July 4, 2014

FROM THE ARCHIVES: THAT WHICH GIVES THE CITY ITS SHINE:

Abraham's promise and American power: a review of Abraham's Promise by Michael Wyschogrod, edited by R Kendall Soulen (Spengler, 2/08/05, Asia Times)

American Christianity is personal rather than political, in contrast to the Protestant Separatism that founded the United States. The evangelicals who now comprise nearly half of the US electorate entered the political arena with reluctance. Except for the institutions it built, nothing remains of the New England Puritanism that brought to a New Promised Land a New Chosen People. Only the words etched into the marble of Abraham Lincoln's memorial remain of the biblical politics that guided the Union side of America's Civil War. For that reason, I have maintained, it is misguided to think of Americanism as a religion.

Not until I read Michael Wyschogrod's new book Abraham's Promise did it occur to me the long-departed spirit of American Puritanism might once again become flesh. US evangelicals might awaken one morning as a New Israel not merely in metaphor, but self-aware as a New Chosen People in a New Promised Land. The most paranoid imagining about the Christian Right pales beside this prospect. We are talking about the real thing, not a Straussian imitation: a politicized Protestantism in the mold of the 17th-century Separatists. A "Judaizing heresy" made the United States of America possible to begin with, I have argued on other occasions, and Professor Wyschogrod argues a strong case for the evangelicals to Judaize yet again. I do not know whether Wyschogrod anticipates the strategic consequences of his theology, and rather doubt that this is the case, but it is no less radical for absence of intent.

On the surface, his innovation is a way for Christians to think of themselves as a special case of Judaism. That is only the conning tower of his submarine, however. The intellectual resources of US evangelicals have not grown in step with their membership, and the movement is ripe for a re-examination. Wyschogrod provides them with a biblical (as opposed to a philosophical) framework to "understand itself ... [by] coming to terms with the Judaism within it". To a movement founded on the premise of Scripture alone, this may constitute an offer the evangelicals cannot refuse.

Wyschogrod has drawn some jeers from co-religionists (including the neo-conservatives at Commentary magazine), but sympathetic interest from Protestant theologians. To one of them, R Kendall Soulen, a professor at Wesleyan University in Washington, DC, we owe the present volume and a helpful introduction.

An uninvited thought crosses my mind that this might be one of the most important books of the 21st century. Not since the 17th century could anyone make such a statement in earnest about a work of theology. But in the presence of a single superpower, the chief strategic issue of the 21st century is whether the West has the will to continue living. Islam will have assimilated childless Western Europe by the end of the century. If America follows Europe into nihilism, the 21st century will go out in fair imitation of the 5th. That is why the evangelical mind will be the great issue of the next decade or two.


Spengler is often wrong but seldom silly. So when he tosses off that "except for the institutions it built, nothing remains" it's quite startling to see a thought so shallow. After all, those institutions include the Declaration, Constitution and the Republic itself all of which were deeply influenced by Puritan theology and can have no other secure basis but Christianity.

MORE:
-ESSAY: Orthodox Judaism and Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Dr. Michael Wyschogrod)
-REVIEW: of The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Commonweal, Jan 15, 1993, Michael Wyschogrod)
-REVIEW: Reflections on Eva Hoffman's Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and The World of Polish Jews. (Michael Wyschogrod, Sarmatian Review)
-REVIEW: of Abraham's Promise by Michael Wyschogrod, ed. by R. Kendall Soulen (David Hazony, Commentary)
-REVIEW: of Abraham's Promise by Michael Wyschogrod (Benjamin Balint, Azure)
-ESSAY: In the end shall Christians become Jews and Jews, Christians?: On Franz Rosenzweig's apocalyptic eschatology (Gregory Kaplan, Winter 2004, Cross Currents)
-ESSAY: God's first love: Michael Wyschogrod on Israel's election (Kendall Soulen, July 27, 2004, Christian Century)

I FIRST READ Michael Wyschogrod when I was in graduate school. The experience was electrifying. As I sat in the library finishing his essay "Israel, the Church, and Election," I remember being overcome by an almost physical sense of discovery, as though I had bumped into a hitherto invisible rock. What I had just read was undoubtedly the most unapologetic statement of Jewish faith I had ever encountered. Yet instantly I knew that Wyschogrod had helped me to see something in Paul that his Christian commentators had not. It was the theological relevance of the distinction between gentile and Jew.

Of course, the distinction was not wholly unfamiliar to me; far from it. I was accustomed to writers who treated the distinction as a useful bit of historical, sociological or religious description. Above all, I was familiar with the traditional Christian view that held that since Christ's coming the distinction between Jew and gentile had lost whatever theological significance it may once have had. This, after all, was Paul's own view, at least according to his commentators.

But Wyschogrod treated the difference differently. For Wyschogrod, the distinction was the indelible mark of an irrevocable divine choice: God's choice to enter history as the God of Israel. The distinction therefore mattered not only in the past, but also in the present and future. What is more, Wyschogrod treated the distinction as something that mattered not just to Jews, but also to Christians. He addressed Christians not merely as Christians but quite specifically as gentile Christians. With a shock of discovery, I realized that in this respect Wyschogrod was closer to Paul than were his Christian interpreters.

[originally posted: 2005-02-07


Posted by at July 4, 2014 12:03 AM
  

Great pointer Orrin. Thanks a zillion. This illustrates exactly where my theology has been going recently.

Posted by: ptah at February 7, 2005 11:02 AM

I guess he sort of missed the whole covenant tradition that helped form the American constitutional tradition, eh?

Posted by: kevin whited at February 7, 2005 11:22 AM

He misses the reasons why Paul spoke specifically about Gentile Christians. First, the main focus of his ministry was non-Jewish people who were converting to Christianity from paganism. Second, Among the Jewish followers of Christ, there were those who insisted that Gentile converts to Christianity had to convert first to Judaism in order to be truly Christian. Paul clearly rejected this notion. Yes, Paul acknowledged that there had and was a difference between Jew and Greek (ie. Gentile). He also declared that that difference is now irrelevant when it comes to being included into God's family.

Posted by: Dave W. at February 7, 2005 1:56 PM

OJ:

Elsewhere, Spengler has made the point that classic New England Puritanism evolved into Unitarianism, which I think is, at least roughly, a point to ponder, at least as it applies to the New England elites. Perhaps that is behind what I would otherwise have to say is a sentence that seems inconsistent with other things he has written.

Posted by: Dan at February 7, 2005 2:41 PM

Dan:

As a religious doctrine it may have, but in the meantime it took over our politics.

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 4:29 PM

OJ:

Puritanism? I'm not so sure. By circa 1840, Methodists were the largest denomination in the US. As for how religion shaped politics, I read something touching on the 1864 election, which pointed out that the Methodist Church (in which George Bush currently has his membership) in the U.S., including what was then a very well organized and influential wholely owned press, was instrumental in re-electing Lincoln.

Why don't you raise this point with Spengler? Asia Times has a forum that he posts in.

Posted by: Dan at February 7, 2005 5:38 PM

Dan:

1840? Are we reading the some Founding texts?

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 7:31 PM

OJ:

Admittedly not, but I don't see the founding texts as being as strictly Puritan as they would have been had they been written 50 years earlier. By 1776 the religous stream that watered American politics had broadened greatly.

Posted by: Dan at February 7, 2005 8:14 PM

The stream's sources remained. Even the idea of a written constitution is covenantal, no?

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 8:57 PM

One signer of the Declaration of Independance was an ordained minister, John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian. The colonial rebellion was sometimes referred to by the British as the 'Presbyterian Rebellion'.

Posted by: Dave W. at February 7, 2005 9:31 PM

The Revolution was Act III of the great drama that began with the growth of the dissenters and the English Civil War, and continued with the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution. Basically, in 1789 English history stopped, packed up shop and moved to America.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 7, 2005 10:46 PM

Began at least with Magna Carta, if not earlier.

Posted by: oj at February 7, 2005 10:53 PM

Oh, I think pagans had written constitutions, too.

Aristotle, no Christian despite attempts to co-opt his memory, wrote something called 'Constitution of Athens.'

Our Constitution is as much pagan as Christian and Article VI is explicitly antiChristian. It could not possibly have been put into the Constitution of a pagan nation, as it would have made no sense.

As for evangelicals taking over the political world, they do have this problem about salvation. Disregarding Dave's advice, I continue to listen to CSN, and today was End Times Is Coming Soon day.

These people really are not planning for the long haul.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 10, 2005 12:19 AM

Harry:

Yes, Athenian democracy wasn't securely based though, was it. It fell into tyranny during Solon's lifetime, no? Despite his being the one who promulgated the constitution. It's a classic criticism of Aristotle's politics that it requires a moral standard for which the paganism of his time offered no basis
:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement1.html

Does prove my point though.

Article VI is anti-sectarian, a necessity in a Protestant nation with various Christianities and Judaism.

Posted by: oj at February 10, 2005 12:28 AM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« WHATEVER HAPPENED, I APOLOGIZE | Main | FROM THE ARCHIVES: THOUGH THE IDEA OF AMERICA DOESN'T REQUIRE AMERICA: »