An absolutely beautiful book on Jewish doctrine. Goodreads recommended this book to me; as I wanted to better live Stendahl's approach to interacting with other religions (1. when learning about other religions, ask them, not their enemies, 2. Don't compare your best with their worst, 3. Leave room for "holy envy."), and I am nearly illiterate when it comes to Judaism, I thought this would be a good introduction.
As an LDS reader, I was surprised but not surprised at some of our common understandings and vocabulary. Covenants, salvation, sanctification, exaltation, a nation of priests, holiness, prophets, revelation. Many of these have been inherited by Christianity as a whole, but I felt the Jewish conception was closer to our understanding as Latter Day Saints.
But in addition, there was a whole new vocabulary that was beautiful and inspiring. I learned the difference between wonder, awe, and reverence; the importance of mystery; havanah (the deeds) and kavanah (the sincerity behind the deeds); mitsvah, which are commandments but actually encompasses more than commandments; and events versus processes.
The title is actually what the author considers the essence of Judaism: rather than man's search for God, it is God's search for man: "It is as if God were unwilling to be alone, and He had chosen man to serve Him... God is in search of man. Faith in God is a response to God's question."
I felt a measure of holy envy for Judaism, and I will apply much to my own life. I particularly liked his confrontation of a Jewish stereotype: that Jews are sticklers of the law, regardless of the sincerity of their actions. He shows the importance of both, that deeds themselves are vital and the sincerity behind the deeds is also important. But if he were to choose one over the other, he'd pick deeds without sincerity, because in the end, doing the good deeds brings about the change of heart, and God's grace can help us gain the sincerity (fake it til you make it).
I have a whole bunch of quotes, so I'll just unload them all here:
It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion-- its message becomes meaningless. (1)
Theology starts with dogmas, philosophy begins with problems. Philosophy sees the problem first, theology has the answer in advance... Philosophy is, in a sense, a kind of thinking that has a beginning but no end. In it, the awareness of the problem outlives all solutions. Its answers are questions in disguise; every new answer giving rise to new questions. In religion, on the other hand, the mystery of the answer hovers over all questions. (4)
Conceptual thinking is adequate when we are engaged in an effort to enhance our knowledge of the world. Situational thinking is necessary when we are engaged in an effort to understand issues on which we stake our very existence (5)
Religion is more than a creed or an ideology and cannot be understood when detached from acts and events. It comes to light in moments when one's soul is shaken with unmitigated concern about the meaning of all meaning, about one's ultimate commitment which is integrated with one's very existence; in moments when all foregone conclusions, all life-stifling trivialities are suspended. (7)
The chief danger to philosophy, apart from laziness and woolliness, is scholasticism, the essence of which is treating what is vague as if it were precise and trying to fit it into an exact logical category. (8)
If a religion claims to be true, it is under obligation to offer a criterion for its validity either in terms of ideas or in terms of events. (10)
Hypocrisy rather than heresy is the cause of spiritual decay (11).
Philosophy of religion as criticism of religion will not fulfill its function if it acts as an antagonist or as an imitator or rival. (11)
Since religion tends to become self-inflated and to disregard those aspects of reality which are not immediately relevant to dogma and ritual, it is the task of philosophy of religion to place religious understanding in relation to the entire range of human knowledge (12).
IT is the desire to reconcile philosophy and science with religion, attempts have often been made not only to prove that there are no conflicts between the doctrines imparted by revelation and the ideas acquired by our own reason, but also that they are intrinsically identical. Yet such reconciliation is not a solution but a dissolution in which religion is bound to fade away. (13)
If science and religion are intrinsically identical, one of them must be superfluous. In such reconciliation, religion is little more than bad science and naive morality. Its depth is gone, its majesty forgotten, its values become questionable. Its only justification is pedagogical, as a shortcut to philosophy, as a philosophy for the masses. (13)
The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection fo reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith. (20)
The grand premise of religion is that man is able to surpass himself... that man who is conditioned by a multiplicity of factors is capable of living with demands that are unconditioned. (33)
The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. (34)
Dazzled by the brilliant achievements of the intellect in science and technique, we have not only become convinced that we are the masters of the earth; we have become convinced that our needs and interests are the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong. (35)
There is no room is Biblical Hebrew for doubt; there are many expressions of wonder. Just as in dealing with judgments our starting point is doubt, wonder is the Biblical starting point in facing reality. The Biblical man's sense of the mind-surpassing grandeur of reality prevented the power of doubt from setting up its own independent dynasty. Doubt is an act in which the mind confronts the universe. Radical skepticism is the outgrowth of subtle conceit and self-reliance. Yet there was no conceit in the prophets and no self-reliance in the Psalmist. (98)
For the essence and greatness of man do not lie in his ability to please his ego, to satisfy his needs, but rather in his ability to stand above his ego, to ignore his own needs; to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of the holy. (117)
No other deficiency makes the soul more barren than the lack of a sense for the unique... True insight is a moment of perceiving a situation before it freezes into similarity with something else. (202)
There is more discernment in sensing the ineffable uniqueness of an event than in trying to explain it away by our stereotyped doubts. (202)
Two stones, two things in space may be alike; two hours in a person's life or two ages in human history are never alike. What happened once will never happen again in the same sense... It is ignorance of time, unawareness of the depth of events that leads to the claim that history repeats itself. (203)
A process has no future. It becomes obsolete and is always replaced by its own effects. We do not ponder about last year's snow... Great events, just as great works of art, are significant in themselves. Our interest in them endures long after they are gone. (211)
Does one generation have the right to commit all other generations to a covenant? Why must we feel committed, and to what? (213)
Socrates taught us that a life without thinking is not worth living. Now, thinking is a noble effort, but the finest thinking may end in futility... The Bible taught us that life without commitment is not worth living; that thinking without roots will bear flowers but no fruits. (216)
To say the obvious is not yet to speak truth. When the obvious and the Word stand in conflict, truth is the refusal to rest content with the facts as they seem. Truth is the courage to fathom the facts in order to see how they relate to the Word. (271)
We must beware of the obscurantism of a mechanical deference to the Bible. The prophetic words were given to us to be understood, not merely to be mechanically repeated. The Bible is to be understood by the spirit that grows with it, wrestles with it, and prays with it. (273)
The Bible is not an intellectual sinecure, and its acceptance should not be like setting up a talismanic lock that seals both tje mind and the conscience against the intrusion of new thoughts. Revelation is not vicarious thinking. ITs purpose is not to substitute for but to extend our understanding (273)
It is in deeds that man becomes aware of what his life really is, of his power to harm and ti hurt, to wreck and to ruin; of his ability to derive joy and to bestow it upon others; to relieve and to increase his own and other people's tensions. It is in the employment of his will, not in reflection, that me meets his own self as it is; not as he should like it to be. In his deeds man exposes his immanent as well as his suppressed desires, spelling even that which he cannot apprehend. What he may not dare to think, he often utters in deeds. The heart is revealed in the deeds. (284)
No one is mature unless he has learned to be engaged in pursiots which require discipline and self-control, and human perfectibility is contingent upon the capacity for self-control. (300)
The law, stiff with formality, is a cry for creativity; a call for nobility concealed in the form of commandments. It is not designed to be a yoke, a curb, a strait jacket for human action. (307)
**The book gives words to something I had a hard time finding in Mormonism, perhaps the closest equivalent being the letter and the spirit of the law. Halacha (something like law or commandments) and agada (inspiration and meaning):
Halacha represents the strength to shape one's life according to a fixed patter; it is a form-giving force. Agada is the expression of man's ceaseless striving which often defies all limitations. Halacha is the rationalization and schematization of living; it defines, specifies, sets measure and limit, placing life into an exact system. Agada deals with man's ineffable relations to God, to other men, and to the world. Halacha deals with details, with each commandment separately; agada deals with the whole of life, with the totality of religious life. Halacha deals with subjects that can be expressed literally; agada introduces us to a realm which lies beyond the range of expression. Halacha teaches us to perform common acts; agada tells us how to participate in the eternal drama. Halacha gives us knowledge; agada gives us inspiration. (336)
Trying to remain loyal to both aspects of Jewish living, we discover that the pole of regularity is stronger than the pole of spontaneity, and, as a result, there is a perpetual danger of our observance and worship becoming mere habit, a mechanical performance... It is a problem that concerns the very heart of religious living, and is as easy to solve as other central problems of existence (343)
Should we then despair because of our being unable to retain perfect purity? We should, if perfection were our goal. However, we are not obliged to be perfect once and for all, but only to rise again and again beyond the level of the self. Perfection is divine, and to make it a goal of man is to call on man to be divine. All we can do is to try to wring our hearts clean in contrition. Contrition begins with a feeling of shame at our being incapable of disentanglement from the self. To be contrite at our failures is holier than to be complacent in perfection. (403)