Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Douglas Knight
The community that has been addressed by God has hope, and this
hope enables, and mandates for them the thought of the future.
They are able to ask this question, and so for all humankind the
question exists. They hope because God has addressed them, and
they expect him to do so again. This hope of his address determines
their future. God has called them into existence simply so that he
can address them and they address him. For this community, hope
is cognizance that a promise has been made, expectations been
raised and obligation created. What we can say about hope, the
future, and human responsibility derives from what this community
says about itself, which is that there is an ongoing covenant
between God and Abraham. It is not simply that Israel had, but has
and always will have this relationship with God and therefore knows
at least two things about the future, that it is the love of God for
them that gives them a future, and that the God who does so is the
true God and therefore the God of all men. Yet the community for
whom the thought of the future takes the form of hope – their hope
– is the exceptional community, and feeling abashed, may play
down this hope of theirs in order to avoid the resentment of those
1
without such hope. Yet we must talk about this community in terms
of its future-orientation.
The God who has brought Israel into covenant with himself has
revealed that this relationship is the truth of the relationship of God
with man. Israel’s covenant with God is for Israel’s sake. Then we
have to add that the covenant with Israel is also for the sake of the
world. Since Israel is in covenant with the God of all mankind, this
covenant is the truth of all mankind, and there is no mankind for
which some other kind of existence is true.1 Each human is in
relationship, fundamentally and immediately, with God and, through
God, with every other human being. Humans are in relationship
because God has made them so; our existence is dependent on this
prior relationship. We do not exist first and at some later date
decide to enter our first relationship. Man is with his fellow men:
none of us is first on our own and only subsequently and
problematically with other people. Each human exists only because
God calls them into existence, and each is called into existence so
that they may be called into communion: the communion is the
purpose of this existence. Since Israel is covenantal, Man is
covenantal.
Two things must said of this covenant. First, Israel’s covenant with
God is for Israel’s sake. There is no further rationale than the love
of these persons for each other. But then we also have to say that
Israel is in the world – the world of the Gentiles – as the presence
of God with man, and so as the witness of God to man, and the
embodiment of man’s proper worship of God. Thus this covenant,
that is for its own sake, also has this further purpose and
1
Karl Barth Church Dogmatics III
2
responsibility. Israel is for the sake of the world. The purpose of
Israel is man, and Israel is the destiny of Man.
Israel
God has made man his covenant partner. More than that, God has
made one specific man (Abraham) his covenant partner and with
the one specific people (Israel) who are the children of this man.
He, and they, are the covenant partner of God. ‘Covenant’ is not a
2
Robert Spaemann ‘Gott ist kein Bigamist’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 11 April 2009 ‘Jedenfalls
ist der Gedanke von zwei Bundesvölkern dem Neuen Testament vollkommen fremd. Es gibt nur das
eine Volk Gottes, dessen „geborene Mitglieder“ die Juden und dessen adoptierte Mitglieder die Heiden
sind.’
3
general truth or a universal right but a specific communion,
membership of which is by invitation. The covenant of God is with
man through this people only, and with this people for their sake
and for the sake of all mankind. It is exclusive and it is inclusive.
Israel is the future of mankind, held out by God to man. This
covenant is simultaneously with Israel and for all mankind, at once
particular and only so universal. It is good news for all mankind that
God loves Israel for Israel’s sake, for Israel is Man with God.
4
to the discourse of philosophy. Since philosophy represents an
engagement with Gentile wisdom, this suggests that there is some
requirement to wrestle with the Gentiles, make sense of them, offer
them some wisdom and in some measure act as witnesses to them.
Thought that is Jewish will insist that the one true God is the God of
Israel, the universal God is this particular God. While universality
5
dissolves particularity away in the pagan conception, in the
covenanted conception universality and particularity are no threat
to one another. Thought that is Jewish, and which therefore starts
out from the worship and Scriptures of Israel, must subject
philosophy to the given that is the assembly of Israel, and to the
events set out in those Scriptures. It must secure the truth that
there is a people, simultaneously many and one, whose identity is
more fundamental than time or death. These persons will never be
sublated into any other higher or lower unity, nor be turned into
anything that is not themselves. This assembly is fundamental.
Jewish thought will surely take the existence of this assembly and
the covenant that has created its hope as its starting point. It will
therefore surely subject every doctrine of God and of man to the
givens of Israel’s history, the events of recorded in Scripture which
the God of all makes himself known as the God of this one people.
It will offer its own particular history as the means by which every
people may interpret their own histories, and by which every
concept of man and of God may be disciplined. Can Jewish thought
therefore really maintain that Law and Philosophy are independent
areas of concern, and that Jewish Scripture has so little to say to
Gentile wisdom? Surely Jewish thought will use Jewish Scripture to
diagnose Gentile thought as engrossed in by the prospect of its own
extinction? Though engaged at a deep level with the Gentile wisdom
of philosophy, Jewish thought inexplicably wants to avoid the term
‘theology’, in case the Gentiles get the impression that the universal
God of whole world, about which philosophers wonder, be also the
local God of this particular people, knowable through the worship
and the Scriptures of Israel and in no other way. Should there be
such minimal correspondence between Israel’s private existence
and her public existence?
6
peoples.4 The outsider therefore asks whether it is really the Law
(together with its interpretation), or whether it is not rather Israel’s
identification of the true God in its worship that is the fundamental
distinctive of Israel. Then Israel might say that the Law gives them
613 ways to examine themselves, check that their worship is free of
the idolatry and gentileness that might otherwise creep in. Thirdly,
this impertinent outsider might suggest that where there is this
assembly and this worship it is because the presence of God brings
them into existence, so we have to say that this worshipping
assembly is the presence of God here on earth, before men.5 It is
the presence of the Lord who enables his people to be the people
who can observe this Law, and declare that it is indeed the Truth,
and which God graciously enables Israel’s heeding and following.
Without these three terms, assembly, worship and presence, we
have this gulf between Law and Philosophy.6
Though Israel may perhaps not need to make these three terms
explicit for her own sake, Gentiles have to make them explicit, and
Christians do so. They say that the worshipping community of Israel
is where God becomes nameable, and so makes himself
addressable and accessible to man. Without this explicit confession
of this presence, worship and assembly, Jewish thought would
communicate only that the Torah is a private possession without
wider consequence, as though God meant nothing, or nothing
public, by placing Israel here amid the curious Gentiles. Yet Israel is
not created a merely angelic race, beyond the perception of the
nations of the earth.
Among the gentiles it is not the philosophers who worship God, but
another group, one that hears the Scripture of Israel and hopes for
inclusion in that assembly – the Christians. So we have three
assemblies: Israel and the two gentiles assemblies, one of the
philosophers, who do not acknowledge the God of Israel, and the
other of the Christians, who do. Yet the single assembly that hears
the Scriptures and so gathers around the patriarchs and prophets
appears to us as two parallel, even rival, communities which decline
to look one another’s way or do so only with disdain. Could it be
4
Lenn Goodman The God of Abraham p. 211 ‘The life of Israel becomes a symbol of
God's holiness, Israel itself is made holy and godlike – but only if the meanings are
retained and the symbols not made ends in themselves.’
5
Alan Mittleman Hope in a Democratic Age p.143 ‘The normative act of thrice-daily prayer,
the sturdy backbone of covenantal action for the traditional Jew, becomes itself a ritual
enactment of messianic time. Rabbinic prayer is thus a prolepsis of the days of the messiah.’
6
Lenn Goodman The God of Abraham concedes the significance of ritual, which is a step
towards worship, in the identity of Israel, but this small nod to piety comes only after, and
yet without connection to, an extended sociological discussion of ritual. p. 207 ‘A subtext
in all Jewish ritual, perhaps all social ritual, identifies the we. Thus we say ‘Our God and
God of our fathers’, ‘Our God, king of the Universe’, in so many ritual blessings.’
7
that these two communities, Jewish and Christian, each absorbed
with internal rivalries, is intended to yearn for reconciliation with the
other, that each is responsible to God for the other, and that
together they are responsible to God for the world? Could it be that,
whether separately or together, they are to point to the truth of
God as life and salvation for man and so warn him away from the
idolatries that will end in his dissolution and death? Perhaps the
man who has no wish to be alerted or turn from his path will not
welcome this witness. Perhaps we should say that this responsibility
and witness comes with some risk or cost for both communities.
Perhaps a common danger might be the opportunity for some
pragmatic reconciliations. Christians have been dangerous to Jews,
but Jews might observe that they are no longer so, for Christians
themselves are beginning to feel beleaguered as political power
turns against them in the very places it was once so close to them.
The person
If Israel has a responsibility, what would it be? We might say that it
is the responsibility of Israel to express that (1) man is with God
and (2) Israel is the form in which this is so. It can do so through
the concept of covenant, which together with the concepts of image
(man is the image of God for creation) and other ideas such as love,
faith, freedom and openness, is secured by the concept of the
person. Let us see if this concept of the person can help us draw
these various ideas together into some relationship with the
responsibility of Israel.
There is one God, who makes one covenant. The covenant of God is
with Man, who is brought into existence by this covenant that God
makes with him. The covenant of God is with Man in Israel and has
no other form. The covenant with all mankind is set within the
covenant with Israel, and the covenant with Israel is the form of the
covenant with Adam. All humankind is contained in this covenant,
which specifies and amplifies itself in different dispensations or
forms of providence which, it is true, have been called ‘covenants’.
But ‘covenants’ with Noah, Abraham, Moses and with the whole
people of Israel are contained within this covenant with Adam. In
this series of Russian dolls, when the last and smallest is opened it
reveals the first and largest.7 Open this series at any point and you
will find Israel and, in Israel, all Adam.
8
assembly of Israel. The only way that this may happen for Gentiles
is through the particular member of Israel given them for this
purpose. Christians participate in the promise given to the whole
company of Israel, and thus to Abraham, Moses, David ... through
Christ. This participation is both second-hand, since Gentiles are not
descended from Abraham, and it is first-hand, since the Holy Spirit,
the God of Sinai, gathers all nations into the company of God's
people in Christ.
Since God is present to the world in Israel, this must mean that God
is present in each and every member of Israel. Each Jew is all Israel
in miniature, each is man-with-God. Israel has no other existence
than in the specific individual people of whom Israel is made up,
through all history. Christians point out that if we see Israel as the
presence of God to man we must also see each member of Israel as
the presence of God. God sets each man before his fellow man so
that each may recognise this as the beloved creature and
companion of God, the gift given to him by God and the image of
the invisible God so that in each of his fellows man may recognise
and know God. We could term this presence ‘embodiment’ or
‘incarnation’.8
8
Michael Wyschogrod has led recent recognition of this. The Body of Faith p.256 ‘The
circumcised body of Israel is the dark, carnal presence through which the redemption makes
its way in history. Salvation is of the Jews because the flesh of Israel is the abode of the
divine presence in the world. It is the carnal anchor that God has sunk into the soil of
creation.’
9
own sake but also for the Gentiles, so Israel’s identity takes the
form of a promise. Thus a Gentile may become a Christian, and so
have hope, because Israel has the promise of God and ongoing
delivery on that promise. If God proves unreliable with any one
promise, to any member of Israel, he is of no use to the rest of us.
Witness
What about the exclusivity of the covenant of God with Israel? Is
this covenant solely a private affair, or is it also missional? Israel is
the community that correctly identifies God. By identifying him so,
Israel identifies all else as not-God, and calls excessive devotion to
anything else as idolatry. Such idolatry is the way that Gentiles give
themselves to what-is-not-God, and are lost by doing so. Their false
orientation and the misdirection of their passions sets the Gentiles
against one another, with the result that the world is a violent
place. The Gentiles are enslaved and in misery, but since they
cannot help themselves they are to be pitied. Simply by
worshipping God, and refusing to give worship to any other
creature, Israel is the witness of God to all. The witness and mission
of Israel is intrinsic to its worship of God, not something additional
to it. By its worship Israel witnesses that the true object and goal of
man’s life is God. This orientation reveals that all others are false.
The true God is the true orientation for man, by which alone he may
be at peace with himself, with his neighbour and with all other
creatures.
Israel is given to the world, that is, to the Gentiles. Israel has to
pity the idolaters who, in their misery, give themselves away in
worship to every creature, and are captive to the tyrannies that
result. Israel is holy, thus Jews are here to resist the world, not
capitulate to it. When they are inviolable, the Gentiles will know that
10
to throw themselves against Israel is to throw themselves against
God, and against their own true orientation, which Israel’s God
alone secures. Thus Israel must bear the Gentiles. The whole nation
of Israel is priestly, invited to carry the sin of the world – again, of
the Gentiles – into the sanctuary, where it is burned up and
transformed from sin to holiness. For long periods of history this
means that Israel must bear foreign masters, even bear lawless and
violent foreign masters. The ‘harsh historical oppression’ (Korn)
which Israel suffers does not begin with Rome, but with Egypt.
Every subsequent regime – Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece,
and medieval European Christendom, or modern European
nationalisms – is a continuation of ‘Egypt’. But Egypt is not only
outside us but also within; the passions, resentment and rage that
bubble up within us are, until we can master them, as dangerous as
any external ‘Egypt’.9 Israel is confronted by, often subjugated by,
the nations, but must never be suborned by them, or imitate them.
But equally Israel can only be threatened by them because they
appeal to the violence within each man that is yet to be mastered.
11
relationship with the Gentiles is surely incomprehensible. Without a
doctrine of election that understand that this witness is its purpose
and this vindication its climax, it is hard to see why God subjects
Israel to this cruelty. Since these connections between covenant
and purpose and between worship and public witness, are made in
such minor key, if at all, by Jewish thought, that God would seem
unready to help or to care, which is perhaps why theodicy, and
apostasy and atheism, are such prominent options for Jewish
thinkers.
Gentiles are without the Law and so, in their passion and misery,
the nations lash out at each other. Israel can surely look on this as
a form of self-harming. The holiness of Israel is not sustained
simply by removing itself from the Gentiles, but by being
demonstrably holy amidst the Gentiles, so that they can see this
holiness, marvel at it and even desire it. Israel is the community
that can say that mankind gives itself away to the wrong gods and
that murderous forms of behaviour result from this idolatry. It is not
merely possession but continued offering of that truth to the world,
as its deliverance from the false gods, that is required from Israel.
But it is not self-harming only, for the nations also lash at Israel,
and sometimes come up with ideological articulation of why Israel is
uniquely the one against whom they must lash out. When Israel is
persecuted and suffers she cannot but wish to tell the Gentiles that
it is only their failure of true orientation and ignorance of true
worship that creates the misery that drives their rage. Israel can
also point out that there is release from this violence and self-
destruction through conversion to true worship. For Gentiles
salvation means deliverance from false to true worship and
orientation, whereas for Israel salvation means that God does not
let the Gentiles prevail against her, but vindicates her before them.
Meanwhile, however, the Gentiles represent the storm that Israel
has to walk through, for life amid the Man without God is the life to
which the Man with God is called.
12
diffidently available, in a single moment of our space and time, so
that we may receive it, or refuse it, in freedom. The Gentiles are
brought to edge of this worshipping assembly by one member of
Israel. Jesus is the Jew who is unafraid of the Gentiles and not on
the run from us. He goes through all that the Gentiles hurl at him
without reviling, unmoved by this rage, so he is the person of Israel
victorious and vindicated. So Christians say to Jews: Be Jewish! Be
unafraid! Pity Gentiles! Defy Gentiles! Inasmuch as Christians fail to
say this, Jews only have evidence only of Gentile pitiableness. Israel
is planted and established in the world, through all generations,
withstanding all assaults, worshipping the true God and no other
and the Gentiles may see this and wonder at it. Israel’s worship is
not hidden, or is only hidden so the extent that the Gentiles hide
themselves from that glory. Though the Gentiles may fear and hate
it, and from time to time attempt to extinguish it, this witness is
invincible and eternal, for God is faithful to Israel. Since this means
that their violence will not be allowed to overcome the world, it is
also good, indeed it is salvation, for the Gentiles that he is so.
13
absence. Philosophy is a coy expression of a deism that believes
that any indication of God's concern for man is the unseemly
anthropomorphism arising from an immature religious
consciousness. Could it be that, when Jewish thought is reluctant to
let Israel’s Scriptures frame the dialogue with Gentile wisdom that a
non-covenantal account of a disengaged God rises from the chasm
between ‘Law’ and ‘Philosophy’? If you have a disengaged God, it
makes no difference whether he exists or not. Such a theism or a-
theism puts what is not personal above the living person, or puts
the lifeless above life. The God of the philosophers is either a thing
or a ‘no-thing’, and is either way indistinguishable from Death. The
theist God that is too high to be concerned by man and too
transcendent to appear in his own creation is no ally but an idolatry.
The Bible insists that the materiality of creation is not repugnant to
its Maker and the sin of man is not so appalling that that it keeps its
creator God away. If it were, how inadequate this creator would be.
For our sake, so that we may come to acknowledge him, God does
not come to us without creation; whether as ‘fire and cloud’ or
‘garments of flesh’ he clothes himself with materiality in order to
appear as the Angel of Lord, for how else may man know him? That
God makes himself one person among the many created persons,
does not diminish him. For Israel worships the God who has
committed himself to man, specifically to Abraham and his children
and the God who has not done so is an untruth and idolatry.
The Gentiles cannot withhold their worship from the God of Israel
without giving themselves to some other divinity. They may name
this Zeus, Woden, Gaia, Kismet or Moloch, or they may insist that it
is above all names – as ‘das Nichtige’ or ‘the One’. They may
believe that the unconcerned, disengaged God, or the God without
existence, is higher and more compelling than the covenanted and
thus concerned and engaged God who has made himself known to
Abraham and who shares his fortunes with Israel – but they pay an
awful price for this monotheism. Their god is an angry tyrant, for
whose sake they consume one another. Israel must then put it to
such Gentile cultures that they are bewitched by their own
extinction and flirting with death.
14
‘polytheism’ of modernity that degrades the environment in which
meaningful public discourse can take place. Should not Jews say
that relativism is idolatry and consequent descent into cultural
decay and that it is as much a temptation for them as for anyone
else?
It is for Israel is to say that these pressures are rival cults that
articulate the fears and compulsions of modernity. Israel may
suggest that we may find that true knowledge of God comes as a
release from them, and enables us to discover the truth of our
neighbour’s claim on us and with it our own proper identity. The
truth of God gives a less conflicted way of being with one another
and so of being ourselves.
The monist ‘god’, confronted by the world he did not make and
cannot love turns that anger against this most particular nation.
15
Two forms of monism set themselves against her, both appalled at
Israel as fundamental theological fact, so Israel has enemies. The
Primitive and explicitly theist monism of the Middle East is one.
Modernity, the ostensibly atheist and non-religious monism of the
West, is another. Aggression against Jews, and against their self-
determination in the state of Israel, indicates that these two
monisms are moved by intolerance of one people in particular.
The high view of Israel at the centre of the Christian doctrine of God
may represent unwelcome attention, but it surely means that, for
Israel, Christians are not the enemy. Jews can surely distinguish
between Christians and other Gentiles. Christians are those in
whose worship of God Israel is central. Ideological Moderns on the
other hand Gentiles who are opposed to the witness of Israel or the
Church, who are committed to a metaphysics, whether theism, a-
theism or anti-theism, which resists the distinctiveness of this
people. Modernity is defined by its antipathy to its own origins that
aims towards universalisation that will level and homogenise all,
and especially whatever nation presumes to remain distinct.
Judaism’s opponent is not Christianity, but the ‘modernity’ that has
taken exception to its own origins in the Christian gospel and thus
in the worshipping assembly of Israel to which the Church points.
12
Karl Barth Dogmatics in Outline p. 67-68 ‘The attack on Judah means the attack on the rock of
the work and revelation of God, beside which work and revelation there is no other... A nation which –
and that is the other side of National Socialism – chooses itself and makes itself the basis and measure
of everything – such a nation must sooner or later collide with the truly chosen people of God.’
16
as it attempts to do so. In the case of the Modernity, hatred of
Israel warns us how advanced the decay of our culture is.13
13
I am indebted here and several other places in this paper to David Goldman’s ‘Spengler’
columns in First Things and Asia Times.
17
Man is with God, and not known without God, or apart from God, or
other than as the creature loved by God. The Lord brings each
before the other so that through him they may turn to hear one
another and wonder at the image that each presents to the other.
We must seek one another’s recognition and approval, and wait for
one another to receive that recognition. Each member of Israel, and
through Christian baptism each Gentile, may receive the
discipleship by which he can repent and confess his sin, and ask for
forgiveness: these are the skills of self-judgment by which human
autonomy may be established. Any society benefits from the
presence of the community that can hear and speak the truth in
critical self-judgment. The society that receives these skills even at
second-hand will not be entirely a captive to its own resentment
and the cycle of retribution, in which blame can only ever be given
but fault never admitted. Man is in receipt of the act of God, and so
may look for continuing acts of God. Because it is the source of
hope, this covenant opens the question of the future. As God
speaks to us, and hears from us, so we receive our existence and
purpose. He is our audience, so whatever we do has the promise
that there is someone who will follow our progress. We may
persevere in our projects on the basis of this promise that God will
continue his concern for us, and may give us neighbours and
successors who will give us our recognition so that our projects so
not die but continue throughout all generations. We may term this a
metaphysics of promise, or an eschatological ontology, by which we
can speak to the world in hope, indeed, in faith, hope and love.
Each society must seek its own continuation, and thus hope for a
generation that will recognise it as good. No generation can be
sufficient to itself for it needs another other to give this affirmation.
Our shared present depends on a larger covenant of the present-
and-the-future. Our present existence therefore requires that we
pass life on, and pass on the culture by which those who come after
us can affirm that life as good. If we live as though there is only this
present, and so set ourselves against the emergence of future, we
will deny existence to the very people who could give us the
affirmation that we desire. Thus we must live in a way that enables
the medium and long-term to emerge; were we to live in such a
way that nothing came after us, even our present life would be of
18
no value. Each person, this would suggest, is a dual being: he is
both himself and the possibility of another, and indeed of many
others. Each of us is more than a single self.
14
Michael Wyschogrod The Body of Faith p. 253 ‘The Jewish family is thus the space in
which the future membership of the Knesses Israel is prepared...The bond of the Jewish
parent to his child reflects the faith that the Jews of future generations are already members
of the house of Israel and that redemption will come to humanity through them.’
15
Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain (eds) The Meaning of Marriage
19
can enter freely, and we become dependents of that other covenant
that we have not entered freely, the state.16
16
Patricia Morgan The War between the State and the Family (IEA), Douglas Farrow Nation of
Bastards.
17
Jonathan Sachs Faith in the Future: The Ecology of Hope and the Restoration of Family
and Faith (1997) p.23 ‘The family is ‘the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing
future generations’
18
Michael Wyschogrod The Body of Faith p. 253 ‘The community in which the Jew lives is
not only the community of his contemporaries. It includes those Jews who have been and
those who will be.’
20
Lack of symmetry creates the tension that generates the movement
from one generation to another, and so ensures the continuation of
society through time. Too much symmetry forestalls this movement
by which one generation brings another into existence. The
distinction between public and private is not only analogous to the
distinction between this present time and the future, but ensures
that this present continues to give way to that future.
19
John D. Mueller ‘The Stork Theory of Economics’
21
existing generation. It is the triumph of the present over the past
and so, disastrously, the triumph of the present over the future.
20
Reuven Brenner Labyrinths of Prosperity
22
The expansion of capital markets and money stock is a function of
the belief of each of us that we will have to accumulate much
greater funds in order to buy in the care that our own familial
relationships will not provide. The expansion of money, and the
dominance of the formal economy over the domestic household, is a
function of our, justified, belief that there will be no one to take
care of us in our last years. The proliferation of money into every
relationship is a consequence of the dissolution of ties, a dissolution
that was first experienced as the freedom of leaving home, and
then the compulsion consequent on the need to compensate for this
lost home.21 We did not understand ourselves as social, embedded,
covenantal beings but as individuals without relation. The society
that does not understand itself as a society of covenanted persons
is becoming an aggregate of individual wills, individually facing a
deficit of value and thus in a state of anxiety: none of us is
surrounded by enough people who value us highly enough to
provide the love and guarantee the care we are going to need when
age brings the mutiny of our own bodies.
23
particular relationship the other person offers, because it binds us
to them and them only. We insist that payment in the medium of
money is finally the only valid form of public acknowledgement and
so we enforce this a single medium on one another, replacing
particular relationships and actual plurality with universal
relationship-stuff. If everything can be adequately denominated in
the single medium of money, we may all be paid off, debt cancelled,
differences equalised and all relationships concluded. If everything
is reducible to the unity represented by this medium, all ends and
purposes can be made present to us, here and now, without loss.
Then there is no reason to wait for or look forward to any other
world, or any future. Everything, and indeed everyone, is fungible.
No human being or relationship has any ultimate status, each
culture and context may be translated into any other without loss.
The universal is permanent, we its merest epiphenomena. With the
triumph of universality the particularly of each person expires.
But, once again, it is only the assembly of Israel, and the baptised
Gentiles added to her, who can say this. It is the responsibility of
the one God-worshipping assembly to identify as ‘gods’, idols and
forms of captivity, the various ways in which the man of modernity
subjects himself to such reductions of the truth of his own being.
This account of the individual without relationship is the specifically
modern form of our idolatry. The market and state grow as they
respond to the individual’s desire to be rid of his relationships and
responsibilities. We discourage one another from finding our place
22
Jean Bethke Elshtain Sovereignty: God, State, Self
24
in covenants that will continue our society into new generations.
The individual who puts himself beyond challenge, and the
expanded market and state that service his consequent desires and
needs are the modern result of the ancient assumption that unity is
more fundamental than plurality, that the One is prior, and that
persons derive life and a merely temporary freedom from it. These
two aspects of this monad with which the tyrant-individual identifies
reinforce our fear that everything is already present to us and we
may hope for nothing that we do not already have. Modernity is the
cult of a dark God, which disdains to give his name or hear prayers,
and everyone of us is a function of him – until we are snatched from
him and brought into the assembly that worships the true God who
is with man, allows man to acknowledge him and so be saved.
The large public square of the West is the outcome of the long
presence of the community that acknowledges the God who gave
his name and promise to Abraham. The assembly that worship this
God, in its twofold form of the Jewish and Christian communities,
also practise the skills and virtues of self-examination, and from
them Western societies have learned the art of taking criticism. As
western societies dispense with the witness of this God-worshipping
assembly, so our ability to give and take criticism will diminish and
our public squares shrink. The crisis of confidence felt by our
contemporary society of individuals without covenant expresses
itself through our disavowal and even state-led eradication of our
inherited differences. As a result the cultural self-abjuration has
become a public policy directed against the faith that generated our
inherited culture. Such self-reviling comes from a great ingratitude
and unhappiness.
25
tested by public speech. Without this inherited culture of ours, that
relies on an ongoing relationship to this God-worshipping assembly
and its tradition, will we continue to have the culture of self-
examination and public judgment that has produced the secular
public square and market? True secularity demands the exercise of
such public virtue, even including the courage required to be the
exceptional people. We can assess Christianity only by the extent to
which its presence ameliorates our own intrinsic warrior culture
through the, at best partial, conversion of any society. Since it is a
faith, the Christian faith is not the permanent possession of any
society. This faith ebbs and re-grows in this people, and when the
Christian tide goes out it reveals more of the pagan beneath. If over
the long-term Europe ceases to receive the witness of these two
communities it will not continue to be secular, but descend into the
various forms of collectivisation, totalitarianism and tribalism from
which it once emerged.
26
fundamentally always the same crisis of faith, of man in paralysis
before the summons of God.
Without the concept of person, there is only fate, under which the
particularity and freedom of each of us is in doubt, and each lives
under threat of being absorbed into the whole, with the result that
everything they are and do is in question. The society that can
tolerate and even welcome the witness of this God-worshipping
community may continue to be an open, healthy and a prosperous
society, but societies that do not receive the confidence derived
from this covenant may give up not only hope but life, and so
disappear. Societies come and go, but the God-worshipping
community will remain.
The greatest favour that the assembly that worships God can do is
to be distinct from that society to which it is sent, and remain holy
whilst still a public part of that society. Made confident by the
covenant of God with man, this assembly can say that it is God who
sets us before one another, inviting us to receive one another as
gifts, and to look for his image in one another. It can look into the
future without fear, can name as idolatries the threats it sees and
its confidence will sustain the open economy against the closed
economy of paganism. To say that we are the people summoned by
God to be his witnesses is the single constructive thing we can do
for our society and for the human future.
27