No Such Thing As Pluralism

i am sorry to say that i found friedman's article not all that impressive. [disclosure: dov and i went to camp together].

it's clear that he wants to interrogate this issue with rigor, but the problem is that his perspective is too limited.

it is idealistic to think that ideology can be absent in education.  as a jewish educator, i find myself trapped in the position of teaching kids what i believe, or the text in front of me, or if i am even able to separate the two.  what is this pluralistic jewish education?  would it educate every student about every variance in judaism?  would it truly not eliminate anyone?  would it be able to teach reconstructionist theology to orthodox kids without judgment?  would it acknowledge the deep ashkenazic bias of american jewry?  would it involve any sort of prayer component?  if so, how would they davven together?

another area of his article lacking specifics is his analysis of actual jewish pluralism.  he looks at what different theologians (only orthodox, though) and bloggers have to say about jewish communities and pluralism, but he does no field work in analyzing actual communities who do make pluralism a goal and commitment in their structure.  it's all too theoretical, and i got the feeling he is just jeering from the stands, and not seeing how the game is played. 

Tamar, I'm surprised at you. Pluralism was a concept that was 1980's. A bunch of us boomers had grown up in a generation in which we were supposed to love (or at least respect) one another, then often went to rabbinical schools in which Orthodox Jews were considered to be backwards or Reform Jews were to be considered heretical.  So we took our beliefs and practices, and tried to take the respect that we had for every other religion and superimpose it on our relationships to other members of the chosen people (and even those who didn't consider themselves chosen). Organizations such as CLAL and CAJE prided themselves as pioneers of pluralism, and Federations were enthusiastic about yet another vehicle that would support fundraising from everyone.

But Jewish pluralism was based on the idea that everyone lined up in some "movement" that was different from the next "movement" down the block. That's just not the case today. The emerging Jewish future is decidedly post-denominational. We don't have 3-4 movements in contemporary Judaism, we have millions!  And if Judaism is post-denominational and becoming more so, then pluralism is irrelevant. What we need is basic menschlichkeit and relationshiop skills that help us to all get into the big tent (or sandbox) of the Jewish people today in their wonderful diversity.

I read the headline and I was so happy to be able to join hands with Dov and Tamar  in togetherness concerning the point that Judaism cannot survive a "pluralist" perception since Judaism, at its essence is both particular and universal.  After reading Dov's article, wow, am I disappointed.

It is more "ideological warfare" from Dov looking for needless divisiveness when unity is so easy to achieve.  His opening salvo is against Orthodoxy in Israel and prayer at the Western Wall.  He uses this example as a warm up for his extended argument since he assumes his audience will be right there with him.  Jews who conduct prayers need to do so on traditional terms, says the Rabbi who regulates the Western Wall.  This makes Dov's blood boil and anyone would wonder why.  We all respect "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" but this is for everyone EXCEPT the Jews of Israel.  For them, he implores that we should do the opposite.

This defies the Western Wall experience that is so central to Judaism at this holy site.  It is so moving to see and participate at such a service and it is so vital, as a proponent of Jewish unity, that we are all on the same page regarding Jewish prayer.  One can see that we are all so different and yet the fellowship is so strong.  Here, at the Wall, we all stand together as Jews on equal footing reciting the same prayers--even with differing melodies, styles of dress, backgrounds and accents.  But Dov will have none of it and sympathizes with the "protesters" who champion a needless civil war.

There is simply too much to criticize in this article and I would rather agree with Dov than tell him the many ways he is wrong.  His pleasant review of the Jewish Renewal movement, led by Waskow and Lerner (legendary anti-Jewish and anti Israel activists) is inexcusable.

Dov's point about Jews who enjoy being chameleons is no substitute for having a halachic core which allows such a stand for individuals but would decimate Judaism if was given wide practice.

Where TRUTH is defined as something which has so many sides to it, no one really has a good idea of what God wants from us. 

Oh, but if the Almighty gave us a Torah and the law, we would know and we would have some guide.  To deny that basic *truth* decimates Judaism.

It's so senseless to argue when David simply proves my point. I submit his own words:

"This defies the Western Wall experience that is so central to Judaism
at this holy site. It is so moving to see and participate at such a
service and it is so vital, as a proponent of Jewish unity, that we are
all on the same page regarding Jewish prayer. One can see that we are
all so different and yet the fellowship is so strong. Here, at the
Wall, we all stand together as Jews on equal footing reciting the same
prayers--even with differing melodies, styles of dress, backgrounds and
accents."

Oh David -- You are the same as the Rabbi of the Western Wall! You throw up your hands, not being able to imagine why anyone would not want to pray the "correct" way.

I'm sorry, but your argument is based in such a different realm of ideas that I cannot even argue with you. We disagree about something so basic as 1) whether there are many worthwhile viewpoints within Judaism and 2) where the inspiration for our laws comes from. Without agreement on these, a discussion with you is like slamming my head into a wall repeatedly.

Simply put, you believe your brand of orthodoxy to be correct. bravo! then YOU practice YOUR brand of orthodoxy. But remember that not everyone agrees with you. You can say they are wrong, but they still make up vibrant self contained Jewish units. Your dismissal of them does not mean they are not there. Thus, your objection to them is virtually irrelevant. If they don't care that you choose not to recognize them than what is the value of your lack of recognition? I'll answer you very simply: it's worth nothing.

This is where my response to ravads comes in. Pluralism is not 1980s at all. Like you, I am a strong proponent of post-denominationalism. But even then we need pluralism. Because some people are still orthodox and want to try to use their institutional leverage to shut us out (see: David Friedman) and some people -- like Mobius and Gillman whom I discuss -- are both against putting their post-modern notions of truth to good use. Hence, pluralism is still necessary. For those of us who want to practice true openness, we need to have our own practice and identity that at the selfsame time remains fully open to other conceptions of truth. Post denominationalism does not supplant pluralism -- it only makes the glimmer of hope a bit brighter that true pluralism is achievable.

Yes, Dov, I do make sense and I can easily have you change your mind and stop your protest.  I really appeal to your good senses.

I have no doubt that at your shul and from your sensibility, you see the value in having the entire congregation recite not only Kaddish prayer and the Shema and other traditional prayers but also the entire Amidah, the Kedushah, the Modim, the Priestly blessing, Ashrei and the Sim Shalom and a bit more at a minimum, right?  Is it really your point that prayer is not communal and there is nothing of value in Jews being on the same page in terms of prayer?  I really hope that you only are blinded by your ideology and this explains why you won't take the merit of unity at face value--it is right there to be achieved.  At your shul, like all Conservative and Orthodox shuls, the prayers are established, do not vary and are based in tradition and one benefit of this is so visitors can also feel comfortable since there are known and established prayers.  I also have no doubt that men wear tefillin and a traditional tallit at the Shacharit minyanim.  You know the prayers, you have the proper dress--what is left?  Oh, men and women are separated.  Is this crucial?  Is this worth a rift in the community? Asking the heterodox movements to make the concession and not the other way around makes sense since it is only to achieve unity at a central location so that everyone can participate.  Do you mean to say that if you are a guest at a Yemini household and there is an additional prayer before eating, you would feel uncomfortable because you did not know the prayer?  I have no doubt that if that household was your girlfriend's and it was your pleasure to visit such a household, you would learn that prayer, learn it quickly and learn it well.

When I was a child and I was a Reform Jew, some Reform parents made a stink about the Conservative Jews insisting that the food at the JCC be kosher.  I found such a protest mindless.  Why not have it kosher so all can participate?  "Kosher" food denotes that it is "correct" and you do not want to make people go crazy by suggesting that one way is correct and another is not.  But this is a lame bit of logic. Judaism could not exist and LAW could not exist if not for the understanding that some things are proper and desired and others are not.  If a Reform Jew can somehow stomach the point that keeping a JCC event kosher so all can participate, why not kosher prayer?  In my experience, it is the leaders of Reform and not Reform Jews themselves who take the ideological, rude stand or protest instead of participation.  The minute a kiruv group like Chabbad or Aish or Ohr Sameach gets a hold of a Reform Jew and brings them to communal prayer--a whole new world is opened and they get the benefit.

As a point of ideology, somehow, you want to support the people who, unlike you, launch the most boorish kinds of protests because they can't bring different prayerbooks and lead different prayers or insist that they must crash the diving line between the men and the women.  How dumb!  And you can't fathom the normal position?  Even if you can't agree with the belief that communal prayer should be based in traditional communal standards instead of separate ones--why make a stink over it?

You say: I'm sorry, but your argument is based in such a different realm of
ideas that I cannot even argue with you. We disagree about something so
basic as 1) whether there are many worthwhile viewpoints within Judaism
and 2) where the inspiration for our laws comes from. Without agreement
on these, a discussion with you is like slamming my head into a wall
repeatedly.

Regarding your first point, I said nothing of the sort and I indicated the very opposite.  I preached the merit of fellowship with other Jews who have very different lives than myself.  The diversity of opinion is fantastic and although I  am not a fan of the point of view that in diversity there is strength or superiority, diversity is evident in the Jewish people and at the Western Wall participants.  It could easily be even more diverse if the Reform could learn the prayers and buy or borrow some teffilin and a decent tallit. You cited the example and my focus, at this moment, is with your first bone of contention.

Regarding your second point, I would, for the sake of what we can agree about right now, focus on the matter of the Western Wall and the merit of communal prayer. 

Have a good Shabbos, Dov and please respond.