You are here:   Text > Irving Kristol on Jews and Judaism
 
His contribution to the inaugural issue, "Auden: The Quality of Doubt," opens by commenting on the "religiosity of tone" in the poet's account of the 1930s, that "low dishonest decade" when men's ideals went so fatally awry. But Kristol goes farther. Putting the point "more bluntly than the poetry permits," he finds in Auden's recent poems a concept of sin — the "permeating fact of evil" — that belies all social attempts at the regeneration of mankind.

"A Christian Experiment" in the next issue is a review of Bread and Wine, Ignazio Silone's novel about a Marxist revolutionary who becomes a Christian revolutionary. Rebutting Thomas Mann's dictum that "In our time the destiny of man presents its meaning in political terms," Kristol proposes quite the opposite: "Our political destiny is on the way to being formulated in religious terms." If Silone's novel is a failure, he concludes, the fault lies in its lack of the "acute awareness of subsistent evil," so that the religious theme is reduced to a mere "romantic sentiment," a fatal "revolutionary innocence."

Kristol's final article in Enquiry, "The Moral Critic"(1944), is a review of Trilling's book on the English novelist E.M. Forster. It opens with a discussion of Trilling's earlier essay on Eliot's "Idea of a Christian Society," where Trilling had quoted Matthew Arnold's maxim about the function of criticism: "to praise elements that for the fullness of spiritual perfection are wanted." By that criterion, Trilling judged the prevailing "liberal-socialist ideology" to be sadly wanting — which prompts Kristol to observe that Trilling's own work, by contrast, "partakes of the normal religio-ethical tone so consistently set forth by men like Maritain, Niebuhr, [Christopher] Dawson." But it is Kristol, not Trilling, who cites these theologians, pleased to find this religio-ethical tone in the writings of a man he so much admires.

There was nothing in the young Kristol's background — he was all of 22 when he wrote the first of these articles — to account for his interest in religion, let alone theology. Indeed, there was much to tell against it: family, friends, schooling, radical politics, and, above all, a secular culture where religion represented something retrograde, even dangerous. It was quite on his own that Kristol read those theologians, took seriously such unfashionable ideas as sin, and gave expression to them in the unlikely medium of a journal of radical thought.

It was in an even unlikelier setting, the army in World War II, that he continued his self-education, plunging, as he said, into "theological literature with an ecumenical interest." After serving in the infantry in Germany, he was transported, after VE Day, to Marseille to await shipment to the Far East. When that was forestalled by the dropping of the atom bomb over Japan, he filled out the remaining year of his military service in Marseille as chief company clerk, with two German prisoners of war attending to the routine duties of the office. Brushing up on his French, he enthusiastically read a score of magazines and books featuring not only the popular French existentialists but also the prolific Catholic theologians. It was, he would fondly recall, "a kind of postgraduate sabbatical."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
pbasch
December 7th, 2014
6:12 AM
Don, you could be right. I'm from NY (though Manh, not Bkln), and only semi-Jewish, but I remember a subtext among my Jewish friends, and especially their parents, that the Christian world, with its political power, social acceptance, seductive blonde women, delightful holidays (with their irresistible hallucinatory blend of Bible, paganism, and commerce - bunnies! elves! Jesus! Sales!), and alcohol, presented such a fearsome temptation, that to avoid being completely overwhelmed they had to take "us vs them" to new heights. Add that to the very American addiction to a good-guy/bad-guy mythos, where the actions of a "good guy" can only be good (regardless of what the action is) and contrariwise for "bad guys", and you get a toxic stew that, in my old granny's words, can only be "bad for the Jews." Just read up on the Ramopo Hasids and you'll see what I mean.

Avi Opincar
December 4th, 2014
8:12 AM
Since Torah's direct treatment of pharmaceutical science is less than scant, and its dilation upon moral duty comparatively abundant, one should well argue that Torah, according to even its own lights, was more in the business of promoting humanity's sacred obligation to care for the sick, and less in that of spelling out cost-effective recipes for safe well-tolerated asthma medications. So, given that Irving "Born Theotropic" Kristol publicly schlepped major nachas from his familiarity with Judaism, and claimed "neo-orthodox" street cred, to boot, it's quite wacky that Kristol seems at the same time to have feigned total ignorance of "Torah Umadda," Centrist Orthodoxy's elegant, and hardly secret, synthesis of Torah and mundane knowledge, including science. Perhaps only a guy possessed by such eerie ambitions might try to pull off something like that while expecting no one to notice what he was up to, and for his core readership to prove so reliably in the thrall of a childlike gullibility as to never, ever poke fun at his weirdo castigation of science's secularism, and of scientists' refusal to pronounce the human soul, and the existence of the World to Come, as directly observable and quantifiable matters of empirical fact. One can then but hope for Kristol's sake that, as he goes about enjoying the very best that his present destination has to offer, he's spending rather more time with Rav Esriel Hildesheimer than with Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, or Billy Graham, if for no other reason than that the food is probably a lot better. B'hatzlacha, Irving!

Don Phillipson
December 3rd, 2014
2:12 PM
I was struck by Kristol's memory of Brooklyn in the 1930s: "In school, the rabbi . . . taught the children to fear Gentiles and to spit when passing a church." Was this typical of American Jewry at this date? Nothing similar comes to mind in accounts of contemporary French, German or English Jewry. Is extremism a special characteristic of Brooklyn Jews?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.