by Gary W. Buchholz
In July 1985, Gary Buchholz — a graduate student in theology at the University of Chicago — posted a remarkable essay to net.religion.jewish and net.religion.christian, taking as his starting point Laurence Silberstein's recent article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion on Ahad Haam (1856–1927), the Zionist philosopher who made the most ambitious attempt in Jewish history to reformulate Judaism in purely secular, national-cultural terms. Buchholz was drawn to Ahad Haam as an "exemplary figure who fights at the borders between received religious traditions and contemporary situations that are inhospitable to the former." The essay traces Ahad Haam's systematic translation of every theological category into secular equivalents — covenant into national spirit, Scripture into cultural heritage, mission into cultural genius — and then turns to a broader philosophical conclusion: that all religion is a search for a "supreme fiction," a story adequate to the ontological requirements of human being, and that the real issue in religious life is never the truth-content of belief but the adequacy of the story to the person living it. The "Supreme Fiction" concept is borrowed from Wallace Stevens, who used it to describe what post-Romantic poetry might provide in the absence of traditional religious belief.
The essay was posted in the context of a debate on net.religion.jewish about what it means to be Jewish without religious belief — a question pressing in 1985 and still pressing today. Buchholz's contribution is distinguished by its range of reference (Peter Berger's sociology of religion, the Two Source Hypothesis in biblical studies, the Radical Left of the Reformation) and by the philosophical seriousness of its conclusion. What net.religion.jewish rarely produced was a post that both served the immediate conversation and stood as a self-contained theological argument. This is one of them.
"What do we call a Jew who loves his people, its literature and its cultural heritage, and who yearns for its renewal; but who, at the same time, is a free thinker in the broadest sense of the term? While he believes in nature and the natural law, he rejects the idea of a creator God, and a providential God who is Giver of the Torah... Is such a person a Jew or isn't he?"
— from an open letter to Ahad Haam
The impetus for this posting was an essay by Laurence Silberstein in the September 1984 JAAR (Journal of the American Academy of Religion) and my discovery of net.religion.jewish. I am hoping that the latter will be a willing conversation partner in a discussion concerning the subject of the essay — Secular Judaism as an alternate paradigm for Jewish identity in response to the process of secularization in the post-Enlightenment (and post-modern) world. Specifically, the essay addresses the writings of Ahad Haam (1856–1927) who, according to Silberstein, constituted the most ambitious attempt to construct a nontheological paradigm for Judaism.
I have also posted this to net.religion.christian as the Christian may well ask the same question of identity. S/he, like the Jew, is not untouched by secularization and the modern world, and if the theological affirmations of the Jew are in question then so also are the theological affirmations of the Christian. Given the fact that there are over 250 Protestant denominations, the Christian may well ask this question of his Christian brethren — "Who do WE say we are?"
One further remark. This posting and Silberstein's article in JAAR specifically address the problem of modernity, and I am well aware that "modernity" and the post-Enlightenment tradition of western European (intellectual) history do NOT pose a problem for a great many people who would identify themselves with either Christian or Judaic traditions.
For Christians I may well ask: by what right do they identify themselves as Christians without appropriating the Christian tradition that went before them? In what sense are they in continuity with the historic Christian tradition when they have no memory of the past and possess no theological resources to interpret the present or project a future? If one has indeed appropriated the historic Christian tradition then coextensive with this they have already appropriated much of Western intellectual history. For Christians within the tradition — as opposed to those (Fundamentalist) Christians that are "just passing through" — the problem (crisis) posed by the modern situation is inescapable. One might even say that Christianity in its intellectual form brought on its own crisis and possible demise.
The Jewish case is somewhat different, given that Jews have almost always lived in isolation in the Christian West and been subject to their own inner dynamic. Further, Judaism has historically been a community of observances and not a community of theology and dogma, so one may rightfully ask why Western intellectual problems should concern them. (The mystical theosophy of Kabbalah, although highly intellectual, is still not the intellectual problems of the West.)
Admittedly, one might say that to the extent that modernity is a problem for Judaism is in some degree a measure of how much Western ideology has been infused into it. But I will leave that speculation rest.
So, for the purposes of this posting I will assume that modernity is a problem for both Christian and Judaic traditions. This posting discusses one type of response on the part of Judaism — specifically, a reinterpretation of Judaism in terms of secular categories when it is found that traditional theological and religious legitimations are becoming obsolete and inadequate.
Secularization and the Three Alternatives
According to Peter Berger (The Sacred Canopy), secularization is "the process by which sectors of society and cultures are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols," thus creating a crisis for religious institutions in that they find it increasingly difficult to legitimate their own continued existence and to "keep going in a milieu that no longer takes for granted their definition of reality."
On the Christian side, according to Silberstein, there were basically two alternatives to the pressures exerted by the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment traditions. Either one seeks alternate theological interpretations to find new religious legitimations for the continued existence of Christianity (thus infusing Christianity with secular ideologies), or alternately, one separates oneself from the Christian community, accepting the secular ideologies without benefit of Christianity.
The Jewish case offers a third alternative: reinterpret Judaism in secular categories. Enter Ahad Haam (1856–1927) and secular Judaism.
The Secular Revision of Ahad Haam
Rejecting the traditional religious paradigm of Judaism, Ahad Haam effected a thoroughgoing revision of the fundamental teachings of Judaism and a translation of all theological categories into secular-national terms.
Instead of viewing Judaism as a divinely revealed pattern of life, Ahad Haam considered it to be the creation of the Jewish people.
The Jews are not the passive recipients and bearers of Divine Wisdom. Rather, the Jewish people are creators of Judaism.
Whereas in the past Jews lived for the sake of Judaism, Ahad Haam argued that Judaism was created by, and preserved for the sake of, the Jews.
The true foundation of Judaism is not religious beliefs and practices but rather such elements as land, language, literature, and historical consciousness.
Jewish uniqueness is not derived from a special covenant with God as traditionally believed, but rather from its distinct national spirit.
The will of God was not the moving force in Jewish history. Rather, history is to be interpreted in terms of lawful patterns that govern the lives of all human groups. In this context, Jewish history is driven by the will to survive.
The mission of Israel is not divinely decreed but is a product of the cultural genius, national distinctiveness, and the will of the community.
According to Ahad Haam, the Bible still plays a central role in Jewish life — but not as a divinely revealed Scripture; rather, as a product of human creativity. The sanctity of the Bible derives not from its divine origin but rather from the fact that it embodies the values and ideals of the Jewish people. The act of studying the Bible is no longer viewed as a religious obligation but rather understood as an expression of national consciousness and an act of national identification.
It was the intent of Ahad Haam to formulate an interpretation of Judaism that he believed to be compatible with both the modern world and with the ongoing needs of the nation. And, for the first time in Jewish history, a group of Jews simultaneously rejected the religious worldview while struggling to retain their Jewish identity.
In this new view of Judaism based on national consciousness and commitment devoid of theological affirmations, one could enjoy the full intellectual freedom of the Enlightenment tradition.
"I can, at least, speak my mind concerning the beliefs and opinions which I have inherited from my ancestors, without being afraid of snapping the bond that unites me with my people. I can even adopt that 'scientific heresy' that bears the name of Darwin, without endangering my Judaism. In a word, I am my own person, and my opinions and feelings belong to me. I have no reason to conceal or deny them, or deceive others or myself."
The identity of the secular Jew is self-validating and as natural as being a member of one's family. It does not require the legitimations and theological affirmations of traditional Judaism.
"I, at least, have no need to exalt my people to Heaven, to trumpet its superiority above all other nations, in order to justify my existence. I, at least, know 'why I remain a Jew' — or rather, I find no meaning in such a question any more than I would in the question why I remain my father's son."
The Supreme Fiction
I think Ahad Haam represents one of those exemplary figures who fight at the borders between received religious traditions and contemporary situations that are inhospitable to the former. There are choices: reinterpret the religious tradition in secular categories (Ahad Haam), reinterpret (deform) modernity faithful to religious categories (orthodoxy), or remain oblivious to the entire problem (the "religious" masses).
But is there really a problem?
The question of "truth" and "right" can be dissolved. We all seek the "supreme fiction" in which to emplot our lives. Religion is story, and the adequacy of story is not measured by its correspondence to a reality external to us, but rather is measured by the ontological reality within us.
On this paradigm, all religious formulations are "true," and to say that they are not is refuted by the mere fact that people hold them and interpret their lives by means of them. Religions are the supreme fictions of men's lives.
All religion is a search for identity (emplotment), so what does it matter if my story is different than yours, as long as we each solve the ontological problem. "Truth" is not content but the ontological adequacy of story to human being — and these requirements are as various as the individuality of the beings that tell their autobiography by means of religious traditions. There is no incompatibility between world religions nor between different formulations within the same religious tradition, simply because content is not the real issue. The real issue is adequacy to human being, and this is content-independent.
Religion as religion survives only because of a misconstrual of what religion is on the part of its participants. Beyond this, "religion" will become the fully self-conscious construction of human beings by which they project their life and a future in a "supreme fiction" that they know to be a fiction — and this will be above criticism simply because there will be no alternatives.
Colophon
Gary W. Buchholz posted this essay to net.religion.jewish and net.religion.christian on July 31, 1985, from the University of Chicago Computation Center. It was prompted by Laurence Silberstein's article "The Crisis of Secular Jewish Identity: Ahad Haam and Cultural Zionism" in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (September 1984). The "supreme fiction" is a term drawn from Wallace Stevens, who used it to describe what post-Romantic secular poetry might provide for human meaning-making after traditional religious belief.
Preserved from the Usenet UTZOO archive (net.religion.jewish, batch b49, Jul–Aug 1985) for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].
🌲