Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
Religious Diversity as the Will of God - In the Thought of Abraham Joshua Heschel
Emilio Baccarini
Those who penetrate to the spirit of that great Rabbi, Abraham J. Heschel, may experience a sense of bewilderment combined with the reassuring perception of having discovered their roots. Heschel was certainly a "radical" person and thinker. The force that emanates from his works, and from the man himself, comes from the depth and solidity of his roots. His whole life was a journeys back to basic principles, a constant philosophical, theological and spiritual search. And this is why there is a certain fear, a fear of being banal, in writing about him. It is, however, worth taking this risk in an attempt to get the measure of the man, not in any vain competitive way, (like a dwarf on a giant's shoulders), but to grasp his message, which is even more relevant today, twenty years after his death.
In the following brief discussion I will limit myself to looking at the problem of inter-religious dialogue, particularly the philosophical and theological presuppositions, on which Heschel reflected a great deal. First of all, we should look at this dialogue in the general context of Heschel's thinking i.e., look at the tree before examining the branch This will reveal that reflection on dialogue and inter-religious dialogue in particular, was not incidental or digressional in Heschel's thinking but absolutely organic to and flowing out of it.1 Broadly speaking, Heschel's pursuit of basic principles enabled him to go beyond any sterile and dangerous fundamentalism. His journey took him on a discovery of the meaning and aim of religion that led him to the dimension of mystery in faith. In the depth of the mystery, their own mystery, human beings become aware of an "anxiety" which calls into question their own essence and to which they assign an absolute value. Man is not alone because God (is) in search of man2. The titles of Heschel's two major works give us an idea of the direction of his analysis on interreligious dialogue.
This reflection will be divided into four sections:
1. Religion and faith: recovering the sense of mystery;
2. Theology and "depth theology": uncovering the origins;
3. The human person as God's concern: rediscovering human self-understanding.
4. One truth many religious forms.
1. Religion and faith: Recovering the Sense of Mystery
One of Heschel's most deep-rooted convictions is that man and woman have, or should have, a sense of mystery. According to Qoheleth, whom Heschel quotes in God in Search of Man "...God has made all things beautiful in time; but he has also implanted in the hearts of human beings the mystery.. . "3. So mystery within the human person but also "outside" him/her. "Being is mysterious" says Heschel, which means that "the mystery is an ontological category". Woman/Man is in the mystery, inside the mystery and constantly looking for its fitting expression (dicibilita), but is always reduced to silence. The mystery is ineffable. The sense of mystery and sense of the ineffable therefore go hand in hand4. Starting from these elements of a more strictly philosophical nature let us try to understand what, according to Heschel faith and religion are.
In his essay of 1951 he had already established the correlation between the two realities (faith and religion) in a profound discussion of existence. Heschel writes:
"What gives rise to faith is not a sentiment, a state of mind, an aspiration, but an everlasting fact in the universe, something which is prior to and independent of human knowledge and experience - the holy dimension of all existence... All existence stands in the dimension of the holy and nothing can be conceived of as living outside of it. All existence stands before God - here and everywhere now and at all times"5
According to Heschel therefore, "Piety is a response". In fact, "to have faith is consciously to enter a dimension in which we abide by our very existence... It is man's very existence that stands in relation to God"6. Given these presuppositions it also becomes clear why Heschel is concerned, not only about the absence of the sacred in our society, but also the way religion is becoming sterile, as we shall see later. In the contemporary world the sense of mystery has been lost and with it the sacred dimension of existence as a response to the call that comes from deep inside us, where existence is fed by earnestness and the absolute. The greatest risk contemporary man and woman run is that life will become banal, reduced to the aesthetic dimension, superficial and evanescent. This also implies for religion the loss of the meaning of its essence, its rootedness in mystery, and reduces it to the superficiality of an institution. Reflecting on the role of religion in a "free society" Heschel writes:
"The trouble is that religion has become 'religion' - institution, dogma, ritual. It is no longer an event. Its acceptance involves neither risk nor strain. Religion has achieved respectability by the grace of society...
There is no substitute for faith, no alternative for revelation, no surrogate for commitment".7
And all this is, however, already a consequence. In fact
"Religion is an answer to ultimate questions. The moment we become oblivious to ultimate questions, religion becomes irrelevant, and its crisis sets in ". Therefore "the primary task of religious thinking is to rediscover the questions to which religion is an answer, to develop a degree of sensitivity to the ultimate questions which its ideas and acts are trying to answer"8
Religion is not an end in itself: According to Heschel:
"Religion has often suffered from the tendency to become an end in itself, to seclude the holy, to become parochial, self-indulgent, self-seeking, as if the task were not to ennoble human nature, but to enhance the power and beauty of its institutions or to enlarge the body of doctrines. It has often done more to canonize prejudices than to wrestle for truth; to petrify the sacred than to sanctify the secular. Yet the task of religion is to be a challenge to the stabilization of values."9
From the point of view of man/woman's sense of themselves "religion is not a way of satisfying needs", but more radically "it is an answer to the question: Who needs man? It is an awareness of being needed, of man being a need of God. It is a way of sanctifying the satisfaction of authentic needs"10.
We have to recover the spirit of religion, the dimension of mystery that cannot be public.
"The central commandment is in relation to the person. But religion today has lost sight of the person. Religion has become an impersonal affair, an institutional loyalty. It survives on the level of activities rather than in the stillness of commitment. It has fallen victim to the belief that the real is only that which is capable of being registered by fact-finding surveys. By religion is meant what is done publicly rather than that which comes about in privacy. The chief virtue is social affiliation rather than conviction. Inwardness is ignored. The spirit has become a myth. Man treats himself as if he were created in the likeness of a machine rather than in the likeness of God. The body is his god, and its needs are his prophets. Having lost his awareness of his sacred image, he became deaf to the meaning: to live in a way which is compatible with his image. Religion without a soul is as viable as a man without a heart. Social dynamics is no substitute for meaning"11
This confusion is frequent in our culture and the fossilization of religion as a structure is one of the most delicate aspects of interreligious encounter. Precisely for this reason such meetings should above all be between persons of faith, as we shall see later on. Religion, therefore, has to take into consideration the two-fold aspect of God and the human person. The intertwining of these two subjects can only occur in the deepest dimension of the event. To rediscover the sense of mystery means to open ourselves up to this fundamental reality, where there is no room for glib irenics or confusion and differences disappear.
2. Theology and "Depth Theology"
In Heschel's thinking the two terms, theology and "depth theology" do not just represent a formal distinction or the limits to an area of study. He sees them, not only as two different standpoints from which to examine theology, but more precisely as different ways of approaching God. Recalling what was said previously about faith and religion, we have the necessary coordinates to perceive the meaning of "depth theology". As we have seen Heschel is acutely aware that "religion is little more than a desiccated remnant of a once living reality when reduced to terms and definitions, to codes and catechisms."12
To be concerned with religion in this "objectified" dimension means to theologize, while to be concerned with the act of believing means that "ideas of faith must not be studied in total separation from the moments of faith".13 In other words faith is not just a "datum", it is an event that touches the depths of a person. On the same lines Heschel notes that "to apprehend the depth of religious faith we will try to ascertain not so much what the person is able to express as that which he is unable to express, the insights that no language can declare".14
In two short but dense essays (Depth Theology and The Ecumenical Movement) Heschel demonstrates both the meaning of this theology and its relevance to establishing a common ground on which religions can meet. True piety can surface only if we can overcome the institutionalized dimension of religion. It is worth reflecting briefly on these two essays. In Depth Theology, Heschel comes out with some harsh words:
"Religion has been reduced to institution, symbol, theology. It does not affect the pretheological situation, the pre-symbolic depth of existence. To redirect the trend, we must lay bare what is involved in religious existence; we must recover the situations which both precede and correspond to the theological formulations; we must recall the questions which religious doctrines are trying to answer, the antecedents of religious commitment, the presuppositions of faith"15.
If religion is already an answer, we have to rediscover the questions or, if you like, that reference to the first element that is buried deep inside the human person. The roots support the tree, but they are hidden deep in the earth. Religious man and woman are looking for these roots, theology is in danger of petrifying them and therefore of rendering them useless. Although it may seem paradoxical, theology can become the equivalent of a religion without a soul. To rediscover the soul means to delve into our intimate religious experience. On this new dimension is built the new perspective that allows for differentiation between the two types of theology, defined thus by Heschel:
"Theology has often suffered from a preoccupation with the dogma, the content of believing. The act of believing: the questions, What happens within the person to bring about faith? What does it mean to believe? - all this is the concern of a special type of inquiry which may be called 'depth theology'. The theme of theology is the content of believing; the theme of depth theology is the act of believing, its purpose being to explore the depth of faith, the substratum out of which belief arises"16.
The discovery and adoption of this new paradigm enabled Heschel to reformulate with new intense accents the meaning of religious which is what interests us here. 'Depth theology' is outlined in a text of rare persuasion and wisdom. In my opinion, it is one of the most profound exhortations of Heschel's reflection. I would therefore like to quote some particularly interesting extracts from Heschel's text, which illustrate what he means by theology and depth theology.
"Theology declares: Depth Theology evokes; Theology demands believing and obedience: Depth Theology hopes for responding and appreciation. Theology deals with permanent facts; Depth Theology deals with moments. Dogma and ritual are permanent possessions of religion; moments come and go. " ... "Theology speaks for the people; Depth Theology speaks for the individual. Theology strives for communication, for universality; Depth Theology strives for insight, for uniqueness. Theology is like sculpture, Depth Theology like music. Theology is in the books; Depth Theology is in the hearts. The former is doctrine, the latter an event. Theologies divide us; Depth Theology unites us." ..."The theme of theology is the content of believing; the theme of Depth Theology is the act of believing. The first we call faith, the second creed or dogma. Creed and Faith, Theology and Depth Theology depend upon each other."17
The insistence with which Heschel invites us to reflect on the value and mysterious dimension of existence reveal to a certain extent his conception of the human person. If piety can be said to be an act of response, the subject of this act must possess characteristics that make him/her unique among creatures. This uniqueness in turn reveals how precious the subject is. This affirmation is both philosophical-anthropological and profoundly theological; it is the cardinal point in the realm of inter-religious dialogue.
3. Man/Woman as God's concern: rediscovering human self-understanding.
"Man is not alone". This statement, the title of one of Heschel's works, is emblematic of a philosophical- theological reflection. It contains the final meaning, the paradigm of what we would call the biblical vision of the human person, the answer to the eternally repeated question "Who is Man?", which is the title of another book by Heschel. This condition of not being alone, however, expresses an existential "modality" and not yet an "ontological modality", but it is expressed in such a way that immediately also transforms how God is seen, revealing another otherwise inconceivable layer of meaning: The human being is God's concern. In this expression they are inseparable one from the other, God and man/woman, gathered into such an essential reciprocal relationship that the one transforms the other involving him/her in the other's history. It is clear we have here a first hint of the monotheism of the Bible taken very seriously. From the point of view of inter-religious dialogue we have to consider this perspective as a presupposition and foundation too often omitted. It is useful to remember that Heschel worked out his theology and philosophy of pathos on this basis, starting from his re-examination of the lives of the prophets.18 This is not the moment to reflect on this aspect of Heschel's thinking, but let us try instead to "read" his anthropological perspective for a better understanding of his view of dialogue.
Among the many possibilities for reflection I would like to focus on two passages that I find particularly illuminating; one in Religion and Race and the other in No Religion is an Island.
"There is no insight more disclosing: God is One, and humanity is one. There is no possibility more frightening: God's name may be desecrated. God is every man's pedigree. He is either the Father of all men or of no man. The image of God is either in every man or in no man. From the point of view of moral philosophy it is our duty to have regard for every man. From the point of view of religious philosophy it is our duty to have regard and compassion for every man regardless of his moral merit. God 's covenant is with all men, and we must never be oblivious of the equality of the divine dignity of all men. The image of God is in the criminal as well as in the saint. How can my regard for man be contingent upon his merit, if I know that in the eyes of God I myself may be without merit!"
Heschel goes on to remind us that there is only one symbol of God in the Bible " The symbol of God is man, every man"19 , if then we remember the biblical ban on building images and likenesses of God the invisible, this affirmation takes on an absolute value, foundational from an anthropological, ethical, metaphysical, theological and religious point of view. "Man, every man, must be treated with the honor due to a likeness representing the King of kings." These affirmations, at first sight disconcerting because so self-evident, are in fact disconcerting because they have not transformed our culture, they have not yet become our peculiar anthropological mind-set. Until that happens, not only will religious dialogue be difficult, but any positive meeting between people of different cultures will be impossible, full recognition of the value of human rights will be impossible, a culture of peace in which all people live in difference will be impossible.
It is these reflections that lead us to the conclusion that Heschel's anthropological view is the indispensable presupposition of his view of dialogue, without however forgetting that it is rooted in a reworking of theology: theology of pathos and depth theology, the two-fold dimension, God and the human person.
Armed with these ideas, let us now turn to the brief passage in No Religion is an Island, which is already oriented towards inter-religious dialogue. Heschel writes:
"To meet a human being is a major challenge to mind and heart. I must recall what I normally forget. A person is not just a specimen of the species called Homo sapiens. He is all of humanity in one, and whenever one man is hurt we are all injured. The human is a disclosure of the divine, and all men are one in God 's care for man. Many things on earth are precious, some are holy, humanity is the holy of holies. To meet a human being is an opportunity to sense the image of God, the presence of God. According to a rabbinical interpretation, the Lord said to Moses: " Wherever you see the trace of man there I stand before you'..."20.
In Heschel's view, the recovery of this vision of the human being means finding the minimal element of agreement on which all religions can meet. We should not, however, see this perspective as something to be exploited since it contains its own intrinsic truth.
Now let us turn briefly to the last point in this discussion that is more directly concerned with interreligious dialogue.
4. One Truth, Many Religious Forms
First of all, I would like to briefly summarize what has been said in the preceding paragraphs. Heschel's approach is profoundly marked by the "existential" elements we have analysed. Interreligious dialogue can only occur within the dimension of mystery and if there is a particularly felt "sense of God". It is fundamental and self-evident that every contact between religions is a meeting "between faiths", therefore "the first and most important prerequisite of interfaith is faith".21 Faith, however, cannot be the exclusive property of any one religious form. All human beings are in the same condition when it comes to practising their faith, to praying. The diversity of the languages of prayer is not just an indication of Babel, but rather of the same need that inhabits man/woman wherever he/she is. Heschel repeatedly, in different texts, recalls the words of the prophet Malachi: "For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name is great among the nations"1, 11. He sees these words as affirming the uniqueness of God as adored by all races and that all perceive in their own tongue. "God's voice speaks in many languages, communicating itself in a diversity of intuitions. The word of God never comes to an end. No word is God's last word"22. The revelation has not ended, which means that respect for different religions has to be rooted in "the insight that God is greater than religion, that faith is deeper than dogma, that theology has its roots in depth theology"23.
I shall conclude this rapid analysis of Heschel's position by again letting him describe in his own words his vision. His philosophy could perhaps be described as an ontology of the inexhaustible nature of the truth, which today seems to be particularly fertile. No religion can advance a claim to having exclusive rights to or total possession of the truth.
"The ultimate truth is about the situation that pertains between God and man. 'The torah speaks in the language of man'. Revelation is always an accommodation to the capacity of man. No two minds are alike, just as no two faces are alike. The voice of God reaches the spirit of man in a variety of ways, in a multiplicity of languages. One truth comes to expression in many ways of understanding."24
*Emilio Baccarini is Professor of Philosophy at the University II of Rome (Tor Vergata). Author of books and articles, he is also a member of Sidic's Editorial Board and currently Director responsible for the Sidic periodical with the Italian authorities.
This article has been translated from the Italian. The quotations from A. J. Heschel's works are as in the original and not, therefore, in inclusive language.
1. A.J. Heschel, No Religion is an Island. A. J. Heschel and Interreligious Dialogue (ed. H. Kasimov & B.L. Sherwin) New York 1991. Heschel's essay was written in 1966. In an essay on "The Theological Movement, published three years before this, Heschel wrote: 'In this aeon religious diversity may be the providence of God', now in The Insecurity of Freedom, New York 1967.
2. Man Is not Alone, New York 1951; God in Search of Man, New York, 1955.
3. God in Search of Man, p. 54.
4. See what Heschel has to say on this in Man Is Not Alone.
5. Man Is Not Alone, op. cit., p. 237.
6. Ibid.. p. 238.
7. The Insecurity of Freedom, New York 1967, p. 3.
8. Ibid.. p. 4.
9. Ibid. p. 115.
l0. Ibid. p. 8.
11. Ibid. p. 12.
12. A.J. Heschel, God in Search of Man, New York l955, p. 8.
13. Ibid. p. 8.
14. Ibid. p. 7.
15. The Insecurity of Freedom, cit., p. 115-116.
16. Ibid. p. 117- 118.
17. Ibid. p. 118, 119, 120.
18. I am naturally referring to his evocative study The Prophets. These ideas crop up several times in his work. There are some particularly meaningful expressions in an essay entitled Religion and Race (now in The Insecurity of Freedom), where he says "All prophecy is a great exclamation: God is not indifferent to evil! He is always concerned, he is personally affected by what happens to man. He is a God of pathos..." A little further on, after reminding us that the prophet is someone who holds God and humankind in a single thought at the same time, Heschel concludes "Our tragedy begins with the segregation of God, with the split between sacred and secular". Pp. 92 and 93.
19. The Insecurity of Freedom, cit., p. 95.
20. No Religion is an Island, New York 1991, p. 7-8.
21. Ibid., p. 10.
22. The Insecurity of Freedom, Cit., p. 182.
23. Ibid. p 181.
24. No Religion is an Island. cit. p. 15.
