A (very) brief account of the theology of Peter Rollins vis-a-vis Humanistic Judaism

Somebody asked me recently about how I would relate (compare, contrast, analyze) the ideas of Irish theologian Peter Rollins and the ideas in Humanistic Judaism, since I am "on record" so to speak of being a "fan" of Peter Rollins, and also am a "card-carrying member" (to channel George H.W. Bush) of the Society for Humanistic Judaism.

A fair question, and worthy of some brief remarks.

Let me address the ideas of Rollins, first of all, because they are a little more nuanced. For Peter Rollins, the essential "theme" at least in 1st century (pre-1st Jerusalem Council) Christainity (or, followers of Jesus of Nazareth) was, at root, the shared human
experience that transcends cultural boundaries. St. Paul famously said, "there is no more Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, etc.", to which Rollins added the dialectic, "theist nor atheist". What Rollins throughout his thought drives at, in summary, is that the "main
point" of Jesus of Nazareth was not so much about "establishing a new category" (although that happened) but rather counter-intuitively, creating a dialectic to cut across the various "categories" of culture, and, at root, say, that whatever our different cultures, and,indeed, religions are, our common humanity, our shared "existential situation" if you will, is what is most important. That is, we all have "crucifixion", or "dark places" we get into, and "snap answers" finally ring hollow. The idea of "resurrection" for Rollins is not a Disney "happy ending" but rather being able to continue to love and be loved by our fellow man in spite of, or in the midst of, suffering, and that shared experience of suffering (or "crucifixion") and supporting one another in the midst of that (or "resurrection") is the one thing we all share, so, whatever our various cultural situations are ("Jew or Greek") or religious views ("theist or atheist") the common humanity we all have is fundamentally more important, so squabbling over petty differences is counterproductive, in the long run. This is an absurdly short summary of Rollins' ideas, and cannot do them justice, but that is essentially the "nutshell" - Rollins does not present a "new ideology" but rather calls into question the "holding of ideology too
dearly" so to speak, and argues that this was the point of at least the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth all along.

I discussed that first, because the key point to make here is that Rollins does NOT say "abandon your culture" rather he says "fine, have your culture or your 'identity' but 'hold it lightly'", which is to say, that there is nothing wrong with loving our various
cultures and identifications, so long as we keep in mind our shared humanity underlies and transcends all our identities, so, while we hold strong loves and allegiances towards our various cultures, we also are able to interact with and get along with those of a
different culture or point of view.

There is a great scene in "Exodus" where Paul Newman (as Ari Ben Canaan) is showing Eva Marie-Sant (as Kitty Fremont) the valley of Jezreel, and pointing out the various historical landmarks there. It is a very powerful scene, where Newman's character is discussing the "kinship" he feels with the land, the land of his ancestors. At one point he avers that others might not understand, who did not share that same heritage - he says, "People are different. They have a right to be different. They like to be different." Eva Marie-Saint's character is saying that yes, she understands his unique connection to the land, but even her being American, she could perfectly well relate to his point of view, because, essentially, of that common humanity that we share. The scene ends with her saying, "You're wrong, Ari. There are no differences." (This is then followed with one of those overly dramatic Hollywood kisses! :-) )

This scene gets right I think to Rollins' ideas. Yes, we have unique cultures that we are all proud of and we have a right to those unique cultures. But without lessening that, our shared humanity is there running in and through our various cultural differences.

Now culturally, or dare I say, even "religiously" (if the term be properly defined) I have come to "identify" with Humanistic Judaism. I plan to write an essay (or three, ha) about that in and of itself, but right now I just want to briefly touch upon that as it relates
to this dicussion of Rollins, since that was the original question. Now, in a sense, Humanistic Judaism is "religious" in that it emphazises the reliance on human beings to solve human problems (rather than on supernatuarl beings) and is "agnostic" or "ignostic" (to channel Rabbi Sherwin Wine's term) about the supernatural, but it is a postive philosophy, focusing on what we DO believe in (human ingenuity, capability, etc.) not what we do not believe in, or might be more skeptical of. It is also, as its name implies, part of Judaism, and really has its "roots" very much in Jewish tradition which has always been more open to "questioning" things than other cultures and religions (indeed the very name "Israel" denotes "one who wrestles with God", something culturally very radical in the 600's B.C.E., about the time the Torah was put together). So Humanistic Judaism is "humanist" (the religious or philosophical aspect) and "Jewish" (the culutral aspect). I could literally write a book (or two) on why I relate to both of these things and am very proud to call myself a member of SHJ.

This "dovetails" with Rollins in a couple of ways. Firstly, SHJ is not only "humanist" but, if you will, "humanitarian", and therefore concerns about justice for all people, Jewish and non-Jewish is of big concern, which is why it is active in supporting rights of workers, of minorities, of the LGBT community, etc. So this is consistent with Rollins' ideas of not forgetting our shared humanity, even as we celebrate our own particular cultures. Secondly, and building upon the first point, SHJ is not only active for social justice in general, but also is "pluralistic", i.e., recognizing that Jews are a world family encompassing many nations and cultures, and are very diverse, so instead of trying to "enforce" sort of "this is the way to be Jewish", SHJ rather embraces the fact that, for example, Yiddish traditions might differ a bit from those in the Jewish community who don't have a Yiddsh background. So, both in its efforts to be "good world citizens" and, within its own ranks, of embracing diversity of culture (for example, as a Humanistic Jew I can still celebrate - and darn well plan to - Halloween, ha!), this is very much evocative of the themes of Rollins of being proud of our own particular identities, but at the same time seeing that "shared humanity" as well.

Well, that is my attempt to answer that good question, even though several books could be written about the above topics touched upon! :-)

Let me close with some liturgy from SHJ, which dovetails into this discussion:

============================================================
Ayfo oree? Oree bee.
Ayfo tikvatee? Tikvatee bee.
Ayfo kokhee? Kokhee bee - v'gam bakh.

Where is my light? My light is in me.
Where is my hope? My hope is in me.
Where is my strength? My strength is in me - and in you.
============================================================

(Here is that scene from Exodus I was referencing...)