The Pluralism Diaries by Rav Goni

A few weeks ago Rabbi Dalia Sara Marx, a Reform rabbi, wrote a stinging appeal to the kibbutz community of Degania, famous in Israel as "Em Ha-Qevutzot" - the Mother of all Collectives. The secular kibbutz had voted to establish - for the very first time in its history - a synagogue on its grounds. It decided that the synagogue should follow the Orthodox approach in layout and liturgy. (See the Opinions web page of Yediot Achronot, June 13, 2006)

Rabbi Marx asked the kibbutz members to reconsider. Among other things she wrote:

How could you, people who understand that cooperation and equality are more than mere slogans, but rather demands that must be repeated at every opportunity - how could you treat Judaism as some sort of singular, simplistic, one-faced beast? Are you really willing to declare yourselves guests in your own house and to accept religious philosophies that are not yours? Why would you agree to bring that empty
truck of Orthodoxy into your community?

Some readers took her remarks as derogatory of Orthodoxy. One Orthodox blogger, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, in a posting entitled "The Meaning of Pluralism," noted with great satisfaction that this put the lie to Reform Judaism's claim to being pluralistic. He writes that:

The Reform claim not only that they are pluralists, but that the Orthodox are not; thus they define their own form as taking a "pluralistic" view of Judaism. If they reject Orthodoxy, then they are no more pluralistic than the Orthodox themselves, who accept Sephardic, Yemenite, Ashkenazic, Chassidic, and countless sub-variants of the above as legitimate forms. [...]

The statements of Dr. Marx run counter to the professed dedication to pluralism and
tolerance of the Reform movement. As I and others said, this is nothing new, but it
is worth remembering the next time the Reform claim to be pluralistic-while we,
the arcane and unenlightened Orthodox, are not.

This is an interesting statement for a couple of reasons. It sounds like an attempt to embrace pluralism as a positive value, rather than rejecting it as antithetical to Orthodoxy. Thus, the claim is made that Orthodoxy is the truly pluralistic movement, while Reform is not pluralistic at all, and is, in fact, hypocritical.

I tried to respond to Rabbi Menken's statement and sent in a comment. I pointed out that, while Rabbi Marx' article was a bit harsh, it was not a blanket statement denigrating Orthodoxy or rejecting the option of choosing Orthodoxy as a belief system and way of life. What was being expressed - quite bitterly - was frustration that a secular community, committed to sexual equality and creative freedom, could opt for a synagogue that did not really reflect those values. Rabbi Marx was not attacking a ba`al teshuvah who had decided to become Orthodox. She was attacking a community - that has every intention of remaining non-Orthodox - for choosing to establish a religious institution to which it will not be faithful. (See my previous posting about the rejection of Reform by secular Israelis.)

But a close reading of Rabbi Menken's posting shows it to be even more problematic. The only kind of pluralism worth considering for Rabbi Menken is realistic pluralism - the recognition that there are a lot of different groups in the community and the acknowledgement that this variety is good for the community. It is this kind of pluralism that he finds missing in Reform. However, by this definition, he cannot claim such a position for Orthodoxy, either. He simply claims that Orthodoxy welcomes variety within itself. It certainly does not admit that it is good that there are other streams of Judaism.

While his attack on the lack of pluralism by Reform makes it sound as if he values pluralism, in actuality he rejects it. Furthermore, his rejection of pluralism is fundamental. He quotes a dictionary definition of pluralism as understood philosophically:

4. Philosophy.
a. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
b. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.

About this he writes:

The first point to be made is that a definition from the world of philosophy is irrelevant here. Definition (4)(b) is a modern philosophy (which runs counter to Judaism); it has nothing to do with Jewish religious pluralism.

Thus this idea is considered "irrelevant" and "counter to Judaism." I challenged this statement by noting (as shown by Moshe Sokol in a couple a studies) that there have been important thinkers, accepted in the Orthodox world, who have held such a position, such as the MaHaRaL (16th century), Rav Tzadoq Ha-Kohen (19th century), and Rav Kook (20th century). (Interestingly, they have mostly had some connection to the kabbalistic traditions of Judaism, but that is for another time.)

My comment was not posted.