COMMUNAL PEACE
Id‘l‘i
John D. Rayner
South Africa, then Northern Ireland, then Israel, and now Anglo-Jewry.
Yes, a communal peace agreement has been signed. Not indeed between all
sections of the Community, but between the declining formerly middle-ofthe-road United Synagogue and all stations to the left of it, that is, the
Masorti, Reform and Liberal movements, with the Sefardim looking on
benignly and the rest opposed. The Federation of Synagogues dislikes the
Agreement, the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations deplores it, and
the United Synagogue‘s own Dayanim are (let us say) less than enthusiastic
about it. Still, it has been signed, and Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks, who first
instigated it, then distanced himself from it, has now endorsed it.
But why a peace agreement? Has there then been war in Anglo-Jewry?
Well, yes, on and off. Not indeed war as in armed conflict, although in Israel
there have been acts of violence by Orthodox against non-Orthodox Jews, but
a war of words. And even that has been only intermittent. It is just that
every few years there is some communal storm which leads to angry
exchanges in the correspondence columns of the Jewish press.
How do these storms occur, and who is responsible for them? The last one
may serve as an example. It occurred two years ago, when Chief Rabbi Dr
Jonathan Sacks was conspicuously absent from the funeral of the late Rabbi
Hugo Gryn. It seemed an act of gross discourtesy, and those who thought so
expressed their dismay. To make amends, Jonathan Sacks engineered a
memorial meeting under the: Board of Deputies at. whichvkhgupaid a glowing
tribute to Hugo Gryn hut_studioilsly avoided mentioning the little detail that
he had been a rabbi, ‘and prior to the nieeting he wrote a private letter to a
nonagenarian ultra-Orthodox colleague to forewarn and reassure him by
explaining that he was doing it only because he felt he had to, as a distasteful
duty, since he regarded Hugo Gryn, and by implication all Progressives, as
First
faith‘. The letter was leaked to the [ewish Chronicle, and
skirmish.
another
provoked
What does this episode tell us? That the root problem is the attitude of the
Orthodox, as represented by Jonathan Sacks, towards Progressive Judaism: an
attitude not only of disagreement, which goes without saying, but of
ostracism motivated by the fear of appearing to condone it. If it were not for
that attitude - if the Orthodox, while disagreeing with us, nevertheless
behaved towards us in the sort'of way which, in the relations between the
various Christian Churches is considered elementary civility - most of the
turbulences that periodically agitate Anglo-Jewry would never happen.
When they do happen, and the Progressives feel understandably aggrieved,
some of them tend to say so publicly, and not.always in the most restrained
language. So offensive things are said on both sides, and the peace of the
'destroyers of the
_
Community
is,
for a while, disturbed.
After the last episode Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks evidently realised that he
had largely lost the good will of both sides, the Right and the Left, that the
Right was incorrigible, and that therefore, if he wished to salvage for his
Office something more than the spiritual leadership of the shrinking United
Synagogue, he had better try to mend his fences with the Left. So he, with the
United Synagogue‘s President Elkan Levy, initiated the process which, after
eighteen months of secret talks between the lay leaders of the four bodies,
finally produced the peace agreement.
I don't know how many of you have seen it, but for those who haven‘t let
me read just a few of the key sentences. The document speaks of ‘deep
divisions within the Jewish Community‘ but says it would be wrong to
suppose that these 'preclude peaceful co-existence, mutual respect and a
considerable measure of co-operation on matters which are not divisive.‘ It
goes on to say that 'no section of the community should ask or expect any
other to act against its convictions‘ and adds an appendix which makes it clear
that, so far as the United Synagogue is concerned, these 'convictions' preclude
recognition of Progressive conversions, as well as participation by Orthodox
rabbis in Progressive services or vice versa. There is also another appendix
proposing to reconstitute openly a trouble-shooting consultative committee
which had met secretly until the Hugo Gryn affair and then become defunct.
How great, then, is the significance of the Agreement? Is it 'peace in our
time'? Hardly, since the United Synagogue's policy of ostracism in religious
matters towards the Progressives, which, as we have seen, is the root cause of
the problem, is to continue. Indeed, even the mere attendance of Orthodox
rabbis at non-Orthodox services, which was at first to have been left to their
discretion, was subsequently forbidden - a prohibition which Rabbi Michael
Harris of the Hampstead Synagogue, to his enormous credit, has vowed to
I
disregard.
It is therefore tempting to dismiss the whole exercise as resembling the
mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse. But that would be a
mistake. For one thing, the new consultative committee may yet achieve
something. That remains to be seen. But more immediately, the mere fact
that such an agreement has been signed is a symbolic reversal of the previous
tendency towards increasing acrimony. And the language it uses - at one
point, for instance, it speaks of 'the protocols of respect and mutual courtesy‘ may do something to moderate the tone of communal debate. That also
remains to be seen, but it is certainly to be wished.
There is indeed another view, expressed in yesterday's jewish Chronicle in
an article by Norman Lebrecht the gigt of which you will gather if I quote its
title, 'Don't smooth the rough waters of Anglo-Jewty', and its conclusion:
'We are what we argue; and we must carry on arguing for all we are worth for Heaven‘s sake, because that is why we argue. Jfidaism has managed to
survive thousands of years without the need for a communal pact. It could
not last a week without a good argument‘ (p. 33).
_
,_
3
have a great deal of sympathy with that View and certainly would not wish
the Agreement to inhibit healthy debate. Indeed, while I agree that we must
respect the convictions of others, I will continue - whether the signatories of
the Agreement like it or not - to argue that the particular conviction of the
Orthodox that they are obligated to 'ostracise the non-Orthodox is unnecessary,
I
inexpedient and deleterious.
But while communal debate is healthy, it can and should be conducted
civilly, considerately and amicably; and even if others fail to do that, we
Progressives should. It is true that we have never questioned that Orthodoxy
is a legitimate expression of Judaism, that its rabbis are proper rabbis, that its
conversions and marriages are valid, and so forth; and to that extent we are
dealing with an asymmetrical situation. But that doesn't mean that we have
always shown the greatest sensitivity; and if the new Agreement prompts us
to be more meticulous about that in the future, that is all to the good.
Because Jewish unity matters‘ Not indeed in the sense of uniformity. The
desire that all should think alike and act alike is a hallmark of totalitarianism.
There is admittedly such a tendency in all religions, including Judaism, and
we may even see a hint of it in a famous Midrash on our Torah portion.
When Jacob lies down to sleep at Bethel the biblical text says mpon ’JJRD npw,
'he took some of the stones of the place' to make a pillow for himself (Gen.
28:11). But when he wakes up from his sleep it says pawns np‘l, 'he took the
stone' (v. 18). Overnight, it seems, the many stones have become one. This
tells us, said an ancient rabbi, that all the stones gathered themselves together
into one place, and each one said, Upon me shall this righteous man rest his
head', and another rabbi added: 1m: w‘m 15131, 'Thereupon they all fused into
one' - more literally, ‘were swallowed into one‘ (Chul. 91b). That kind of
unity - quite literally ‘monolithic unity'! - is not at all to be desired, for it
involves the 'swallowing up‘ of individual differences. Nor has it ever
characterised Judaism, for there has always been variety of belief and practice
'
'
throughout its history.
But in another sense unity is of course a positive value. That sense, it has
been said so many times but must be said again and again, is unity in
diversity. It means that we may disagree, but we must disagree agreeably. It
means that we may differ, argue, forthrightly express our honestly held
opinions, but with mutual respect and love, so that we do not lose our sense
of unity: our profound, joyful and magnanimous awareness that we are
members of one people, collectively charged with a common task - however
differently we may understand the details of what it involves: to bring the life
of humanity into closer harmony with God's will. It is the spirit of the 133rd
Psalm: 1n’ n: mm: mm wm'nm :m'nn run, 'Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers and sisters live together in unity' - not in uniformity but in
unity‘ If the new Agreement helps to revive such a spirit in our Community,
it will have achieved something very good.
Liberal Jewish Synagogue, Shabbat Va-yetze, 28th
November, 1998