Faith and tolerance

Underlying the deepest divides in the Jewish world are the misunderstanding and abuse of the principles of faith and tolerance.

Faith, by definition, requires belief in the unknown and the unknowable. Otherwise, faith would simply be the acknowledgement of certainties. If faith — in anything — were factually certifiable, it would be a fact. It surely wouldn’t require faith. If faith were subject to verifiable criteria, doubtless there would be confidence in any object of faith. Faith would then no longer require the suspension of any human faculties. Faith would then be reduced to the acceptance of identifiable facts. Diversity of faith communities would then be unthinkable, as there could be no disparity of beliefs regarding definitive evidence of established facts. Faith would then be a singular affirmation of historical and provable truths. More directly, if the object of any faith was evidentially verifiable, then faith would no longer be a component of religion.

When faith becomes certain, it loses its humanity. Indeed, it is no longer faith. It is the attestation of that which is known to all. Certainty and faith are not compatible.

In order to be an enriching quest for the divine in the world, faith must engage with doubt. Doubt serves as a human mediator in the quest for the infallible. Doubt leavens the absolutism of faith and is the dynamic impetus that fertilizes the human search for the divine. Faith without doubt can succumb to hubris. Doubtless faith (an oxymoronic pairing of terms) finds expression in varying formats. With the possible intent of exhibiting an embrace of all Jews, the more observant Jews have often referred to those less observant as those who have not yet accepted upon themselves the Torah’s commandments. With similar possibility of benevolent intent, less observant Jews often refer to those more observant as Jews who should open their minds to the outside world and the wisdom and challenges it offers.

Get New Jersey Jewish News's Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

The human conundrum is inescapable. We seek certainty in faith because it tranquilizes doubt. The elixir of certainty soothes the anxiety of the uncertainties that perpetually invade our lives. Yet faith without doubt restricts its humanity. Certainty, unmediated by mortal man’s innate doubt, robs faith of the most noble and majestic lifelong human struggle. Faith is energized by doubt, and doubt is sanctified in the pursuit of faith. To deprive faith of doubt is to shatter its aspirational dynamism. To deprive doubt of the hopefulness of faith is to squash intimations of the divine that pulsate everywhere.

Tolerance of others is the mirror image of the faith-and-certainty struggle. Just as faith is seasoned with doubt, so too tolerance, to be genuine, must be tempered with an appreciation of the boundaries of human understanding and fallible judgment.

Three strands of tolerance can be discerned. The first form of tolerance might best be described as condescending. It accepts those who do not see the world as they do (most pointedly for our purposes in the realm of Jewish faith and observance) as having not yet seen the light. This form of tolerance indulges a presumption that the object of their tolerance doesn’t possess the insight or understanding or the knowledge or the wisdom to see the world as it should be seen.  From a religious perspective, more observant Jews might express a compassionate tolerance for the nonobservant Jew as being deprived of the spiritual fulfillment that accompanies complete adherence to the divine code of law. The less observant might express a compassionate tolerance for the observant Jew as someone whose unyielding commitment to religious codes is the admirable acceptance of a burden to uphold an ancestral tradition. Nonetheless, whether with hearts more open or closed, this form of tolerance is not without the imposition of judgments on others.

Another form of tolerance is an offshoot of the first category. It can best be described as a missionary form of tolerance. This branch of religious tolerance is embracing of violations of religious practices by others and accepting of any breaches with Orthodox observance in the hope that by exhibiting affection toward, and acceptance of, these non-observant Jews, they will come to see the world as they do and observe the commandments and accept the code of laws just as they do. In fact, mission-driven tolerance can also be a motive of the nonobservant, who wish to help the observant Jew recognize the emotional, intellectual, and psychological limitations that a restrictive and irrelevant code of conduct imposes upon them. This form of faux tolerance contains more than a few specks of disingenuous motivation.

Neither of these two forms of tolerance is benign. At best they are tolerant to the individual but not tolerant of their religious views. At its worst this form of tolerance can be patronizing (intentionally or unintentionally), or it can be missionary, with the (covert or overt) intent to convert the other to their religious view of the world.

The third category of tolerance is quite rare. It is a tolerance that accepts, at least in principle, that another person’s approach to religion — as offensive as it might be to either party’s long-established sensibilities — might contain some kernel of truth that they do not possess. This expression of tolerance requires an openness to the notion and an acceptance of the possibility that you may not possess the whole truth. That doubt, the recognition that your path of observance or nonobservance may be flawed or imperfect or even fundamentally deficient, is an essential prerequisite for true tolerance to flourish. In our uncertain world, the acceptance of the possibility that new light may be shed on our imperfect faith or faithlessness is an integral component of authentic tolerance.

There is a widely disseminated story that has its provenance with a tale from the Arabian Nights. The tale has taken different shapes in varying cultures. Perhaps the most poignant variation depicts a man who has a perfect ring bequeathed to him through many generations. This original, perfect ring in his possession has been divinely crafted. The only restriction on its inheritance is that it be given to his most worthy child. The difficulty with this restriction arose when a father could not distinguish between the worthiness of his three children. Each exceeded the next in merit. He traveled great distances to seek the advice of the man revered throughout the world as the wisest of all men. When told of the ring and the father’s insoluble circumstance, the wise man provided the following guidance. He advised the father of the three worthy offspring to seek out the most exceptional artisan and to task him with making two more rings that replicated the perfect divine ring as closely as possible. The duplicates should so nearly approximate the perfection of the divine ring that it should be impossible for any human, including the artisan and the father, to discern which one was the ring of divine origin.

The wise man then told the father that he should provide each child with a ring and a warning. Each of the three children should be told that one of the rings is perfect and the other two are manmade, but that neither he nor anyone else could distinguish between them. The children should each be told that the ring that they inherit may indeed be the divine ring; however, it was just as likely that one of the other two siblings may be in possession of the divine ring. Therefore, each child should be instructed to act with the sanctity and majesty that is incumbent upon the bearer of the divine ring. At the same time, each must recognize that one of their siblings may be wearing the divine ring. Each one therefore should act to the other two with the dignity and humility incumbent upon them as if the others were each in possession of the divine ring.

The confluence of uncertainty — the byproduct of human fallibility and unknowable absolutes — and true tolerance — the byproduct of recognizing that truth may be found elsewhere even as we must act to protect and preserve the truths we accept for ourselves — is the cornerstone of humanizing society.

There is a sparkling insight that is attributed to Alexander Herzen, a 19th-century Russian intellectual. Herzen wrote that “to recognize the limited validity of one’s principles, and yet adhere to those principles unflinchingly, is what distinguishes a civilized man from a barbarian.” Uncertainties and unknowable truths, when married with the need to act in accordance with principled absolutes, yields civility, tolerance, and humility. The failure to appreciate that perfection, certainty, and absolutes are beyond the ken of human grasp can lead to barbaric hubris in religion and an uncivilized intolerance of others.

It is foundational to our humanity that faith without doubt, and intolerance founded in unyielding certainties, defaces the image of God in which — we must believe — man was created.

Jack Nelson is a longtime resident of Bergen County. For many years he practiced law in New York; now he is a business executive.