews?” They must also ask, “How does this person or position line up with the biblical values I hold?” And ultimately they must ask the question, “Where does God want me to stand?” That is a question each of us should be asking. 1 2

3 4

Carolyn Curtis, “Putting Out A Contract,” Christianity Today, p. 17. A James Rudin, “A Jewish perspective on the Religious Right” National Jewish Post and Opinion, Indianapolis, IN, 21 September 1996. Jeffrey Goldberg, “Are You A Completed Jew?” New York Magazine, 2 October 1995, p. 40. Ibid, p. 41.

7

veryone in Vaysechvoos was talking about it. After all, who would have expected Misha the Magistrate to go be with his Maker so soon? Yet, one cannot know all the reasons for the strange turns of fate. Why would Misha’s horse throw him down on the road leading to Vaysechvoos and why would he land on the ground in such a way that his head would hit a rock? And why would he not survive this mishap? Who knows why such things happen? All one knows is that they do happen and that there are consequences for the living. For Misha was a good and fair-minded man, as gentiles go. Vaysechvoos was not the recipient of any pogroms under his time as magistrate. Of course, Jews could not hold political office in the czar’s lands and so it was that a gentile magistrate would be appointed to have oversight for the Jewish villages. It was the magistrate who saw to it that the czar’s taxes were collected and that disputes of a legal nature were adjudicated. And now Misha was no more. And a new magistrate had to be selected. It was customary for the town officials to offer their recommendation for the new magistrate and this was by far the main topic of conversation in the shtetl. A town meeting was called for, and the Rabbi of Vaysechvoos presided. After all, the meeting was held in the shul, and who else should preside in the house of the Lord? There were two likely candidates—Misha’s brother Sasha, who was as unscrupulous as Misha was honest and Vladimir, a young man, not politically astute, but one who treated the townsfolk respectfully. Shimmon the Butcher was the first to speak, “If Sasha gets the appointment, life will be very difficult for us. He’ll want my cows to produce more milk and for the proceeds to go into his pocket. But I know my cows and they will become anxious and not comply, and who knows what will become of me? What little dowry I’ve put away for my daughters will be used up to satisfy Sasha’s greed.” With that Shimmon buried his face in his hands. “That could well happen,” continued Feival the Tanner. “I remember hearing a story about how Sasha sought his bride, based solely on what wealth she could impart to him. Remember how she died mysteriously

E

8

not too long after the wedding? Nothing was ever proven, but. . . .” Different ones continued to tell tales of Sasha’s less than honorable dealings and it became most apparent that it was in the interest of the safety and well being of the people of Vaysechvoos to encourage the appointment of the other choice, the political novice, Vladimir. “But how?” they asked. “We’ve never had any influence on the czar’s appointments in the past.” “But we have!” said the Sage, who’s face lit up as a plan became apparent that would answer their concerns. “This is a matter of logic,” he explained. “Isn’t it true that the czar is an anti-Semite?” “Of course!” all the people replied. “And isn’t it also true that the czar would like nothing better than to see our lives in misery while his coffers grow richer and richer?” “Of course!” all the people replied once more. “Then wouldn’t it stand to reason that if someone would be good for the Jews, the czar would turn him down and if someone were bad for the Jews, the czar would appoint him on the spot?” “Aaahhhh. We see. . . .” all the people responded. And so it was that the people of Vaysechvoos extolled the virtues of Sasha, assuring the czar that this man would be an excellent magistrate who was good for the Jews. And wouldn’t you know, he did not get the appointment. Instead, it went to Vladimir, though the townspeople pleaded with the czar to be merciful and not to appoint him to the position. There was relief in Vaysechvoos over the news. But even more than that, there was renewed hope when on the following Shabbos, the haftorah reading was from the writings of the prophet Isaiah. The portion ended with the prophecy of one who would come of who’s peace there would be no end; one who would sit on David Melech’s throne. One who would rule his kingdom forever. And the people of Vaysechvoos longed for that day, when instead of magistrates and czars there would be truth and righteousness without end. Glossary shabbos - Sabbath haftorah - prophetic writings, read each Sabbath