Clergy and Educators

ICJS Scripture Forum, 2004-2005
Session #1

Scripture Forum
Session #1
Goucher College
October 15, 2004

Introduction to the first session by Rabbi Charles Arian:
   The topic for today's discussion -- the question of how to address political issues from a religious perspec-tive -- was suggested by something that happened during services on Yom Kippur: A local rabbi told the members of his congregation to vote for a specific presi-dential candidate in the upcoming election.
   The issue of citizenship and religious commitment is a new one for Jews. It is a function of the Jewish return to history insofar as Israel is once again in a position to exercise power. The problem Jews face is how to exer-cise power.
   The agenda for this session is to tease out the theol-ogy of citizenship implied in two Jewish prayers for the country and a newly-written Christian statement called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence."

Prayer for the Welfare of the State:
   This prayer, which is about eight hundred years old, is taken from an Orthodox Siddur (Artscroll Schottenstein Edition Siddur). The prayer is always prayed in Hebrew, so it has been translated into English for the purposes
of this discussion. The prayer:

   He who grants salvation to kings, and dominion to rulers, Whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, Who releases His servant David from the sword of evil, Who provided a path through the sea and a road amid the mighty waters, may He bless the President, the Vice President, and all the officers of these United States. May the King of the king of kings, in His mercy sustain them and protect them, and rescue them from all troubles, sorrow and injuries. And may He put into their hearts and the hearts of all their advisors and officers, compassion to do good things for us and for all Israel our brethren. In their days and in our days, may Judah be saved, and may Israel dwell securely. And may a Redeemer come to Zion, and may this be God's will. And let us say: Amen.

Discussion:

• Question to begin discussion: What jumps out upon first reading this prayer?
• Response: It's not really a prayer for the "welfare of the state"; it's a prayer that focuses on Israel as people, place, and covenant.
• The reference to "Israel" is a reference to the people, not the place.
• But it says "come to Zion."
• "Israel" refers to the people; "Judah" and "Zion" refer to the place.
• Question: What does "grants salvation to kings" mean?
• Response: I don't know. The prayer has been in use for hundreds of years, and the name of the ruler is inserted wherever the prayer is used. The underlying intent is that the authority of the ruler comes from God, and the salvation referred to is real-world salvation.
• Objection: The implication in this prayer is that our leaders should work not for the welfare of the United States but for the welfare of Israel.
• Objection: There is no understanding of democ-racy. The people pray for the officers (of the United States) only in reference to their rela-tionship with Israel.
• Response to these objections: The title of this prayer is the prayer book title, and it is not entirely apt.
• This prayer is reminiscent of the injunction in Jeremiah to pray for the well-being of the state.
• That is the source of this prayer.
• The relationship between the people praying and those for whom they pray is unequal: The leaders are asked to have compassion to do good things for the people.
• This relationship is like one expressed in a story in the Talmud about blessing (cups of) wine when more wine is brought out after the initial blessing has been said. If this is done at the house of a friend, it is not necessary to say the blessing over the new wine; but if it is done at the house of the king, the blessing must be said over the new wine. The reason for this is that when drinking wine with a friend, the relationship is an equal one, and there is an expectation that more than one cup of wine will be drunk. But when drinking wine with the king, because the relationship is not an equal one, there is no expectation that there will be more than one cup of wine.
• People in the United States do not feel themselves to be in an unequal relationship with their leaders, so is it appropriate to pray this prayer in this country?
• Interruption for another question: If the prayer construes the relationship to power in a false way, doesn't that impel the people to live in the same false way?
• Response: The Jewish experience of non-Jewish power has not been benign, and the prayer re-flects this reality. The implication is: "May the
  tsar be nice to us."
• In the United States one can choose to live as one wishes, even to live apart from society, in which case the prayer would be appropriate. But even if one defines one's relationship to society in that way, that doesn't mean that one's actual relationship is what one thinks it is, or wishes it
  to be.
• Question: Who would the person reading this prayer vote for in the upcoming presidential election?
• Response: Bush, because there is only one issue involved (i.e., Israel). The person will vote for who is best for Israel.
• This prayer would dispose one to vote for someone who is more like a king.
• Question (that was not directly answered): To what extent do people pray this prayer literally, or do they actually feel that they are praying for the welfare of the United States?
• Statement of the intent in using this prayer: In looking at this prayer, what is more of interest is an analysis of the timeless issues: On what basis do I as an American Jew cast my vote?
• Question: Looking at the only historical reference in the prayer, what is "the sword of evil" that David is released from?
• Response: That is probably a psalm reference.
• If the basis of the prayer is a request for com-passion as opposed to something due one, the intentionality of the prayer is different. It's important for prayers to be connected to the world in which one lives, as well as to the world view of the prayer itself. A prayer can create its own reality of the way one sees the world.
• In a liturgical setting a prayer is a received text. Jews have prayed this prayer for a long time, and each Jew has his own understanding of the text. The speaker speaking personally then remarked that he can do that -- i.e., have his own under-standing of a prayer -- for prayers that are 2,000 years old, but he is unable to do the same in re-gard to this prayer, which is (only) 800 years old.

A Prayer for Our Country:
   This prayer is taken from a Conservative Siddur (Sid-dur Sim Shalom). It was originally written in the 1920s, and has been adapted over the years to fit current situ-ations and to be used in countries other than the United States.
   The prayer was originally written for the President of the United States, but the theology it expresses now is the same as it was eighty years ago. It was created out of a realization that it was not appropriate for Jews to pray for the president the same way that Jews had prayed for the tsar. Moreover, the Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism wanted a prayer that re-flected their existential relationship to democracy, even though that relationship later turned out not to be com-pletely validated.
   The prayer:

   Our God and God of our ancestors: We ask Your blessings for our country -- for its government, for its leaders and advisors, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority. Teach them insights from Your Torah, that they may administer all affairs of state fairly, that peace and security, happiness and prosperity, justice and free-dom may forever abide in our midst.
   Creator of all flesh, bless all the inhabitants of our country with Your spirit. May citizens of all races and creeds forge a common bond in true harmony, to banish hatred and bigotry, and to safe-guard the ideals and free institutions that are the pride and glory of our country.
   May this land, under Your providence, be an influence for good throughout the world, uniting all people in peace and freedom -- helping them to fulfill the vision of Your prophet: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they experience war any more." And let us say: Amen.

Discussion:

• Question to begin discussion: What jumps out in the first reading in regard to the relationship to power in this prayer?
• There is nothing in it about Israel or Zion. (Israel/Zion appears in a separate prayer.)
• This prayer focuses on all the inhabitants of the country and the relationship of our country to the rest of the world.
• This prayer contains an element of eschatological salvation (in the final paragraph).
• The agency is divine ("under Your providence").
• This is a much more "prayable" prayer; one is able to enter into it.
• This is a prayer that could be prayed in my church. On the one hand, one is able to approve the idealism in it, but on the other hand it is nec-essary to critique its lazy abstraction. What is needed is a prayer that advances the cause of justice, but this prayer doesn't reflect all the hard work that needs to be done. Does this prayer press you in a such a way that it makes you take a stand?
• Reflecting the hard work needed to establish jus-tice is not a function of a prayer but of the post-prayer sermon. This prayer seems nice, but if you take "Torah" out of it, it becomes generic and doesn't express the relationship between Israel and the God of Israel.
• It has the feel of the 1950s emphasis on the "Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man."
• To be fair it must be said that this prayer is part of a worship service that will do the things that this prayer does not do.
• Does the prayer assert that the United States is the fulfillment of the prophetic message in the last paragraph?
• Both prayers [i.e., this prayer and the first one discussed] are add-ons to the service; they are not part of the core worship. No one would say these prayers when praying alone.
     There is not much difference among the branches of Judaism in the way they approach
  the political process, although the Orthodox are more organized in their approach. The question is: To what use do you put the synagogue? In times past, synagogues were admonished not to get involved in politics in order not to lose their tax exempt status; today this is changing. But churches and synagogues are supposed to be outside of the political process so that they can be in a position to critique it.
• If the attitudes of both prayers are internalized, there is a difference between them regarding whether or not one has a covenantal relationship with other citizens who are not Jews. One has the right to be concerned only about Israel, but to do so is not morally good.
• The question needs to be asked if one has a sacred obligation as a citizen of this country.

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence:
   This is a statement newly written by Christian theo-logians. It resonates with the Barmen Declaration. The statement:

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are in-creasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more dif-ficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Chris-tian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

-- A "theology of war" is emanating from the highest circles of American government.

-- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.

-- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by reli-giosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.

In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it."* These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

[*Excerpt from "Dangerous Religion: George W. Bush's theology of empire," by Jim Wallis: On the first anniversary of the 2001 ter-rorist attacks, President Bush said at Ellis Island, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind…. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it."]

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are com-mitted to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes preced-ence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done -- torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction -- regardless of the consequences.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adver-sary's eye, but also the beam in our own. Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed that the distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of per-ceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.

We reject the false teaching that those who are not for our nation politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinc-tions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.

[Note: This statement was "initiated" by Richard B. Hays, Duke Divinity School; George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary; Richard V. Pierard, Gordon College; Caryn D. Riswold, Illinois College; Glen Stassen, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine. The statement has been signed by more than two hundred Christian theologians and ethicists.]

Discussion:

• What are the political ramifications of this state-ment for Christians?
• Response: It is indefensible that the word "justice" never appears. This makes a political statement: "Do not vote for Bush." This needs to have a vision of what the United States should be. There is no sense of promise.
• The reason for basing this statement on the Bar-men Declaration is that America is exercising its power in a way that mirrors some of the pathol-ogies of Nazi Germany.
• An analogy between Hitler and Bush is an anal-
  ogy that should not be made. The nation should embrace its identity as an agent of God; this statement rejects that possibility.
• The point is that our churches are not speaking to the way scriptural texts are being used to support the violence being perpetrated by the United States. This statement is asking what it means to be peacemakers and to love one's enemies in a world of violence.
• Nevertheless, it's clearly an attack on Bush and as such is as much an anathema as the first prayer.
• This is a critique of churches that do not apply the fullness of the gospel to the current political situa-tion. If it also happens to be a critique of Bush, so be it. This statement has more specificity that the two prayers.
• The problem expressed is that religion has been co-opted to advance a cause. The question is: What kind of corruption is implicit in that use of religion? The statement has a dynamic of self-criticism in the way religion is being deployed.
• The statement pushes in an anti-Bush, anti-war direction, but does it contain the fullness of the gospel?
• There is a whole voice of our gospel that is not being heard. Only certain texts are being used for political gain and to underwrite the war. What is wrong with saying that the politics in this text is obvious?
• Both sides need to be put on the table.
• Because we are a society of winners and losers, we have no forums in this country for constructive conversations on issues like politics or the Gibson movie, but people who are religiously oriented can analyze these situations differently.

Return to Index

Who We Are :: What We Do :: Events Calendar
Clergy and Educators :: Scholars' Corner :: Newsletter
Information Resources :: Get Involved :: Home

The Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies
956 Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD 21204
410.494.7161 / fax: 410.494.7169
email: Info@icjs.org