Courage to Accept Acceptance
Jeff Duvall
But lets look more at Kosher. EileenK, you have go to great lengths to try and explain how it is possible to keep kosher. But the bigger question is WHY?
I can see that for someone who was raised Kosher, to be without it might make them feel naked. But for someone to try and adopt it at middle age? Why? To what ends?
Unless you literally believe that it gives some sort of spiritual superiority, which is absurd, then why?
Now, some kind of spiritual discipline would make a great deal of sense. Say some daily prayer routine, scripture study, or such. I can understand that.
No I have talked about my friend M. Her parents were raised strict Kosher. So they would feel naked without some aspects of it. But they also are fully integrated into the rest of society. They don't see their Jewishness as depending on separation. Quite the opposite, they see themselves as sophisticated in their media literacy and ability to assimilate cultural influences.
So they adopt the discipline and complexity of a Kosher kitchen. It is the effort that for them serves as something like a prayer practice. But they don't take it literally. Literalism would be opposed to the best that Judaism has to offer.
So Kosher applies in the kitchen, but not further up the food change, or in any other situation. So where some Christians might pray a daily office, or Moslems might have some daily prayer routine, these OJ's have the ritual of duplicate utensils and all.
Likewise, modest dress appies at the shul. But this does not mean they have adopted an anti-sex appeal postion. Modesty does not apply any where else, not in dress, word, or deed.
Critical thinking is the most important part of their Judaism. They would lose this if they:
1. Started taking scripture or religious teaching literally
2. Started taking a knee jerk moralistic postion in response to popular culture, like music, movies, video games, pornography, or anything else.
3. Started defining themselves as separatists, and lost the ability to learn from and assimilate outside influences. ( M. did a stint teaching in beijing, and has continued to excel in her knowledge of other cultures )
4. Started offering blind obediance, or gestures of subservience to religious authorities, looking for their approval, the hecksure. After all, who appointed these authorities? Who made them the authorities? Most of all, how can anyone put themselves in a postion to say who is more or less Jewish?
| << Why should I have to assimilate just because there was a continuity break in my family two generations ago. I want some separation. I don't approve of a lot of what goes on in popular culture. Why should I partake? I want what I didn't get as a kid. I want acceptancein exchange for giving up PART of my autonomy. There I said it. I'm proud of my choice. >> Is that what your religious practice is about, cultural separation? Claiming to have some privelidged path to god is sufficient and necessary proof of it being a cult and a form of idolotry. It is fine to have a critical position about our culture. That is consistent with the best aspects of Judiaism. But to take a postion of moral superiority is very very different. That is consistent with the worst aspects of all relgion. A continuity break? This again comes up. You can't have it both ways. You keep saying your Judaism is an adult choice independent of your heritage. They you say something like the above. If this is some quest to reconnect with your heritage, I think that is great. But that does not mean that your spirituality has to derive from it. It does not mean you have to take any of it literally. Literalism of any sort is idolotry. The most important part of understanding religion is to see how to avoid religiosity. Religiosity was responsible for the Temple being destroyed, twice. Religiosity was what had gone wrong in Egypt, and we know how little use their dieties were when the plauges came down. << Also, choices become going through the motions if they are not consistent. If I care about my own kitchen being kosher, I'm going to care what goes on in other kitchens and not eat their food. That includes Johnny's. >> Ritual is about going through motions. It is never about expediency. Normal life is a compromise between ritualism and barest essentials. If M.'s parents were forced to give up all going through motions, they would feel like they were living in an internment camp. Going through motions in their own kitchen reminds them of their Jewish heritage, and is rather like a form of prayer for them. But they do not literally believe that brand name kosher is the best, or only way, to eat. To take such an irrational belief literally, is consistent with idolotry. Besides, meat and dairy eventually do get mixed together. The whole thing is about going thru motions and aesthetics. << I'll deal more with Khia and her ilk in a different part of the board. Suffice it to say the same free speech rights that let you proclaim your fandom of Khia let's me call her "music" filth. Everyone's a critic. >> Free speech? You are the one who keeps explaining over and over that in privitized space, such rights do not necessarily apply. But look, I am not trying to stop you from saying things like "filth", I am just trying to show you how riddiculous you are being. Its like you seem to think that if you use enough invective, people will agree with you. This kind of polar thinking is consistent with the worst aspects of religiosity, as is aying something like, "Khia and her ilk". Just what exactly does that mean? Who is she? What and who are her ilk? Why does Khia bother you? Do you understand what she is singing about? | |
|
*********** |
 |
Does the Jewish faith offer something like spiritual direction, spiritual counciling?
Khia is not just blowing off steam. She is engaging in artful expression. The specific language is that of a real or imagined underworld of street culture.
I read the thing you write. Your God is an abusive parent.
There have been, and still are, clergy who promote this view. It is the quntesence of religious abuse. But it is also learned in the family. The idea that one has to earn love, lest they be considered "backsliders" or "slackers". You are talking about an abusive family, where people are only loved for what they can do.
You are using that for your model fo God. This is religiosity at its very worse. But look at what this does in your own life.
If this is the view put forth in your shul, walk away from it and never go back. Expose these people to the world.
Seek spiritual direction from some source that is not this way.
**********
Where on earth did you ever get the idea that a spiritual pursuit should work in the way you are describing, as ones own effort? From seeing you post on other threads I get the idea that you see all aspects of life in this way, especially moralistic concerns. ( In BS,
M.S., the LDS convert, spoke in the way you do. )
What you are promoting is a type of middle schoolism. It is exactly that dimension of Phariseeism which made it so easy to charicature in the NT.
I know that Jewish spirituality is not really like this.
I quote from the following source, only because it is that which is most handy. Because it is influenced by existentialist thinking, I know that it is completely compatible with Jewish thought.
from: As Bread that is Broken, by Peter Van Breemen,
S.J. 1974
Chapter One: The Courage to Accept Acceptance
<<
One of the deepest needs of the human heart is the need to be appreciated. Every human being wants to be valued. .... Every human being craves to be accepted, accepted for what he is. Nothing in human life has such a lasting and fatal effect as the experience of not being completely accepted. When I am not accepted, then something in me is broken. A baby who is not welcome is ruined at the root of his existence. A student who does not feel accepted by his teacher will not learn. A man who does not feel accepted by his colleagues on the job will suffer from ulcers, and be a nusance at home. Many of the life histories of prisoners reveal that somewhere along the way they went astray because there was no one who really accepted them. ..... A life without acceptance is a life in which a most basic human need goes unfulfilled.
............... In a way we can say that acceptance is an unveiling. Every one of us is born with many potentialities. But unless they are drawn out by the warm touch of another's acceptance, they will remain dormant. Acceptance liberates everything that is in me. Only when I am loved in that deep sense of complete acceptance can I become myself. ......
People who are not accepted scratch acceptance from the walls. And what are the symptoms?
* boasting, in a subtle or obvious way they provide themselves with the praise they want so badly.
* Ridigidy, a lact of acceptance causes a lack of security on the path of life.
* Inferiority complex, this simply defines the above conditions.
* the desire to asset themselves, the frightful power to impose themselves.
............
The Answer
I am accepted by God as I am - AS I AM, and not as I should be. To proclaim the latter is an empty message because I never am as I should be. I know that in reality I do not walk a straight path. There are many curves, many wrong decisions which in the course of life have brought me to where I am now and Scipture tells me that "the place on which you stand is holy ground" Ex 3:5. God knows my name: "See I have branded you on the palms of my hands" Is 49:16. God can never look at his hand without seeing my name. And my name - that's me! He guarantees that I can be myself. ..............
"A friend is someone who knows everything about you and still accepts you." That is the dream we all share: that one day I may meet the person to whom I can really talk, who understands me and the words I say - who can listen and even hear what is left unsaid, and then really accepts me. God is the fulfillment of this dream. He loves me with my ideals and disappointments, my sacrifices and my joys, my successes and my failures. God is himself the deepest Ground of my Being. It is one thing to know I am accepted and quite another thing to realize it. It is not enough to have but just once touched the love of God. There is more required to build one's life on God's love. It takes a long time to believe that i am accepted by God as I am.
How often have we been told that it is important that we love God. And this is true. But it is far more important that God loves us! Our love for God is secondary. God's love for us is first: "This is the love I mean:not our love for God , but God's love for us" 1 John 4:10. This is the foundation. Karl Rahner once made the remark that we live in a time when there is much interest in Church politis (
e.g. rules ). This may be the sign of a deep faith. It can also be the sigh of a lack of faith. The basic faith is that I know myself to be accepted by God: "We ourselves have known and put our faith in God's love towards ourselves" 1 John 4:16. ......
On the night before he died, Jesus prayed to the Father: "that you love them as you loved me .. so that your love for me may live in them" John 17:23, 26. It seems incredible that God loves us just as much as he loves his Son, Jesus Christ. Yet that is exactly what Scripture says. We human beings are divided in many ways: 1) in time .... 2) in space .... 3) in love- we are divided in our love. We like a person very much (90%) or in an ordinary way (50%) or very little (20%). God does not measure love. God cannot but love totally 100%. If we think God is a person who can divide his love, then we are thinking not of God, but of ourselves. ..... We have love, but God is love. His love is not an activity. It is his whole self. If we but grasp some idea of this, we understand that God could not possibly give 100% of his love to his Son and then 70% to us. He would not be God if he could do that. ...............
Tillich defines faith as "the courage to accept acceptance" and he means acceptance by God. We may think that such faith does not demand much courage. On the contrary, it may sound sweet and easy. But courage is required and very often it is courage that is lacking. ..... Such an act of faith goes beyond my personal experience. Faith is then an interpreation of life which I accept. .... God's love in infinite. WE can never grasp it, never get hold of it, much less control it. The only thing we can do is jump into its bottomless dpeth. And we do not like to jump. We are afraid to let go. .....
It is fairly easy to believe in God's love in general but it is very difficult to believe in God's love for me peronally. Why me? There are very few people who can really accept themselves, accept acceptance. Indeed, it is rare to meet a person who can cope with the problem "Why me?" Self -acceptance can never be based on my own self, my own qualities. Such a foundation would collapse. ........... When God loves me, I must accept myself as well. I cannot be more demanding than God, can I?
>>
The Jewish faith must offer something like Spritual Direction. It is something that takes real time, and someone who can really be open and available, and has experience and training with such. It involves learning to recognize the subtle workings of ones thinking and habits.
I do not know what goes on at your shul, but it sounds very very disturbing.
You have created a graven image. We all do. It is god as the Critical Parent. Unfortunately too many clergy still use this to control. This is the quintessential religious abuse.
I strongly recommend, "The Drama of the Gifted Child", by Alice Miller. It is specifically about what happens when a child can percieve non accpetance, and can see that instead it is the mother looking for acceptance from the child.
God is not like this.
"Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I wil never forget you. See, upon the palms of my hands I have written your name." Isaiah 49:15, 16
**************
Religious thinking is embeded into our culture. It is not only the the explicitly religious institutions. The real benefit of religious education is specifically to learn to know, understand, and avoid religiosity.
I quote some from another Van Breeman volume, "Certain as the Dawn"
He contrasts two approaches, the Faith Approach and the Moralistic Approach.
Faith Approach:
The ultimate value is God's love for me as I am, and for my neighbor.
Moralistic Approach:
The most important issue is my love for God and for my neighbor.
Faith:
Because God is god, he makes me pleasing to him and that makes me try to be good. I am loved into goodness.
Moralistic:
In trying to be good, I am pleasing to him.
Faith:
God is the deepest Ground of my being. Only what I give him is truly mine. The threat is not God, but I in so far as I do not let God be God.
Moralistic:
God is easily seen as a trheat; He demands sacrifices from me all the time. He is like a competitor: what he gains is my loss.
Faith:
Sin is not to let myself be loved by God; to screen my self off from his love.
Moralistic:
Sind is an attempt to fill up my life in an illicit way; a transgresion of laws and regulations; a deliberate failure in my duties; a lack of love for God, and possibly a decrease of God's love for me.