Post by Rabbi Neil on Mar 8, 2024 18:12:38 GMT
Because we’ve read the Torah many times before, we take for granted the idea that the Israelites built a Tabernacle in the wilderness - God tells them to do it, so they do it. Torah gives us great detail about the hooks, the cloths, the loops, the clasps, the coverings and so on. We may ask ourselves how they got all these resources, but we can answer that question by saying that they must have taken them from Egypt. Still a question nags. But why build a Mishkan, a Tabernacle, in the middle of the wilderness? It may not be enough to say “Because God could then dwell amongst the Israelite people” given that God visits Abraham, wrestles with Jacob, appears in a bush to Moses, and appears to the entire people at Sinai, so why could God not visit the Israelites, or dwell among the Israelites, in a simple box, or perhaps even in the Ark? Why such an elaborate Tabernacle? The question we usually ask is, essentially, why a Tabernacle, but the deeper question to ask is why this Tabernacle? That’s a harder one to answer.
In a book written in 1994, Max Oelschlaeger talks of the Dominant Social Matrix. The Dominant Social Matrix is the way of thinking about the world. It is assumed to be correct by all subscribe to it, which is the majority of the population - this is how that social matrix, that narrative, becomes dominant. It is important not to underestimate the power of a Dominant Social Matrix, which is usually economic in its language. We become consumers and users, we see the world through the eyes of those who would dominate and acquire as opposed to those who would share and enjoy. We dip into enjoyment of nature by visiting parks and fields but ultimately we extract and we enjoy everything we can from the world for our own benefit. The Dominant Social Matrix is the way our society thinks and acts to the point that those who question it become ostracised.
It would be okay, of course, if the Dominant Social Matrix were a healthy one. If people were actually happier, if the quality of life around the world were actually increased universally, then we could say that the Dominant Social Matrix is successful. But it isn’t. We may have acquired more things than 50 years ago but we’re no happier. In the Dominant Social Matrix, we tend to equate quality of life with quality of goods as though written into our brain is a direct correlation between personal joy and the size of the television screen in our living rooms. So, who’s to challenge this Dominant Social Matrix? Who is going to stand up and say, “This isn’t good enough… this doesn’t make us happy”? Who is going to create the New Social Matrix?
It can’t be politicians. In theory, politicians are elected by the people in order to serve the people. Politicians are usually therefore the defenders of the Dominant Social Matrix – they must respond to society instead of bringing about profound change within society. If the Dominant Social Matrix is challenged too much then politicians become ostracised which, in political circles, means being voted out of office. So even politicians who personally may wish to challenge the Dominant Social Matrix are completely limited because they are aware that if they challenge it too much, they end up being powerless to change anything.
So, if not politicians, who? It can’t be scientists or statisticians who provide us with raw information in order that we might process it. For example, we can be told that even though the world produces enough food to feed everyone, despite a 70 percent population increase in the last 30 years, still somewhere around a billion people in the world are malnourished. We can hear that fact, shake our heads and say it’s sad, but we’ll do almost nothing about it. We can be told that the overwhelming scientific opinion is that continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will lead to somewhere between 2 to 6 degrees of global heating, leading to thousands upon thousands of human deaths as well as the potential extinction of half of all species on earth, but those facts don’t create a change in behavior - we’ll still drive our cars, use our carbon-generated electricity and buy food flown or shipped from every corner of the globe. Facts do little to the Dominant Social Matrix other than to show that it is a flawed narrative – facts might cause us to question but they do little to help us create a New Social Matrix.
So, if not from the politicians or the scientists and statisticians, from where do we find inspiration for a New Social Matrix? The answer is in the question asked earlier – why this Tabernacle? The answer as far as I currently see it is, because it didn’t belong there. The Dominant Social Matrix of the wilderness was anything but giant structures of cloth and gold. The Tabernacle was a challenge, a paradigm shift of existence. Where in Egypt the Israelites would have witnessed giant statues and structures of religion in set locations, the Tabernacle challenges that Dominant Social Matrix by showing that God can be found anywhere one travels. Where in the desert, cattle are currency and livelihood, the Tabernacle and its sacrificial system challenges that by showing that they can also be means to connect to a greater Divinity. The Tabernacle demonstrated a New Social Matrix. It didn’t necessarily preach like the prophets, it didn’t tell people off for their errant ways, it just demonstrated a new way of being.
I’ve referred to Martin Luther King’s concept of Creative Maladjustment before and it seems particularly appropriate to mention it again here. To me, Maladjustment means living out of kilter with the Dominant Social Matrix, whereas Creative Maladjustment means the effort to create a new one. It is only through Creative Maladjustment that we can bring about social change. But in these days of rampant individualism, no-one wants to be preached to (!), so all that is left is to show creative maladjustment. The inspiration for that demonstration is in religious narrative and it is therefore our responsibility to demonstrate the New Social Matrix. We, whose Temple is a perpetual reminder of the Mishkan of Creative Maladjustment, we can be the high priests of today’s New Social Matrix. If that is the case, we have to demonstrate in all that we say and do that we are different. “kedoshim tihyu” (Lev. 19:2) begs God – “be different from society, set yourselves apart.” Our voice – the voice of overriding religious narrative – is the only voice that is capable of providing actual social change and it is only effective if we set ourselves apart. If our Temple follows the model of a market economy – offering the appropriate service for the lowest price – then what we’re actually doing is fitting completely in with the Dominant Social Matrix. By competing in a market for bums on seats, we’re turning souls into consumers. But this leaves us in a bind because if we don’t compete for people’s attention, our community will struggle to even keep the lights on.
Perhaps this, then, is the ultimate question for a Jewish community today - is it possible to stand outside of society and to still draw in people whose very identity is firmly rooted in that society? Or, to put it another way, can we have an overarching message of Creative Maladjustment and still be appealing? The answer must be yes… it must be. And the reason that it must be is because people aren’t happy with the Dominant Social Matrix and they want to hear what the New Social Matrix could be. If we’re not demonstrating that new vision, they won’t come to us for guidance. And that, I think, is what many people really want, deep down, from a religious community. They want moral and spiritual vision in an unethical and secular world of private interests and almost total freedom of choice.
So, how do we demonstrate this New Social Matrix? Well, the Dominant Social Matrix says that we must do anything we can to hold onto youth, implying that the older one gets the less productive we become, leading to the abandonment of people as they get older. The new model, by contrast, has to show that we value all age groups without favoring one over the other, that we cater for all people’s social, spiritual and personal needs not based on their age but on their having been made in the image of God. The Dominant Social Matrix says that the more we acquire the happier we are and the more power we have – the New Social Matrix, on the other hand, has to show that the more we give of ourselves, the happier we are and that the power of hope and purpose can override that of money. The Dominant Social Matrix says that time is money, the new one that we model has to show that time can be sacred. The Dominant Social Matrix says that the Earth is ours for exploitation and domination, the new one that we model has to show that we are partners with God in protecting all life. The Dominant Social Matrix says that religion is a matter either of private concern of individuals’ souls or a matter of extremism and hatred, whereas the new one that we model has to show that religion is a matter of global concern and of global improvement. With a Dominant Social Matrix such as this, no wonder people lose all hope in society getting better, no wonder no-one is empowered to change anything more than basic tokenistic gestures. Our New Social Matrix must therefore be a gift of hope – and that is profoundly appealing.
So, the Tabernacle in the wilderness was an act of theological defiance in its world. It called out for Creative Maladjustment. Our Temple must do the same. With our actions as exemplars, we must write our society’s new narrative, we have to show people that there can be a new vocabulary of life. Our deeds must become signposts to a new society, a new hope and a new way forward. Maybe the greatest advertisement for our community could actually be this – that God dwells among us as we dwell in the world, and that we can live our lives as a reflection of this extraordinary fact. That is a New Social Matrix that can only draw people in. May we be empowered to stand out, to model a new vision, to be a place of God’s dwelling in the wilderness, and let us say, Amen.
In a book written in 1994, Max Oelschlaeger talks of the Dominant Social Matrix. The Dominant Social Matrix is the way of thinking about the world. It is assumed to be correct by all subscribe to it, which is the majority of the population - this is how that social matrix, that narrative, becomes dominant. It is important not to underestimate the power of a Dominant Social Matrix, which is usually economic in its language. We become consumers and users, we see the world through the eyes of those who would dominate and acquire as opposed to those who would share and enjoy. We dip into enjoyment of nature by visiting parks and fields but ultimately we extract and we enjoy everything we can from the world for our own benefit. The Dominant Social Matrix is the way our society thinks and acts to the point that those who question it become ostracised.
It would be okay, of course, if the Dominant Social Matrix were a healthy one. If people were actually happier, if the quality of life around the world were actually increased universally, then we could say that the Dominant Social Matrix is successful. But it isn’t. We may have acquired more things than 50 years ago but we’re no happier. In the Dominant Social Matrix, we tend to equate quality of life with quality of goods as though written into our brain is a direct correlation between personal joy and the size of the television screen in our living rooms. So, who’s to challenge this Dominant Social Matrix? Who is going to stand up and say, “This isn’t good enough… this doesn’t make us happy”? Who is going to create the New Social Matrix?
It can’t be politicians. In theory, politicians are elected by the people in order to serve the people. Politicians are usually therefore the defenders of the Dominant Social Matrix – they must respond to society instead of bringing about profound change within society. If the Dominant Social Matrix is challenged too much then politicians become ostracised which, in political circles, means being voted out of office. So even politicians who personally may wish to challenge the Dominant Social Matrix are completely limited because they are aware that if they challenge it too much, they end up being powerless to change anything.
So, if not politicians, who? It can’t be scientists or statisticians who provide us with raw information in order that we might process it. For example, we can be told that even though the world produces enough food to feed everyone, despite a 70 percent population increase in the last 30 years, still somewhere around a billion people in the world are malnourished. We can hear that fact, shake our heads and say it’s sad, but we’ll do almost nothing about it. We can be told that the overwhelming scientific opinion is that continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will lead to somewhere between 2 to 6 degrees of global heating, leading to thousands upon thousands of human deaths as well as the potential extinction of half of all species on earth, but those facts don’t create a change in behavior - we’ll still drive our cars, use our carbon-generated electricity and buy food flown or shipped from every corner of the globe. Facts do little to the Dominant Social Matrix other than to show that it is a flawed narrative – facts might cause us to question but they do little to help us create a New Social Matrix.
So, if not from the politicians or the scientists and statisticians, from where do we find inspiration for a New Social Matrix? The answer is in the question asked earlier – why this Tabernacle? The answer as far as I currently see it is, because it didn’t belong there. The Dominant Social Matrix of the wilderness was anything but giant structures of cloth and gold. The Tabernacle was a challenge, a paradigm shift of existence. Where in Egypt the Israelites would have witnessed giant statues and structures of religion in set locations, the Tabernacle challenges that Dominant Social Matrix by showing that God can be found anywhere one travels. Where in the desert, cattle are currency and livelihood, the Tabernacle and its sacrificial system challenges that by showing that they can also be means to connect to a greater Divinity. The Tabernacle demonstrated a New Social Matrix. It didn’t necessarily preach like the prophets, it didn’t tell people off for their errant ways, it just demonstrated a new way of being.
I’ve referred to Martin Luther King’s concept of Creative Maladjustment before and it seems particularly appropriate to mention it again here. To me, Maladjustment means living out of kilter with the Dominant Social Matrix, whereas Creative Maladjustment means the effort to create a new one. It is only through Creative Maladjustment that we can bring about social change. But in these days of rampant individualism, no-one wants to be preached to (!), so all that is left is to show creative maladjustment. The inspiration for that demonstration is in religious narrative and it is therefore our responsibility to demonstrate the New Social Matrix. We, whose Temple is a perpetual reminder of the Mishkan of Creative Maladjustment, we can be the high priests of today’s New Social Matrix. If that is the case, we have to demonstrate in all that we say and do that we are different. “kedoshim tihyu” (Lev. 19:2) begs God – “be different from society, set yourselves apart.” Our voice – the voice of overriding religious narrative – is the only voice that is capable of providing actual social change and it is only effective if we set ourselves apart. If our Temple follows the model of a market economy – offering the appropriate service for the lowest price – then what we’re actually doing is fitting completely in with the Dominant Social Matrix. By competing in a market for bums on seats, we’re turning souls into consumers. But this leaves us in a bind because if we don’t compete for people’s attention, our community will struggle to even keep the lights on.
Perhaps this, then, is the ultimate question for a Jewish community today - is it possible to stand outside of society and to still draw in people whose very identity is firmly rooted in that society? Or, to put it another way, can we have an overarching message of Creative Maladjustment and still be appealing? The answer must be yes… it must be. And the reason that it must be is because people aren’t happy with the Dominant Social Matrix and they want to hear what the New Social Matrix could be. If we’re not demonstrating that new vision, they won’t come to us for guidance. And that, I think, is what many people really want, deep down, from a religious community. They want moral and spiritual vision in an unethical and secular world of private interests and almost total freedom of choice.
So, how do we demonstrate this New Social Matrix? Well, the Dominant Social Matrix says that we must do anything we can to hold onto youth, implying that the older one gets the less productive we become, leading to the abandonment of people as they get older. The new model, by contrast, has to show that we value all age groups without favoring one over the other, that we cater for all people’s social, spiritual and personal needs not based on their age but on their having been made in the image of God. The Dominant Social Matrix says that the more we acquire the happier we are and the more power we have – the New Social Matrix, on the other hand, has to show that the more we give of ourselves, the happier we are and that the power of hope and purpose can override that of money. The Dominant Social Matrix says that time is money, the new one that we model has to show that time can be sacred. The Dominant Social Matrix says that the Earth is ours for exploitation and domination, the new one that we model has to show that we are partners with God in protecting all life. The Dominant Social Matrix says that religion is a matter either of private concern of individuals’ souls or a matter of extremism and hatred, whereas the new one that we model has to show that religion is a matter of global concern and of global improvement. With a Dominant Social Matrix such as this, no wonder people lose all hope in society getting better, no wonder no-one is empowered to change anything more than basic tokenistic gestures. Our New Social Matrix must therefore be a gift of hope – and that is profoundly appealing.
So, the Tabernacle in the wilderness was an act of theological defiance in its world. It called out for Creative Maladjustment. Our Temple must do the same. With our actions as exemplars, we must write our society’s new narrative, we have to show people that there can be a new vocabulary of life. Our deeds must become signposts to a new society, a new hope and a new way forward. Maybe the greatest advertisement for our community could actually be this – that God dwells among us as we dwell in the world, and that we can live our lives as a reflection of this extraordinary fact. That is a New Social Matrix that can only draw people in. May we be empowered to stand out, to model a new vision, to be a place of God’s dwelling in the wilderness, and let us say, Amen.
