The Pluralism Diaries by Rav Goni

Pluralism has been an urgent topic in the Jewish world lately.
The Conservative movement struggles with digesting two opposing positions on whether to accept gays and lesbians into their seminaries and whether to include same-sex unions as a Jewish option. Some predict doom and schism as a result. Others celebrate the pluralism of the movement. More about that another time.
A little over a week ago more than 800 Jews of every stripe converged at Limmud New York for its third gathering. In formal and in informal ways the happening, spanning Thursday through Monday of the Martin Luther King weekend, was a living specimen of pluralism in action. Some have written critically about it. More about that another time, too.
Pluralism was affirmed in another context when the ICC (Israel Campus Coalition - an umbrella group for organizations that advocate for Israel on campuses around the US) rejected a call by the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America - on the right of the spectrum) to expel the UPZ (Union of Progressive Zionists - on the left of the spectrum)from the coalition.
The objection was based on the UPZ's sponsorship of a tour of the group Combatants for Peace, a partnership of Israeli and Palestinian soldiers who have decided to work together to try to stop the fighting in and around Israel. The ZOA sees this group as anti-Israel. Since the Combatants include Israelis who have put their lives on the line for Israel, one could only accept the ZOA position if one were to consider these soldiers (some still doing reserve duty) as traitors to Israel - a pretty serious charge.
The ICC did not make an explicit statement defending the UPZ or the Combatants for Peace, although its refusal to kick the UPZ out of the Coalition could certainly be seen that way. Rather, the ICC stated that "the Steering Committee -- on behalf of the ICC -- recommits itself to working collaboratively to promote a proactive, pro-Israel agenda on college campuses across North America, and to encouraging all member organizations to work with and respect all members of the coalition in the spirit of pluralism and cooperation that unites us."
So what does that commitment to pluralism mean? The minimum message is not an endorsement of the UPZ but a claim that, even if one disagrees with the UPZ - as does the ZOA -it must still accept it into the coalition. But, while the ZOA may be forced to abide by this decision, it cannot embrace this idea because it has decided that the UPZ is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Of course the UPZ, as its name proclaims, sees itself as Zionist through-and-through.
What is the basis of this divergence of views? I think that this is, itself, a question of whether one sees the world in a pluralistic fashion or not. A pluralist is willing to accept divergent positions as a given, as reality. People who hold such divergent positions are not, by definition, to be rejected as enemies. Pluralism means that one is prepared to listen to those views, though one may not agree with them. That means listening to criticism, even harsh criticism. But the ZOA position tends to view criticism as out-of-bounds.
Here we reach an apparent paradox: As right-wing pundits are happy to point out, thinking that they are somehow exposing a fatal flaw, pluralism does have its limits. Pluralism refuses to allow its tolerance of critical, opposing views to be labeled as treachery. The ZOA believes that Israeli military heroes are traitors to Israel because they criticize her. The ZOA, as with all true ideologues, rejects reality for the sake of its ideology. Pluralism rejects such rejectionism.

Jay Michaelson writes about the current phenomenon called "flexidoxy" in the Forward ("Old Labels Feel Stiff for 'Flexidox,'" October 13, 2006). He explains: "The fastest growing synagogues are independent; the fastest growing movement identifier is 'unaffiliated.' And for Jews like me, the labels don't fit anymore."

As the term "flexidoxy" implies, while independence and flexibilty are important, some connection to Orthodoxy is also essential. So there are a number of points that need further elucidation here. Of course, this is a paradoxical position, as adherents to flexidoxy readily admit. Flexibility in practice and dismissal of ideology are precisely what Orthodoxy rejects. But flexidoxy embraces the positive effects of Orthodoxy - spiritual and communal intensity - while eschewing its rules and value system. A congregant in the unaffiliated synagogue I used to attend once said - "We want the oomph without the rules." It is an intensely personal solution to the contemporary yearning for a meaningful Judaism.

Michaelson defends this eclecticism because it is honest and sincere. He is definitely correct to do so. But it is not necessary to limit such sincerity to those whose practice might pass for Orthodox. Read my previous entry - isn't it precisely this aspect of insisting on personal ownership of one's Judaism that characterizes Edgar Bronfman's High Holy Day production?

And critics of flexidoxy are on to something, as well, when they question whether its adherents are not simply sponging off of Orthodoxy, not only for its positive elements but also for its implied legitimacy.

It would seem that flexidoxy is a genuine phenomenon of transition. The old labels and rules don't seem to carry much weight anymore. Breaking free is essential. But some sense of authenticity and approbation is still a felt need. So orthodoxy will do for now. But will such individualistic temporizing lay the basis for a new sense of the normative? Or will it impede such a development because it relies on established Orthodoxy? Is such a new sense even a possibilty as yet?

As reported in the Forward ("Bronfman 'Kvells,' Debuts New Holiday Services," October 6, 2006), billionaire philanthropist Edgar Bronfman brought together some 100 invited guests for a new Kol Nidre service and experience that he produced. I say "produced" because, judging from the article ( - I wasn't one of the invited guests) , the endeavor seems to have had much in common with the mounting of such creative events as a concert or a play. The "cast" included Rabbi Darren Levine, musical director Daniel Leanse and singer Alana Grace. The service was preceded by a study session with Professor Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University.

The service is described as "post-denominational." Its elements included a selection of prayers, all new music, and a lot of interactive discussion led by a rabbi with a casual demeanor.

For Bronfman, it was the product of years of discomfort with available options in the synagogue world and of some years of experimentation toward creating an alternative. For the last few years Bronfman worked with Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, a learned and sometimes provocative figure in the Jewish community. But it was not until this year that Bronfman finally arrived at a service to his liking. And he believes he has created something of value: "Now I want to get it out to the whole world, because it's an alternative to what we've been doing."

It is impossible to judge whether the music composed for Bronfman is really any different in kind or in quality than the tons of new music that has been and continues to be composed for Jewish liturgical use. It is impossible to tell whether the study session or the discuussions were any better or different than those that took place in scores of other venues throughout the metropolitan region and the world. It is impossible to tell whether Rabbi Levine is the best rabbi around today. But it is possible to tell that the elements comprising the Bronfman High Holy Day service are not unique to that service at all.

It makes one wonder - Edgar Bronfman is a knowledgeable, major player in the Jewish world. He has been complaining about the boring nature of prayer services for quite some time. Was he really unaware of all the creative approaches being employed by existing prayer communities? Was it really the case that there were no worthwhile alternatives available for him?

If that is so, what does this say about all the Jews out there who are similarly disaffected, but who lack the substantial resources at Bronfman's disposal for the creation of their own meaningful alternative services? Was Bronfman's service less boring because it was really more meaningful or merely because it was his?

Is Bronfman interested in supporting the efforts of others who work with a pluralistic approach (such as - why not say it - AJR) or is he primarily interested in circulating and promoting his own production?

The scholar of contemporary religion, Robert Bellah, reported the thoughts of another religiously alienated American. She explained that the established religions just didn't cut it for her. She had created her own private religion. Her name was Judy, and, thus, her religion could be named "Judy-ism." Bronfman's Kol Nidre production raises similar issues regarding post-denominationalism and pluralism. Are these terms signifiers of newer, broader visions, or are they merely reflections of the individualistic splintering of the collective? Bronfman's basic critique of establishment worship is that it is boring. I wonder whether, in the reworking of the Yom Kippur liturgy he sponsored, Bronfman's cast created a new text for the Confession of Sins. For, by today's standards of relevance and meaning, isn't being boring the cardinal sin?