In the same week that Feldman's article appeared, a friend and I were discussing Joey's dialogue with Jack Wertheimer. I was playing with how the article and dialogue related, and I think it has something to do with self-image versus group survival, or limits, or something.

K and F want to feel part of something, and they have every right to do so. To them their Jewish identities are part of a web of influences and experiences that make them who they are. In both cases, one more strongly than the other perhaps, they are confounded by a group that does not accept them for the kind of member they wish to be. And they seem to wish for the group to adjust its boundaries and strategies to embrace them.

But in this case the group -- represented by Wertheimer and Maimonides -- feels that certain definitions for membership are inarguable. They don’t recognize Judaism as an “influence” or a piece in the multipart puzzle that makes members who they are. Instead, it is an essence.  

So whom you agree with depends on your goals. If your goal is the preservation of a group identity, you can’t agree with K or F. But if your goal is to have Judaism inform the way individuals develop into sovereign selves and negotiate with the world, you’ll agree with them.

It’s not parochialism versus universalism. It’s Judaism as a membership society versus Judaism as a philosphy for living. A membership society certainly teaches philosphy, but in the interest of self-preservation and achieving goals defined by the group. A philosphy might foster group affinities, but its ultimate goal is to combine with with experiences and influences that make individuals who or what they are.

Just thinking  out loud here…