Despite the fact that both groups share a belief in the inspired nature
of the TaNa"KH (Hebrew Bible), the difference in theology between the
two groups is much greater than Fundamentalist Protestants
realize. In fact, it's amazing that two groups with such
disparate beliefs share common scriptures at all. However, this
becomes understandable once we recognize that Fundamentalist
Protestantism, for all its love of the "old testament" and its
acknowledgement of it as history, derives its metaphysical worldview
entirely from the "new testament" and from chr*stianity. And when
one considers that Jewish doctrines of the afterlife are not found in
the TaNa"KH at all, but are found exclusively in the Oral Torah, this
is easy to understand!
The Jewish position is relatively straightforward. Stripped down
to its simplest and most basic level, it holds this life to be a
probationary state during which one has the opportunity to make
tiqqun (repair) to a world damaged
by sin. G-d watches every individual, weighing every thought,
word, deed, omission, intention, repentance, and backsliding in a way
only He
can. Then at death the
individual is judged in the context of his total life and some sort of
judgement is rendered.
The Fundamentalist Protestant worldview, while radically different, is
simple and straightforward in its own way. Adam and Eve were
created as perfect beings but when they disobeyed G-d in the Garden
they were transformed from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde. Not only were
Adam
and Eve damned by their sin, but the entire human race throughout all
time was rendered
damned in Adam's loins. This damnation is not so much the result
of personal
sin as it is the result of a sickness that makes personal sin
possible.
Individual personal sins are merely the symptoms of this disease.
At any rate, G-d was bound by His holiness to damn Adam and Eve for
their disobedience and the imperfection it introduced into them, but He
hit upon an ingenious plan. In "the fullness of time" he would
incarnate Himself as a human being and then vicariously damn Himself in
the place of every single human being who would ever live. This
was done, according to Fundamentalist Protestantism, by the "passion,"
in which (as the late Southern Baptist leader Reverend Adrian Rogers
used to say) "G-d, being infinite, suffered in a finite period of time,
what we, being finite, would suffer in an infinite period of
time." All the individual has to do to take advantage of this way
out of an otherwise inevitable damnation is to accept it, at which
point G-d in His incarnation takes that individual's place in Hell and
his original destiny of Paradise with G-d is restored.
There are two things about this worldview that need to be
understood. First, one's actual individual deeds, whether
righteous or sinful, ultimately are of absolutely no meaning with
regard to one's eternal destiny. This world is not so much a
probationary state as it is a paradise ruined by Satanic interference
and Adam's weakness. Second, this view clashes radically not only
with
the Jewish worldview but with that of historical liturgical chr*stian
churches as well. The latter not only reject the concept of the
passion as a vicarious damnation, they also regard this world as
probationary and the individual's sins and good deeds as of utmost
importance. They merely regard the original probationary method
as
having been disrupted by the "original sin." However, with the
coming of Chr*st, the world has been "redeemed." Every individual
is now born into a redeemed world in which he must merit either Heaven
or Hell, and his fate is not finally determined until after his entire
life has been lived. Though more similar to the Jewish view than
that of Fundamentalist Protestantism, it also raises the question of
why such a worldview required the sacrifice of Chr*st at all, since it
is basically the Jewish worldview with J*sus replacing HaShem (
chas vechalilah!) and the "new law"
replacing the Torah and the Noachide laws (
chas vechalilah!). Indeed,
Fundamentalist Protestantism seems to be the logical and ultimate
conclusion of chr*stian assumptions. The ironic fact that
Fundamentalist Protestantism is so much friendlier to Judaism is due to
several factors (the use of the TaNa"KH as a history to fill its own
historical vacuum, Biblical sentimentalism, the non-competition between
the legal system of Judaism and the essentially antinomian
Fundamentalist Protestant soteriology, etc.) that have been discussed
elsewhere on this web site.
Orthodox Jews should consider why it is so difficult for Fundamentalist
Protestants to give up their missionary attitude. For them
religion is not a matter of abstract ethical philosophy or
ethno-cultural tradition but simple fact. They regard it as a
simple fact that each and every human being born into the world,
regardless of his ethnicity, religion, or his personal behavior, is
destined to eternal damnation simply because he has Adam's "disease"
and that their "new birth" is the only "antidote" in existence.
How would the Fundamentalists' critic behave if he believed such a
thing? The demand for Fundamentalist Protestants to cease any and
all missionary activity is seen by them as utterly unreasonable.
Doesn't someone who has contracted a deadly disease need the antidote
before it runs its course? How is merely
informing each individual of the
danger he is in and informing him of the cure an insult to pluralism,
diversity, or anything else? What have any of those things to do
with the situation?
Not only is the Fundamentalist Protestant insistence that "ye must be
born again" not intended to imply that the proselytized individual is
an
immoral person (since an individual's morality has nothing to do with
the universal disease
all human beings have inherited from Adam), but it is not even an
attempt to get people to move from one culture to another. Most
Jews are probably not familiar with the fact that Fundamentalist
Protestants do not baptize their infants. Instead they bring them
up with chr*stian teachings until the "age of accountability" at which
point the individual product of a chr*stian family must also be "born
again" or else he is as eternally damned as anyone else! Each and
every single Fundamentalist Protestant actually considers himself an
"adult convert to chr*stianity." Those outside the tradition will
find this difficult to understand, but the radically individualistic
nature of Fundamentalist Protestantism demands that each and every
single human being, if he is to be "saved," must be individually
converted--even if he has spent his entire life being taught chr*stian
doctrines by his parents and teachers! For this reason he regards
a missionary message directed at an adult member of another religion as
no different from the message directed at him when he himself
"converted" or which he directs at his own children. Of course he
does not understand why his
missionary activity is considered offensive!
Fundamentalist Protestantism refuses to accept any chr*stian tradition
not mentioned explicitly in the "new testament." Since all
converts in the "new testament" are adults (there is no mention of the
baptism of infants) he insists that no one can become a chr*stian until
he makes the decision to become one (which no infant can do). The
historical churches rightly point out that the "new testament" presents
only a snapshot of the chr*stian church in its infancy, before the
first chr*stians began reproducing and having the first chr*stian
families, but Fundamentalist Protestants are devoted to the concept of
sola scriptura and insist that if
infant baptisms were permitted the "new testament" would explicitly
state this. So Fundamentalist Protestants live forever in the
first generation of the church when it was made up entirely of adult
converts.
This, however, causes a problem. The first chr*stian converts
were converted to chr*stianity
intellectually.
The doctrines and positions of the new religion were presented
to the potential convert and he either accepted them or did not.
But this was true only in the very beginning. For most of the
past two millenia chr*stian parents have taught their religion to their
children from infancy. How is a child who has grown up breathing
in chr*stian doctrines like oxygen to become an adult convert?
The answer is the "new birth"--a uniquely Fundamentalist Protestant
mystical-emotional experience that provides a precise adult conversion
event to the lifelong chr*stian enabling him to share in the experience
of the first chr*stians, who were all adult converts. What
most--perhaps all--non-Fundamentalists do not understand is that
Fundamentalist Protestants regard themselves as "adult converts to
chr*stianity" precisely as someone coverted from another religion, and
that the "new birth" of a "lifelong chr*stian," far from being the rite
of passage outsiders assume it to be, transforms an adult non-chr*stian
into an adult convert to chr*stianity. Being deprived by a
chr*stian upbringing of the opportunity to be intellectually converted
to chr*stianity as adults, this "new birth" has developed to answer
this "biblical" requirement. The lifelong Southern Baptist who
"accepted chr*st" as a teenager quite literally regards himself as no
different from any adult atheist, b*ddhist, or (G-d forbid) Jew who
comes to
accept chr*stianity intellectually. Is it any wonder that
Fundamentalist Protestants don't understand why their proselytary
activity aimed at non-chr*stians (including lifelong chr*stians not yet
"born again") is somehow bigoted?
Considering the fact that Fundamentalist Protestants are absolutely
"sure" that every single human being is doomed to eternal damnation
merely by being born with Adam's "disease" and that they possess the
only "remedy" to prevent this, it is really a wonder that they are as
non-coercive as they are! I doubt that a medical professional
armed with a serum in the midst of a population of mortally ill people
who refused to recognize their predicament would be as
respectful! Instead of being condemned as "bigots" because they
believe every single human being born into the world must be "born
again" as an adult, Fundamentalist Protestants in fact pioneered the
concept of "religious freedom" precisely because only each individual
has the right to accept this "salvation"--a point of view not held by
more traditional churches that baptize infants.
However, despite the fact that the vast majority of Fundamentalist
Protestants are "fanatically" missionary (which is resented by Roman
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as much as by Jews), there are still a
small minority who adhere strictly to the position of John Calvin and
who refuse to engage in missionary activity at all. That is
because they believe that G-d in His absolute sovereignty has
fore-ordained from all eternity who will be "saved" and who will be
"lost" and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change
this. These small churches regard "gospel preaching" as solely
for the purpose of "the edification of the elect" and not aimed at
making converts. One cannot help but wonder how the
Anti-Defamation League would react if all those horrible Fundamentalist
Protestants adhered to this position instead. The missionary
activity would be non-existent, but they would surely feel insulted at
the G-d's flouting of "democracy" and "human rights" in the matter of
"salvation!"
Finally, it must be remarked that Jewish opposition to
"proselytization" is most ironic considering that it was none other
than Abraham, the First Jew, who initiated this tradition.
Indeed, Jewish tradition lauds Abraham for doing so, bringing the
message of the One G-d to a world mired in polytheism--the most
tolerant religion in history! How can sincere Jews commend
Abraham for his "intolerance" while promoting "religious pluralism" as
the absolute pinnacle of all Jewish goals? The fact is that until
Antiochus Epiphanes (
mach shemo!)
pagans and polytheists didn't give a hang about which "gxd" one chose
to worship, since they were all considered valid! Until Antiochus
it was precisely this easy-going tolerance that Judaism denied and
opposed in the name of the One True G-d Who was a
Qel Qanna' (jealous G-d). If
"tolerance" is indeed the ultimate value, then Monotheism is the worst
possible idea and Abraham becomes the greatest villain in history.
In
Parashat Zakhor (Deuteronomy
25:17-19) the Jewish People are given seemingly contradictory
commandments: to "wipe out the memory of `Amaleq," and to do this by
"remember[ing] what `Amaleq did to you" and not forgetting. How
does the constant remembering of `Amaleq and the prohibition of
forgetting what he did help to "wipe out" out his "memory?" Does
it not instead perpetuate it? It seems to me that in the
matter of proselytization Jews are put in a similar "catch 22"
situation. The mission of the Jewish People is to destroy all
false "gxds" so that the One True G-d alone will be acknowledged by all
the earth, yet in doing so they struggle against the very "tolerance"
that would leave them in peace while exemplifying the most intolerant
religious position in existence (Monotheism), and certainly Jews always
seem to be in greater danger from Monotheistic gentiles than from pagan
ones. But does this negate the Jewish mission of spreading
knowledge of this intolerant G-d? I realize that there is a
position that holds that doing the
mitzvot
is so important and so basic that the encouragement of
"tolerance" among the gentiles is justified, even though that tolerance
is inimical to Monotheistic philosophy. And I am neither a
tzaddiq nor a
poseq and have no right to dispute
those who are. However,
poseqim
and
tzaddiqim--and the
entire People of Israel--should consider that when Noachism emerges as
a factor among the gentiles, as it has now, that the encouragement of
"tolerance" is not such a black-and-white issue any more. When
Jews were forbidden to teach non-Jews, the encouragement of "tolerance"
was understandable. But what about now when "tolerance" cuts the
ground out from under the Noachide project, infant though it may
be? Are we perhaps coming to the time when the original Jewish
mission of spreading the knowledge of the intolerant G-d of Israel no
longer conflicts with the ability to keep
mitzvot?
Let us hope that those in authority--the legitimate leaders of
`Am Yisra'el--will, with G-d's
guideance, deal with this issue. And perhaps even the intolerance
of Monotheistic non-Jews will have surved a holy purpose. Let us
hope so!
Back