buber's religious anarchism and religious socialism

Posting Soon

In every religion we face the issue of the often times conflicting demands between foundational theology and time and space dependent-interpretations. Since it is notoriously difficult to determine which interpretation is or is not authoritative, what is hoped for is that the founder of the religion, (being by definition the source of authority), would have put in place a procedural system from which authority could be seamlessly derived from. What that procedure may entail is an agreed upon system for the ordination of those entrusted with the interpretation of the original teaching, such as a priesthood, and a procedure the priesthood itself must follow for deriving amendments that would be deemed "constitutional". From that perspective, sometimes authoritativeness is confirmed more by the procedure that was followed than by the derived content of the interpretation. This is the beginning of institutional religion, and, at least in my view, the compromising of any true religion. In Judaism for instance, the Halacha is a long process of interpretation by rabbis and it is often not clear how faithful it stands to the original source. For instance, when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the site was taken over, the rabbis moved the physical center elsewhere, and when the temple rituals were no longer possible, the rabbis replaced them with the prayer book and other forms of worship. Those changes were not a deviation of the original, but a natural evolution in response to circumstances. The key here is that the changes were done in accordance with the foundational procedure and in that sense they still constitute original religion. Same applies to the Sunnas in Islam and to Church councils in Catholicism. The disparity in ethical behaviors (not in ethical theories) between strands of Buddhism can either be a sign of a dynamic, living religion, or, conversely, a reflection on the weakness of the institutionalized factors of the religion.