Download Emu-- mu

L15
Emu--
RELIGION AND POLITICS
.
mu
zK'-I~Gi
“Jake H;/_7
LA few days ago
Mr Kennedy assumed the most onerous and responsible
office which any individual human being can hold in the world today,
when he was installed as President of the United States.
I
am sure
that you have all heard or read his inaugural address and that you
were, as I was, profoundly impressed by it. You will also have noticed
the strong religious uaégg§u396at which ran through it.
There were
several references to God and one quotation from the Bible.
perhaps not surprising.
a
religious country.
That is
Mr Kennedy is a religious man and America is
Besides, religious language possesses great
emotive power, and Mr Kennedy would not have been the first politician
to use it for that reason, that is for oratorical effect.
Nevertheless
this feature of the inaugural address is not to be dismissed as a mere
(device.
Mr Kennedy is too sincere for that.
I
think he really believes
>fthat the duties which he has now assumed have strong religious implications
and that pis office is a sacred one for the discharge of which he is
responsible not only to his people but to God.
And if he is right about
that, then the same must apply in varying degree to all who are engaged
in politics.]
This notion, however, that politicians must concern themselbes
with religion, with its corollary that religious peeple must concern
themselves with politics, is in its origin Jewish.
And one of the
earliest sources of it is the passage we have read from the Torah.
At that time, before the establishment of the monarchy, the Israelites
had a sort of democratic system of government, headed by a Council of
Elders.
How, in practiée, these Elders were elected we do not know.
But the qualities which, ideally at least, they were requireu to possess
2are clearly stated.
They were to be able men, such as fear God, men
of integrity, hating unjust gain; that is to say, not only efficient
administrators, but religious in outlook and upright in character.
When the monarchy was established the same qualities were demanded of
the king. According to the famous passage in the 17th chapter of
Deuteronomy he was to study the Torah all the days of his life,
"that he may learn to fear the Lord his God...and that his heart may
not be lifted up above his brethren."‘ According to the equally famous
passage in the 11th chapter of Isaiah he was to be endowed with "the
spirit of wisdom and understanding,..the spirit of knowledge and the
fear of the Lord...Righteousness shall be the girdle of his XKXKK
waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins."
The ideal was rarely attained, but it was never lost sight of.
The Prophets claimed and exercised the right to admonish the kings
when they fell short of it, and the chroniclers judged them accofiding
as they did good or evil "in the sight of the Lord."
This insistence that religious principles must guide and inSpire
those who govern the people naturally encountered bitter opposition.
From the earliest times there were rulers who resented all interference
:from the religious leaders, who preferred to govern without reference to
God or Torah, who took the view that politics is a realm which must obey
its own laws of expediency and diplomacy and in which religious consid—
lerations are irrelevant and inapplicable.
On the other hand the religious
‘leaders tended themselves to capitulate to this opposition, to avoid the
I
I
snags and snares, and the perils, of meddling in political affairs
where might is right and ruthless men hold sway, and to retreat into
_ 3 _
a departmental world of their own where they might perform in peace
their priestly rituals.
So there grew up a type of religion which kept aloof from practical
affairs and contented itself with theological speculation and mystical
exercises and which addressed itself only to the individual, not to
the community; a purely priestly religion in which the prophetic
demand for social justice was politely ignored.
This is true esnechally
of Gnosticism, the most dangerous rival of Judaism and Christianity in
ancient times, which conce$ved of God as entirely divorced from the
world of practical human affairs.
Rabbinic Judaism, however, true to
the prophetic tradition, saw the danger inherent in this outlook and
protested against it strongly.
It has just
been suggested in an
interesting contribution to the latest issue of the Journal of Jewish
studies that there are traces of this protest in the Jewish Prayer Book,
for example in the principle laid down by the Rabbis that every benedict—
ion should include the phrase melech ha-olam, king of the worlfi,
acknpwledging the sovereignty of God not only in heaven but on earth,
not only in the mystical aspirations of the private individual but
19 human society.
There are traces of this non—involvemeht policy also in early
Christianity.
You will remember the well—known remark attributed by
the GosPels to their hero: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's
and to God the things that are God's."
Of course one must be fair and
acknowledge that in the context Jesus XXX merely used this clever phrase
to avoid being trapped into a confession of his Messianic aspirations.
But it is nevertheless a succinct statement of the anti—prophetic
*
kn Duh-in: "no
f‘ TIP‘Hn'inn
whin
co {‘en ‘0
w.
-4It is in direct opposition to the phrase in the
Alggg prayer
- which,
next to the §ggm§, seems to me the most fitting watchword of Judaism —
letakken 01am bemalchut shaddai, to put the world right by bringing it
under the rule of God; and to the dictum of a later Rabbi that he who
says that the Torah is one thing and the world another is like one who
{denies God.
There is a striking passage to the same effect in the Talmud, which
we have studied recently in our Monday evening study group.
It says
that the Shechinah, the Presence of God, dwells wherever ten men gather
together in worship, and wherever three men form a court to administer
law, and wherevér two men, or even one, is engaged in the study of Torah,
as the Bible says, "In every place where I cause my name to be remembered
I
will come to you (you in the singular) and blesé you."
The Talmud
then goes on to ask why the reference to the court of three was deemed
necessary, since what applies to one or two must 3 fortiori apply to
three. And it gives this splendid answer: in order to counter the view
that the administration of law is only a practical way of maintaining
order in society and does not require the Presence of God, and so to
teach that dina namez haxzeno torah, that the administration of law is
(
also Torah. (Berachot 6a) This is pure Judaism. The statesman who
governs, the judge who passes sentence, the Parliamentarian who shapes
)policy, and by extension the democratic citizen who casts his vote or
otherwise exerts his influence on social issues, is engaged in Torah,
performs a priestly function, and needs the guidance of God.
Today this Jewish view about the close relation between religion
and politics has to contend against much opposition.
The old prejudice
-5-
ll
of politicians who resent the restraint of moral principles, and of
religious people who prefer the quietude of non—involvement, eflpresses
itself in new ways.
One of these is the fear of theocracy. ’We have
not forgotten the Middle Ages.
We know too well what can happen when
organised religion wields absolute power and empires are controlled by
ecclesiastical potentates, Christian or Muslim.
repetition of that.
we do not want a
we believe in the separation of church and state,
and we Jews in particular must view with alarm the efforts of the
Orthodox parties in the State of Israel to impose the contrary trend
there.
We have substituted democracy for theocracy.
All that is sound.
But religion must not therefore abdicate its role as a redeeming
influence on society as well as individuals.
Dr James Parkes refers
in one of his books to "the terrible political activity of the Roman
Catholic Church and the equally terrible political inactivity of the
Protestant fiburch."
Whether or not that is a fair judgment, it points
clearly to the two opposite dangers which must be avoided.
Theocracy,
the rule of God, must remain our ultimate ideal, as it was the ideal
of the prephets.
Only it must be a voluntary theocracy, not imposed
by any church, but willed by the people. :Democracy is the way, but
it is a valid way only if that is its ultimate goal; and that can hapgggy
if religious citizens, and especially those who exercise political
power, bring to bgar the influence of religion — through democratic
channels — on the life of society; only if those who determine public
policy are "able men, such as fear God, men of integrity, hating unjust
gain."
We do not wish organised religion to control politics, but
we wish politics to be permeated with the spirit of religion.
-5Another complicating feature in the modern situation is the
party—political system.
People who are ready enough to concede that
in a general sort of way religion must influence society constantly
protest that religion must at all cost keep out of party politics;
that whatever else may be its legitimate domain, that is not.
;
atly the party—political game is too often
a
Unfortun—
mere struggle for power,
and to that extent religion can only look on with disgust.
Nevertheless
there are often real moral issues at stake in disputes between the
parties.
And here religious people must take sides accpflding to their
It is one of the absurdities of our political system that
conscience.
the individual is supposed to commit himself to a complete and complex
I
.
1
party programme, entirely ignoring the fact that he may be in agreement
with some of its parts and not with others.
One thing is perfectly
clear, however; that the religious citizen, even if he subscribes to
a particular party in general, must have the courage to dissent from it
and to oppose it whenever, on a particular issue, his religious conscience
so dictates.
For, to paraphrase the saying which I quoted earlier, he
loyalty
above
religious
his
party—political
loyalty
fiEXXE&, or who
who puts his
regards party—politics as a game in which religious principles have no
right to operate, is as one who denies God.
Above all, however, the Jewish standpoint that religion must
concern itself with politics is nowadays commonly dismissed with the
slogan that politics, unlike religion, is "the art of the possible."
Those who brandish this slogan may indeed admit that it is the duty of
.religion to enuxciate general prinéiples, but not to concern itself
with their implementation.
Kennnedy
,
.
If they admit that they admit much.
Mr
stated a number of general principles in his
_ 7 _
inaugural address; for example that "the rights of man cone not from
the generosity of the State but from the hand of God;" that the rich
couhtries must help the poor countries not to secure their support but
“because it is right"; that all the corners of the earth must heed the
command of Isaiah "to undo the heavy burdens,..and let the oppressed go
free”; that we musf"struggle against the common enemies of KKKXXKH man:
tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself"; that what we need is "not a'
new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just
and the weak secure and the peace preserved for ever."
in
If these were
ed recognised by politicians as the principles which they must seek
to implement, it might indeed be safe to leave the implementation to them.
But not only is religion needed constantly to proclaim and re—iterate
these principles and to keep'the politicians mindful of them, but it must
also concern itself at every stage with their translation into practice;
partly because ends and means cannot be sharply separated, and partly for
an even profounder reason.
F r while it is true that pelitics is the art of the possible, it
I
f
3
is 323 true that religion, at any rate as Judaism conceives it, is only
concerned with the impoesible, with ideals which must remain only beauti—
ful phrases until the advent of the Messianic Age.
Religion has a twofold
task: to state the ideal in its unadulterated majesty, and to help ordinary
human beings of flesh and blood to travel at least some way along the road
to its attainment.
Idealistically speaking it would no doubt have been
preferable if Moses had continued to rule the people unaided.
that proved impossible.
In practmce
That is why he heeded Jethro's advice and
delegated the task to the Elders who were more liable to err.
taking that step he acted not only wisely but religiously.
But in
For in an
ififierfect world the religious action is the best action, the one most
in accord with God's will, within the given circumstances.
glory of Judaism, and especially of Rabbinic Judaism, that
this fact.
It is the
it
recognised
It is not a religion for angels but for h'man beings.
It
does not content itself with lofty phrases and high—sounding generalities
but prescribes a way of life which can be lived here and now.
It is not
afraid to soil its hands by contact with reality, but enters into all
aspects of human life, including the poltical, as
a
sanctifying influence.
Qggg ggmgx hazyeno Egggg, to grapple with the complexXKXKKXfiX problems
of hmman society is also a religious act, and he who does so with
integrity and courage, upon him the Sheohinah rests.
President Kennedy ended his remarkable address with these words:
"Let us go forth...asking His blessing and Hié help, but knowing that
here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
To transform this
world, this poiitical world, hdvever gradually, into the Kinggom of
God is not an impossible ideal but a pravtica; task?