Homosexual Christian Authenticity?

[revtj]

(note: This is Marty's weekly column. Strauss is considered the architect of the neo-conservative faction which seized Washington 6 years ago. I have emboldened the comments which I believe speak directly to similar strains of thought among the gay right in America today, i.e., Andrew Sullivan, et. al.)



Sightings 4/24/06

Strauss and Judaism
-- Martin E. Marty

The Chronicle of Higher Education keeps paying attention to religion, a fact that many of us in academe cheer. The April 14 issue features Richard Wolin's discussion of Leo Strauss ("Leo Strauss, Judaism, and Liberalism").

Strauss on religion? Wasn't he the inspiration to the neo-cons who were instrumental in generating ideology for, and helping start, the Iraq war? What was religious about them and that? Wasn't he the great "close reader" of Plato -- which means "Athens," not "Jerusalem"? Wolin spends little time reviewing to what extent Strauss's thought was responsible for neo-conservative war impulses, but leans toward the school of thought that says "a teacher can't be responsible for his students' use and misuse." Wolin has something else on his mind, something that receives fewer headlines but deserves notice: Strauss's attitudes toward Judaism, and how it "fit" with his version of anti-liberalism.

Strauss was a presence at the University of Chicago during my student and early teaching days, but most of us who were not in the Straussian elect only knew of the mystique and did not penetrate the teaching. I've since read him with some interest, even if not with much background. Wolin takes off from four new publications of old works by Strauss or writings about him. It turns out that early on Strauss really did take up the "Athens versus Jerusalem" issues, and, for all his celebration of Athens-reason, was uneasy with where it took moderns, especially Jews. In 1967 "he pondered at length the 'theological-political question'" of whether reason or revelation represented the royal road to truth. In one of the new books, Heinrich Meier argues that this theme was central to Strauss's thought as he tried to investigate "ultimate truths."


The early writings include essays such as "Why We Remain Jews": "Since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the 'Jewish question.'" Strauss feared mere assimilation, a course taken by some notable Jewish intellectuals in Weimar, pre-Nazi, Germany. He sought "Jewish authenticity," and therefore took the sacred texts of biblical Judaism seriously. He defended "revelation" against Spinoza's dismissals. Wolin then catches Strauss in various binds: Can revelation really spell out "ultimate truth" on reasonable grounds? Take it on faith -- but then on what reasonable grounds argue that monotheism is superior to other beliefs? So Strauss struggled.

Wolin decides that Strauss found liberalism uncongenial, and advocated anti-liberal esoteric circles of esoteric-minded intellectuals who formed an elite. They had little faith in "public reason." And he ends by quoting a text that he calls "hair-raising." In May 1933, the year of Hitler's rise to dictatorship, Strauss wrote to a Heidegger student that "just because Germany has turned to the Right and has expelled us [the German Jews] it simply does not follow that the principles of the Right are therefore to be rejected. On the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the Right -- fascist, authoritarian, imperial -- is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to the 'inalienable rights of man,' to protest against the mean nonentity" -- that is, Hitler and the Nazis. Wolin: "In other words, 'normal fascism' is the best means of combating the Nazis' 'radical fascism'? [!]"

Instead: Let's give "Jerusalem" another look!

For Further Reading:
For another "giant of the thirties" -- Mircea Eliade -- who left pro-fascist traces, see Jeremy Biles's Sightings from last Thursday, April 20. And here is Wolin's Strauss bibliography: Daniel Tanguay, Leo Strauss: An Intellectual Biography; Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theological-Political Problem; Leo Strauss: The Early Writings, 1921-1932; Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism.




Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.


----------


Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.


Submissions policy
Sightings welcomes submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to illuminate and interpret the forces of faith in a pluralist society. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to issues related to religion and public life.


Attribution
Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Contact information
Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to Jeremy Biles, managing editor of Sightings, at sightings-admin@listhost.uchicago.edu. Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription at the Sightings subscription page.

[Steven E. Webster]

I'm kind of a fan of Andrew Sullivan, but consider myself to be an old-style FDR Democrat. Certainly, I disagree with Sullivan on the Iraq war (he's for the war, just wants it managed more competently) and alot of other things, but in many respects I find his views interesting and he is certainly and independent thinker.

Straus and the neoconservatives are very scary. My understanding is that they view religion as a "pious fraud"--necessary to keep society under control, but basically untrue. Strauss and the neoconservatives believe in telling lies to achieve their goals. Saying they believe in God and support religious faith is one of those lies.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy has deep neoconservative connections and seem to exist solely for the purpose of cynically using religion to manipulate the masses for their own political ends.

I don't really understand why Andrew Sullivan has anything to do with the neo-conservatives--apparently he's a fan of Strauss. I've been told that not every student of Strauss was exposed to his "dark teachings." (Strauss believed in teaching one thing for public consumption--for example, belief in God--and teaching something else entirely to an inner circle.) Another hero of Strauss was Machievelli (did I spell that right)?

[revtj]

I respect Sullivan's good goals for society and the homosexual. However, there is something very elitist in Sullivan's and his cohorts view of the ideal gay inclusion. It's about driving a Lexus, moving to the suburbs, and looking beautiful -- kind of a magazine-slick existence. It is an ideal rooted in materialism, not in a religious view of human nature or in the spirit of the living God.

The problem (as I see it) with the assimilationist point of view is that it has never worked for any other oppressed group. Oprah has a billion dollars but does she still experience racism? Yes, she does. Many Jews are wealthy and have integrated into the highest rungs of society, but do they still experience Jew-hatred? Yes, they do.

Sullivan, et. al., wants to believe that the free market economy erases bias and hatred by lumping us all (that is, those of us who really deserve it-- too bad for the rest of us!) into luxury and privilege, but there is simply no truth to that.

Progressive Christians continue to insist that nothing less than a change of heart (what christians call repentance) will decrease and serve to eliminate racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia. That is about liberation. There is no room for greed or material addiction in God's realm of shalom!

Amen.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

I respect Sullivan's good goals for society and the homosexual. However, there is something very elitist in Sullivan's and his cohorts view of the ideal gay inclusion. It's about driving a Lexus, moving to the suburbs, and looking beautiful -- kind of a magazine-slick existence. It is an ideal rooted in materialism, not in a religious view of human nature or in the spirit of the living God.

Progressive Christians continue to insist that nothing less than a change of heart (what christians call repentance) will decrease and serve to eliminate racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia. That is about liberation. There is no room for greed or material addiction in God's realm of shalom!

You really put your finger on something here: spiritual materialism. I got a whack on the head re this concept when I read Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa. Trungpa notes that "Compassion has nothing to do with achievement at all. It is spacious and very generous. When a person develops real compassion, he is uncertain whether he is being generous to others or to himself because compassion is environmental generosity, without direction, without 'for me' and without 'for them'. It is filled with joy, spontaneously existing joy, constant joy in the sense of trust, in the sense that joy contains trememdous wealth, richness."

True wealth- as you point out revtj- is an entirely different matter.

[revtj]

"Compassion has nothing to do with achievement at all. It is spacious and very generous. When a person develops real compassion, he is uncertain whether he is being generous to others or to himself because compassion is environmental generosity, without direction, without 'for me' and without 'for them'. It is filled with joy, spontaneously existing joy, constant joy in the sense of trust, in the sense that joy contains tremendous wealth, richness."

Thank you so much for sharing that! It is a window into a way of life that seems hard to find in pop culture. I am printing it out to put on my board so I can contemplate it further (and often)! It is so rich with meaning.

[NonLemming]

Thanks, guys, those are some really good thoughts, ideas to ponder, and suggested readings. Keep it up!

[revtj]

Daniel,

I shared the quote on compassion with my brother (who is str8 and accepting of me) who considers himself Buddhist. He emailed back and asked why I didn't just admit I am a Buddhist?

I wanted to share my response in this thread...

My faith is informed by Buddhism, just as it is informed by the Hebrew & Christian scriptures. I am a christian because that's what I've always been and to claim to be something else would be inauthentic since I would essentially be a christian who switched to buddhism. True, christianity has a huge deficit in its understanding of compassion, mostly because the empire hijacked it in the 4th century and made violence (the crucifixion) the central message of the faith. But there were always christians who knew this was not the central message of Jesus and I connect with them; their writings and experience inspire me and ground me in my faith. There are still christians who will not let the empire define our faith.

Most importantly, if I throw out christianity because of its shortcomings, I hand it over to people who plan to use it to kill me with it. No. They cannot have my faith and they cannot have my Jesus. Never.

Christianity is in the midst of major transformation, just as it has changed dramatically several times in its history. That is why I don't name myself as a buddhist but as a christian. I see myself as a part of that positive transformation of a beautiful religion that is at its core nonviolent and peaceful, just like buddhism.

Volume II to follow. Just push the button when you are ready.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

My faith is informed by Buddhism...I am a christian because that's what I've always been and to claim to be something else would be inauthentic since I would essentially be a christian who switched to buddhism. True, christianity has a huge deficit in its understanding of compassion, mostly because the empire hijacked it in the 4th century and made violence (the crucifixion) the central message of the faith. There are still christians who will not let the empire define our faith.

Revtj,

I like your word 'informing' and experience the matter in the way that a person who grows up speaking one language learns another. In learning the 'foreign' one you learn your own so much better, in fact, it becomes impossible to take it for granted.