Status
Call number
Collections
Publication
Description
Acclaimed writer and thinker Douglas Rushkoff, author of Ecstasy Club and Coercion, has written perhaps the most important—and controversial—book on Judaism in a generation. As the religion stands on the brink of becoming irrelevant to the very people who look to it for answers, Nothing Sacred takes aim at its problems and offers startling and clearheaded solutions based on Judaism’s core values and teachings. Disaffected by their synagogues’ emphasis on self-preservation and obsession with intermarriage, most Jews looking for an intelligent inquiry into the nature of spirituality have turned elsewhere, or nowhere. Meanwhile, faced with the chaos of modern life, returnees run back to Judaism with a blind and desperate faith and are quickly absorbed by outreach organizations that—in return for money—offer compelling evidence that God exists, that the Jews are, indeed, the Lord’s “chosen people,” and that those who adhere to this righteous path will never have to ask themselves another difficult question again. Ironically, the texts and practices making up Judaism were designed to avoid just such a scenario. Jewish tradition stresses transparency, open-ended inquiry, assimilation of the foreign, and a commitment to conscious living. Judaism invites inquiry and change. It is an “open source” tradition—one born out of revolution, committed to evolution, and willing to undergo renaissance at a moment’s notice. But, unfortunately, some of the very institutions created to protect the religion and its people are now suffocating them. If the Jewish tradition is actually one of participation in the greater culture, a willingness to wrestle with sacred beliefs, and a refusal to submit blindly to icons that just don’t make sense to us, then the “lapsed” Jews may truly be our most promising members. Why won’t they engage with the synagogue, and how can they be made to feel more welcome? Nothing Sacred is a bold and brilliant book, attempting to do nothing less than tear down our often false preconceptions about Judaism and build in their place a religion made relevant for the future.… (more)
Subjects
Language
User reviews
Rushkoff’s thesis is simple: The Jewish people have lost “the narrative,” that is, those qualities that define Judaism. It’s hard to argue that point. The encounter with modernity, and, especially, the shifting of the center of world Jewry from Eastern Europe, wracked by the calamity of the Holocaust, to America, where the rabbis lost their influence, marks a dramatic break in Jewish continuity. (Although this change may be more perceived than real.) Many liberal Jews can’t tell an alef from a bet. Lest the reader think that Rushkoff is engaging in a mere critique of the sorry state of liberal Jewish education, he goes on to ping our Orthodox friends, charging them creating an “idol” out of the faith. Ouch. You know what Jews do with idols, right? We smash ‘em. Bring on the fun, Doug!
Rushkoff points to the three characteristics that he feels comprise Judaism: Monotheism, iconoclasm, and social justice. If one were to attempt to distill a three thousand year tradition into a handful of syllables, that’s not a bad way to go. Rushkoff argues that these three ideas make Judaism a “radical” religion. Monotheism eschewed the notion that there are many gods, iconoclasm the idea that God may be in some way represented (or even conceived), and social justice advocates the improvement of the world. Rushkoff is simplifying things here. If one goes strictly by Torah, the move to monotheism was a gradual one, during which the Israelites’ tribal god became The God. Likewise, although midrash tells us that Abraham smashed his father’s idols, there is the anthropomorphism of God in B’reishit, and, later, when Moses gets a peek at his backside. The sages projected all manner of human behaviors onto God. One might read these tendencies as the “folk language” necessary for our predecessors to understand their religion. Just as there is a danger in assuming that earlier peoples thought just as we do, there is, too, the error of assuming how alien they must have been. Rushkoff’s emphasis on social justice is also an anachronism. Certainly, Torah teaches us to leave the fallen fruits for the poor to glean. Whether or not this was observed is up for debate. But Rushkoff reads into it a tradition of social justice that really only begins with the twentieth century. In most cases, throughout our history, we have been too worried about our own survival to crusade on the behalf of others. That’s not to diminish Judaism’s current emphasis on social justice, which finds its origins in the very Torah teachings to which Rushkoff points. But we mustn’t fall into reading our motivations into those of our ancestors.
Ultimately, Rushkoff is appealing to such a diverse community that he can’t pull of his intended feat of Jewish “renaissance.” We need education. We need debate. True. But who is this “we”? He denies a racial basis for Jewish peoplehood, a stance not entirely borne out by recent genetic research. But his point is well taken—that Judaism is a religion, and that those people who adhere to it, whether by accident of birth or choice, are Jews. It is engaging our tradition that makes them Jewish. (Tell that to a Lubavitcher looking to make a minyan.) Rushkoff admonishes the traditionally-minded to give up the belief that they are keepers of the faith. He likewise calls on liberal Jews to engage deeply and critically with Jewish tradition. It seems unlikely that either group would have much to say to the other. And that’s part of why Rushkoff fails: His audience is too broad.
In making his vision of a Jewish “renaissance” accessible to as many people as possible, Rushkoff waters down the tradition, ironically robbing it of the depth he claims to seek. Rushkoff prizes universality, which is wonderful, but he goes so far as to say that perhaps the mission of the Jewish people is to infuse their values into global culture, after which Jews may cease to exist. That’s probably a bit too universal for most Jews, however they define themselves. (It also runs counter to his later exhortations to study Judaism more! Observe those things you want to observe! Etc.) In essence, Rushkoff begins from the position of the secular humanist (not that there’s anything wrong with that…), reads those values into Jewish tradition, and then uses tradition to vindicate his values. It’s a circular kind of logic that will appeal to very few.
What is significant about Nothing Sacred is that it is one Jew’s critical encounter with Judaism. Rushkoff takes Judaism seriously, and he wants you to, too. You may or may not agree with his conclusions, but his passion and his engagement with Jewish sources is inspiring. A muddled attempt at a twentyfirst-century Jewish “manifesto,” Nothing Sacred is worth reading less for Rushkoff’s ideas than the opportunity to observe your reactions to them. Recommended for liberal Jews seeking greater engagement with their traditions.