The Pluralism Diaries

Who's a rabbi?

Helene — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:32:00 +0000

The Hon. Moshe Katzav, President of the State of Israel, is the focus of a small storm. He confided to an interviewer that he could not call a Reform rabbi by the title "rabbi." He reserves this title for Orthodox clergy exclusively.

When Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, was told of Pres. Katzav's policy he finally realized that in all his previous - and cordial - meetings with him, President Katzav had, indeed, always managed to work around addressing him directly as "rabbi." He determined to take a stand to defend his position and the dignity of over a million Jews who accept him as their rabbinic leader. So he declared that he would not meet with Pres. Katzav until the President changed his policy.

Demonstrations have taken place in front of the president's residence, calling on him to act in a manner befitting his office, which is supposed to serve as a unifying force for all Jewry. President Katzav has defended himself by saying that he is merely following State policy and that Israel does not recognize the Reform and Conservative movements as legitimate versions of Judaism. This is a half-truth. While non-Orthodox branches of Judaism are disenfranchised in the one country that is supposed to be the homeland for all Jews, both Reform and Conservative rabbis have been officially referred to with their rabbinic titles in various documents and in various contexts.

There are a number of ironies attached to this episode. It has been pointed out that even Orthodox rabbis in America have recently been dismissed by Israeli authorities. The Chief Rabbinate recently decided that most Orthodox rabbis in the US are not to be trusted with regard to the conversions they perform. One reporter sees these phenomena as indicative of the growing chasm developing between Israel and thr Diaspora (- see "Snubbed by Zion," by Benjamin Balint, WSJ, June 9, 2006). In this view Israel is increasingly sure of itself and dismissive of any Jewish legitimacy outside its borders (whatever they may be).

While this may be partly true, I think there is another aspect to this problem. The real root of the problem is the inability of Israelis to fully appreciate a pluralistic approach to Jewish life. This can be seen from two examples: With regard to the Katzav/Yoffie conflict it is surely noteworthy that Rabbi Zvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Director of the Union of Orthodox Congregations - not someone who is soft on Reform Judaism - has openly rejected Pres. Katzav's position. He has stated clearly that Rabbi Yoffie should be shown the respect of being addressed as "rabbi." Rabbi Weinreb is no less committed to Orthodoxy than Pres. Katzav. The difference is that Rabbi Weinreb has learned to work within a pluralistic Jewish society. Pres. Katzav has not. (Of course, the Orthodox monopoly in Israel, which repeatedly defeats and prevents any pluralistic efforts, also allows the Orthodox camp to exert tremendous political pressure on the society to maintain this situation, pressure to which even the President of Israel is not immune.)

Another indicator of the limited nature of the Israeli religious imagination is reported in the Israeli paper, Haaretz ("In a Sea of Possibilities, the Secular Find an Anchor in the Halakhah," Yair Ettinger, June 23, 2006). The article describes the rise of interest among secular Israelis in finding directives for their lives through traditional Jewish law (halakhah). The point of the article is that in a post-modern world of infinite possibilities some people have gone beyond the vague notions of spiritual renewal to seek definitive answers that will direct their lives.

One of the popular addresses to which these Israelis turn is the writer Adam Barukh, a long-time figure on the Israeli cultural scene who now writes a weekly column of "responsa" - halakhic answers to real-life questions - for the paper Ma`ariv. When asked why so many turn to him for his advice, he answers, "This says something very serious about the Orthodox rabbis."

But if Israelis don't feel comfortable with the Orthodox, why don't they turn to the other streams? Adam Barukh notes, "Many of those who send a question live in emotional terror because of some taboo or fear, and they desire peace of mind (soul). They don't want the leniencies of a Reform rabbi because he is not an authority for them."

Apparently, in the monochromatic religious landscape of Israel, everyone - secular and Orthodox - all agree that a Reform rabbi is not a rabbi.

Honesty and Pluralism

Helene — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:06:00 +0000

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.

Pluralism and Realism

Helene — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:32:00 +0000

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.

Flexidoxy and the Future

Helene — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:54:00 +0000

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?

Edgar Bronfman: Post-Denominationalist

Helene — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:19:00 +0000

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?

A Whole Heart

Helene — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:17:00 +0000

The Days of Awe approach. One of the prayers traditionally recited is that "All those created will become united in one bond to do God's Will with a whole (complete, perfect) heart - b'levav shalem." (This phrase gives the Academy for Jewish Religion its Hebrew name.)

Is this prayer calling for a peaceful pluralistic universe or is it calling for the wiping away of difference and plurality? The answer depends on who you ask. But the question points to a tension that never goes away. Is pluralism threatening or empowering? Is difference essential to the flourishing of diverse, but unique, identities, or does it threaten the preservation of distinctiveness? These questions are not only difficult in themselves. How one feels about them conditions how one sees the world, and thus, how one collects evidence to back up one's convictions, including one's convictions about pluralism.

Last week retired Brigadier General Effie Eitam, a right-wing member of Israel's Knesset (parliament) advocated the transfer of the Arabs out of the Occupied Territories . This is supposed to help insure Israel's security. It is not clear to me how Israel's security, which depends on Israel's peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbors, can possibly benefit from such a move. It seems much more understandable that Eitam is simply expressing a visceral fear of and antagonism to people he sees as his intractable enemies. But since such a move can only exacerbate animosity between the groups, the benefit of such a move must be imagined to derive from a different result - its "cleaning out" of Israel, the Holy Land, of elements whose presence pollutes it. Eitam makes no bones of his desire to see Arab Israeli citizens also pack up and leave, since he sees them as a dangerous fifth column.

Here is an example of how one's ideology - one's comfort with pluralism, in particular - can color one's view of reality. While there is no question that Israel suffers from many vicious foes among the Arabs, it is also a remarkable fact that there is one extraordinary example of peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Arabs, an example that has been going on for over fifty years. I refer to the coexistence of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs in Israel itself. This coexistence has held firm through many wars and despite the unjust treatment suffered by Israeli Arabs at the hand of Israel's government. This record of peaceful coexistence is an unarguable fact that could serve as a building block for the expansion of such coexistence throughout the region. But for this to happen it must be acknowledged. What would lead a person to see one's peaceful neighbors as a dangerous fifth column? We should be sensitive to this phenomenon. Remember what Pharoah said about the Israelites who lived in Egypt in peaceful neighborliness? His hatred and dread of the Israelites was a reading of reality based on an unwillingness to embrace a complex vision of a society with pluralistic possibilites.

Eitam is apparently unable embrace this vision. What has further emerged in the aftermath of his remarks is the struggle within the Orthodox community (to which Eitam belongs) regarding how to react to his adoption of a position that is blatantly fascist. Is this position defensible Jewishly? How much room is there in the "big tent" of Orthodoxy for such a view? Is the reluctance of many Orthodox groups and leaders to vehemently condemn such remarks a sign that, deep down, they actually share those views, as a simplified vision of an unencumbered Israel, or is it a symptom of a desire to be pluralistic even when that means tolerating obnoxious ideas?

An honest struggle with these questions may entail a bitter effort. But, in the end, we strive and hope for a Shanah Tovah U'm'tuqah - a Good, Sweet Year.

War

Helene — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:38:00 +0000

With the horrible situation facing Israel and with all the blood and suffering in the area it has been hard to continue writing about matters such as pluralism that seem far from having a life and death impact.

But after a few depressing days I feel that there are some points relevant to the idea and practice of pluralism to be made in light of this war.

One thought is that this is a grim conflict between a camp - Israel - that, however imperfectly, struggles wth pluralistic ideals and policies, and a camp that totally rejects these ideals and the possibility of their realization - the Islamic terrorists - Hezbollah, Hamas and their individual and state supporters. It is ironic that the rhetoric of opposition to Israel utilizes terms such as "occupation" and "imperialism" that actually portray the goals and categories of the Islamist agenda and inadvertantly betray the limits of that group's horizon of thought. Since it dreams of domination and totalitarian control over other groups, it cannot imagine that anyone else may not dream of the same thing. The totalitarian mindset is, thus, self-validating and justifies any means for its effectuation.

But this bitter perspective should not be used by those who support Israel for the purpose of weakening or even destroying pluralism, for pluralism, as just mentioned, is one of Israel's defining (though still incompletely realized) ideals. Thus, just as it is legitimate to demand that people of good-will must acknowledge the clear truth that Hezbollah and Hamas have absolutley no right to attack Israel, and that these attacks reveal a fundamental hatred at the base of their ideologies, it must also be acknowledged, as a simple truism, that Israel, like every human society, is capable of error and worse. Voices of criticism have their place within the broad spectrum of persons and groups who support Israel fundamentally. It should still be possible to question strategies and policies, to raise up values and standards of justice, wisdom and realpolitik against which israel's actions must be measured. Some criticisms, questions and protests may be rejected by others as "incorrect" or "counterproductive" or, even, as "naive" or "stupid." And, indeed, the enemies of Israel revel in criticizing her every act.

But let it never be said that criticism expressed by supporters of Israel is, in itself, inappropriate, forbidden or traitorous. If we lose the ability to welcome controversy and critique, even in times of crisis, then Hezbollah and Hamas will have won.

Gay Pride, Gay Rights and Pluralism

Helene — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:04:00 +0000

Friday was a sad day for the cause of freedom and equal rights for all and for rational discourse. The NY State Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex couples can be reasonably excluded from the legal institution of civil marriage. This is not the place to go into an analysis of the majority opinion. You can read the two sides at this link.

I can't help pointing out one bizarre feature in its argument, though. Justice Robert S. Smith seems to think that heterosexuals' relationships are so tenuous that they need the state to exclude gays from marriage so as to feel an incentive to marry rather than live sexually promiscuous lives. This sets the old attack against gays - for being too promiscuous - on its head!

I am proud to point out that The Academy for Jewish Religion had signed on as a friend of the court for the plaintiffs, supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, , as far as I can tell from the court papers, AJR was the only Jewish seminary to do so.

The need for religious voices to be heard on this issue has now become acute. Many religious leaders, while uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning religious marriages for same-sex couples, have comforted themselves by thinking that the issue could be handled by civil laws. But one lesson to be learned from this defeat in the courts is that it is not possible to keep these areas separate. If religion - Judaism, specifically - is to be a force educating toward justice and pluralism, it must step up and speak clearly in support of the possibilty for same-sex couples to live in responsibility, commitment, dignity and sanctity.

The alternative is being played out before our eyes in Jerusalem. The International Gay Pride Parade is scheduled to take place in Jerusalem on August 10th. The prospect of this event has united religious leaders who would normally hate to have any contact with each other. I recall a photo in the Times from a previous year. At first sight it was really inspirational - a long table at which Christian, Muslim and Jewish clerics sat together for a common goal. Unfortunately, reading the caption revealed that the goal was not world peace, or eradicating poverty or slavery, or opposing political totalitarianism. The goal was opposition to the Gay Pride Parade.

Let us be clear. Everyone knows that these clerics are against any acceptance of homosexuality. And everyone knows that homosexuals - those who have not internalized traditional teachings of condemnation - reject the traditional religious stance and insist on their right to live openly, with full rights to fullfill their legitimate dreams, just like any other person created in God's Image. The disagreement is firm. The question is - what practical conclusions flow from this irreconcilable disagreement?

Pluralism does not mean that one has to like what the other party thinks or does. It does mean that, as long as one's own spheres of thought and life are respected, the other party, however obnoxious its position, may go about expressing its views and living accordingly. With respect to holding a Gay Pride Parade, the issue is not whether the feelings of religious traditionalists will be offended. Of course they will be. But we live in a world in which we are constantly offended by other people's actions and ideas. That is not enough of a reason to mobilize all one's energies in order to repress the expression of the other side. This is not a question about disagreeing respectfully. The opposition to the parade is expressed in the crudest language of contempt and hatred. Religious leaders must take responsibility for this "teaching of contempt," which is no less unacceptable than when it was fostered by Catholic teachings with regard to Jews.

Whether in New York, Jerusalem, or anywhere this issue arises, a strange phenomenon has emerged: Many people are convinced that the best way to strengthen traditional values such as marriage, child welfare or moral responsibilty is by attacking gays and lesbians who wish to uphold those same traditional values. When practiced quietly and locally, this kind of exclusionism is characteristic of private clubs. When practiced vehemently and politically such exclusionism is characteristic of mobs and their demagogic leaders. The religious community must choose - shall it continue to abet the teaching of contempt or shall it work toward the teaching of courageous pluralism?

No Choice?

Helene — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:55:00 +0000

The NYTimes reports ("In the Hometown of Wal-Mart, Synagogue Is a Sign of Growth," June 20, 2006) on the growth of a new Jewish community in Bentonville, Arkansas, brought about by the migration of Walmart employees and suppliers to the new store there. The story is an interesting example of the benefits of pluralism for the general community. Until now the town, in the Bible Belt, was full of churches. Now, because of the store, the Times describes it a "a teeming mini-metropolis populated by Hindus, Moslims and Jews."

While the community had taken its Christian identity for granted, in its public life as well as its religious life, with the influx of non-Christians the community had to learn about the values, cultures and religions of others. The town seems to be making a real effort to open up to this new experience of diversity, mostly prompted, according to the reporter, by the new Jewish residents. These new arrivals work hard to create an environment hospitable to difference. At the same time they are learning to value their own particular Jewish identities more actively.

So they have started a synagogue. But this congregation is a mixed bag of Jews, some coming from Reform or secular backgrounds and some coming from more observant families. So far the congregation has not affiliated with a particular denomination, though they have been courted by the various movements. The Times says: "Members of the synagogues's board said they were in no rush to pick a religious affiliation but conceded the decision was inevitable.

But is that the only choice? In this community that has fought so hard to create a new appreciation for the pluralism of "America," it is not clear to me why it is "inevitable" that it must choose to define itself by one denominational ideology. What might happen were the congregation guided by leadership that attempted to explore the potential of a vibrantly pluralistic Jewish community?

A Pluralistic World

Helene — Thu, 11 May 2006 12:52:00 +0000

We live in a pluralistic world. So it's no surprise that the Jewish world is pluralistic, too. Once you realize this you begin noticing expressions of this reality in all sorts of places. Pluralism can be expressed intentionally or inadvertantly. Pluralism is a commitment embraced by some and excoriated by others. But, accepted or rejected, it is here. Institutions and individuals may consciously engage in or eschew pluralism's agenda, but our actions and ideas all, one way or another, are manifestations of its power. The most blatant way that pluralsim is expressed in through agencies and prgrams that proclaim their desire to engage all denominations of Judaism. Discussion of that issue will have to wait for another time.

But another manifestation of pluralism is the growing willingness of Jews to engage in eclectic choices as they define their own Jewish identities and commitments. The conviction underlying this is that coherence of meaning is built by and through the individual instead of being decreed by an already defined system or by some authority. This is one reason why many in the Orthodox community are uncomfortable with the notion of pluralism. For instance, in the March '06 issue of Sh'ma, an issue devoted to discussing pluralism, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik writes:

What is needed, argued [Rabbi David] Hartman, is "an ideology of pluralism," the notion "that my faith can be nurtured without claiming exclusive truth." This is an approach that Orthodoxy cannot accept.

His rejection of the idea of pluralism is not simply that it may lead to anarchy and the destruction of the community, but, more fundamentally, that pluralism is antithetical to Orthodoxy, as such. Nonetheless, pluralistic thinking can be found in the Orthodox communtiy as well.
Here a fascinating statement by a person struggling with this tension. The May 4, 2006 issue of The Jerusalem Post revealed that Rabbi Haviva Ner-David was recently given recognition by her rabbinic mentor, after 12 years of study and preparation, that she is equally qualified to serve as a rabbi as any man. This is tantamount to rabbinic ordination, and Rabbi Ner-David is called up to the Torah in her Modern Orthodox community as Ha-Rav Haviva. The article quotes her as saying "that she would not define herself as an Orthodox rabbi."

I feel strongly that such labels only serve to divide the Jewish people in a time when what we need is unity. Moreover, such labels tend to limit at a time when what we need is a fresh perspective and new voices, she explains. I call myself a Jewish rabbi, a rabbi of and for the Jewish People. And that is actually true for the types of people I tend to counsel and teach... [I am] part of an emerging and growing post-denominational community of serious, struggling, committed Jews who are less interested in fitting in and more interested in finding an intellectually and spiritually honest path to God by listening to the rainbow of voices that can be heard through constant interpretation and reinterpretation of our traditional texts and rituals.

Pluralism can mean the joint cooperation of denominations as they continue to maintain their differentiation, or it can the disregard of denominational definitions and affiliations for the sake of something else, something that may feel fresher, more encompassing and more honest.

Spiritual Activism

Helene — Mon, 22 May 2006 12:53:00 +0000

The NY Times ran a report a couple of days ago discussing the difficulties the liberal religious leadership in the US is having in organizing themselves as an effective political force ("Religious Left Struggles to Find Unifying Message," by Neela Banerjee, May 19, 2006) Activists and thinkers gathered at the Spiritual Activism Conference in an attempt to create a focused agenda. But the attempt failed. The Times reporter writes:

Turnout at the Spiritual Activism Conference is high, but if the gathering is any indication, the biggest barrier for liberals may be their regard for pluralism: for letting people say what they want, how they want to, and for trying to include everyone's priorities, rather than choosing two or three issues that could inspire a movement.

So, apparently pluralism is the culprit. As defined by the reporter, pluralism consists of "letting people say what they want, how they want to." This inevitably leads to paralysis, making focussed choice impossible.

It is instructive to juxtapose this picture of a conference, apparently beset by the incapacitating malaise of pluralism, with the picture painted by the rabbis of a contentious rabbinic conference.

At the end of II Kings (Ch. 24:16) we are told that "And all the military men - 7000, and the 'Harash' and 'Masger' - 1000 - all heroes, makers of war, did the king of Babylon take to Babylon." The rabbis, through their imaginative reading of the Bible - midrash - whereby they reinterpreted the Biblical description of Israel's exile by Nebucadnezzar, wonder

- What heroism can people achieve when they are led into exile? And what war-making do people perform when they are put in shackles and placed in chains? Rather, the term "all heroes" refers to the battle of Torah and the "war-making" means that they were engaged in the combative argumentation of Torah. . . Therefore they are called 'Harash' [- interpreted to mean 'keeping silent] and 'Masger' [- interpreted to mean 'keeping closed']. . . 'Harash' - for when one speaks all keep silent, and 'Masger' - for they all sit before him and learn from him. After he opens [his discourse] no one closes him down. . . (Sifre Devarim 321)

Now the "battle of Torah" clearly refers to raucous debate and impassioned, pluralistic argument. Everyone gets to say what they want and to say what they think about whatever anyone else has said. Yet, it seems to me that this midrash tells us about a key element of pluralism that was left out of the reporter's description. This is the element of keeping silent and listening. The idea is not merely to let everybody talk when and as much as they want, about whatever they want. It demands a consciousness of the other. It means being willing to hear someone out.

But the problem is that some can be counted on to take advantage of that willingness to listen and, without some corrective policy, they will take over the conversation. While this is true in practice, in theory this should not happen, because everyone who speaks, speaks while also listening to the other voices and perspectives. Listening includes listening, while you speak, for the reactions of your listeners. Are they responding or tuning out? Are they following your train of thought or are they thinking about taking the next train home? A speech may be spoken by one person, but if it is really spoken while listening it will not be a monologue.

How this ideal can be put into practice requires real study, work and the implementation of conclusions. We need to create a culture - and all cultures have norms - of pluralism.

Pluralism and Fear

Helene — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:54:00 +0000

The Sages noticed that when the Torah describes the journey of the Israelites toward Mount Sinai it employs verbs in the plural form - "va-yis`u-and they traveled" or "va-yahanu-and they encamped." But when the Torah describes the final encampment of the Israelites at Mount Sinai, in preparation for receiving the Torah, it employs the singular form - "va-yihan sham Yisra'el neged ha-har-and Israel encamped [-sing.] across from the mountain." (Ex. 19:2) They remarked: "Every place that the Torah says "they traveled" or "they encamped" in the plural form it means that they traveled amidst controversy and they encamped amidst controversy. But here they set their hearts together as one. Therefore it says 'va-yihan.'"(Mekhilta, Ba-Hodesh 1)

A similar experience was enjoyed at the Alma all-night Tikkun Leil Shavuot that took place simultaneously at the Manhattan JCC and the 92nd Street Y, from 10 PM last Thursday night to 5 AM Friday morning, on the first night of the Shavuot holiday. Hundreds of people of all ages, backgrounds and outlooks gathered for a rich array of cultural and social events as well as for serious Torah study. There were activities to suit every taste and ideology. It was possible to listen to live music or go swimming, or, to avoid doing these things if one wasn't in the mood or if one was religiously opposed to such doing activities on a religious holiday. So everyone could go their separate ways and make their own choices, all under one (or two) roofs. But more impressively, the Torah study sessions succeeded in attracting a varied group of visitors who, instead of going their separate ways, were comfortable being with each other. Thus, in one class that I observed, for example, self-identified Orthodox adults exchanged perspectives with younger secular Israelis, and some participants were avidly listening and taking notes.

This means that each participant in such a session was, consciously or unconsciously, deciding to engage with other people, people with unfamiliar or unacceptable views or lifestyle choices. Some may have done this with a degree of discomfort, fear or hesitation. But those who were there had clearly moved beyond those feelings. After the Tikkun ended everyone went their separate ways. But for that Shavuot evening we re-enacted the encampment at Sinai, as one.

Meanwhile, across the sea, in the Holy Land, a different scenario played out recently. The Jerusalem Post ("Riskin Skips Conservative Agunot Parley," by Matthew Wagner, May 29, 2006) reports that an Orthodox rabbi withdrew at the last moment from a conference organized by the Masorti (Conservative) Movement after first accepting an invitation to participate. The conference was called to discuss various approaches to solving a problem of marriage inequities in Jewish law in which women are prevented from extricating themselves from a failed marriage (- the agunah problem). The Masorti movement had just issued a book that sought to catalogue the different approaches that have been advocated in traditional circles to solve this problem. The conference was convened at the prestigious Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, in an effort to find a location that would not be identified as "Masorti," and thus be unacceptable to the Orthodox. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Chief Rabbi of Efrat, himself an advocate of a controversial solution to the agunah problem, had originally accepted an invitation to present his views.

Why did he withdraw? Rabbi Riskin explained: "Being singled out as the only Orthodox rabbi to speak at the conference would risk having my suggested solutions to the agunot problem disqualified by the rabbinic establishment."

Rabbi Riskin was the only scheduled Orthodox participant not because he was "singled out" as the only Orthodox rabbi invited. Rather, he was the only Orthodox rabbi who would accept the invitation. In other words, the rabbi was not personally opposed to sharing his thoughts with a religiously concerned audience that was not necessarily Orthodox. What, then, was the reason for his withdrawal? In fact, or in effect, he was pressured by forces in the Orthodox community who threatened him. They told him that his views - no matter what their merits - would not be given a hearing if he dared to appear before such an audience.

Rabbi Riskin made the following calculation: His own effectiveness in the Orthodox community is dependent on the Orthodox community's willingness to discuss his proposal regarding a religious problem affecting the suffering of innocent human beings. Rabbi Riskin feels that he has a persuasive and valid way to lessen and prevent such suffering. Such a discussion would be the highest fulfillment of the Torah. But doing away with this suffering - by engaging in such a fulfillment of the Torah - is less important to the Orthodox community than maintaining its success in preventing any participation in religious discussion with non-Orthodox rabbis! So, for the sake of retaining his hope that the Orthodox rabbinic establishment might still listen to his proposal, Rabbi Riskin had no choice but to avoid conversing with the non-Orthodox.

Thus, a powerful segment of traditional Jewry is willing to betray the Torah out of fear of pluralistic engagement. Such a fear must be awesome, indeed.