The Rechabites’ Example

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2035&version=HCSB

Jeremiah wrote this story shortly before Judah fell to Babylon.  At this time, the people of Judah had become corrupt and were strongly influenced by the surrounding cultures that worshipped Baal.  Please read this short story to understand what is written below.

In this story, God tells Jeremiah to offer wine to the Rechabites which they refuse.  The point of this detail is clearly that the Rechabites had different customs and beliefs from the Israelites.  Yet both Talmudic Jews and Christians desperately try to show that the Rechabites believed in God.  This is because they believe that following God is the only right path.  It seems clear to me that this story is saying the exact opposite.  If you investigate the Jewish and Christian arguments, you will find them to be empty.  The truth is that the Old Testament never says what the religion of the Rechabites was.  The Old Testament is very good at including important facts and leaving out unimportant facts.  The reason that the religion of the Rechabites was left out is because it doesn't matter.  The point of this story is that any sound traditional culture is valid.  This is purely an argument for traditionalism of any kind.

This story illustrates a fundamental difference between the view of the Old Testament and all monotheistic religions today.  All modern Western religions were influenced by Plato and believe in one absolute truth and one right path.  Compare the shahada of Islam which says "There is no god but God" with Deuteronomy 6:4 which says "Yehovah is our god, Yehovah is one.".  The shahada reflects modern thinking which says "my beliefs are right and everyone else's beliefs are wrong" while the Old Testament just says that its beliefs are a right path, and there can be other good paths.  Of course the Old Testament is not post-modernist, saying that all paths are equally valid.  It uses the example of the Rechabites as one other good path, but it condemns most other cultures which are evil.  In other words, a few paths/cultures are good, but most paths/cultures are bad.  In particular, proven traditional paths are good, and unproven recently invented paths are bad.

This difference has a big practical implication for followers of the Old Testament.  It means that we can fully respect other sound religions even if we don't share their beliefs.  It is on this basis that I support Islam and regularly attent mosque.  Islam isn't my path, but I respect it and support it because, like the Rechabites, Muslims are holding on to their traditions.

How do we determine which groups are following a "right path" and what level of difference from our beliefs is acceptable for us to work with them? For example, members of the "alt-right" share some of our socially conservative values, at least nominally, but they believe in other things like racial supremacy that I think are harmful.

A right path for a group is a path that supports the survival of that group over the long term.  Racism doesn't seem that harmful based on the success of Talmudic Judaism (which is racist).  The alt-right path is wrong because it lacks religion, and all successful groups in history had religion.

But something being a right path for a group doesn't necessarily make it acceptable to us.  To be acceptable, the path has to be compatible to ours, or at least not harmful.  I think that Talmudic Judaism is harmful to us, while Islam and traditional Anabaptism are not.  So these non-harmful groups on a right path are the ones comparable to the Rechabites.