gm
-v
#678
AND EQUALITY
As you will have observed, Rabbi Chaim Stern‘ié—witt-eeT-—%&i
M
evné“* fhn nnmqgt72231 rs k“nw that—ha—is'a former Minister of our
a 41/44 Cgewt g. m.
mum.
:. 5.,
-f M,
Congregation and thal>h-géegtvaséi‘v u: b; x:;; b :i: nf frlénés&2?.
Cm.- Uw‘IorL
_
He is on a visit te—Eegdsn and has been working with me on the second
draft of our new prayerbook for the High Hdlydays.
This gave me an
opportunity to invite him to be our guest preacher this mbrning, and
you will be as glad as I am that be accepted.
But before he speaks on gréggeral religious subject, I think I
should say to you a few words aboyt a rather serious domestic crisis
which has arisen in Anglo-Jewry.
with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the chief
representayive body of Anglo-Jewry. Itlic “WAA“37“4°9*inp m4+h ° %eng
It has to do
history wbéyh goes back to the accession of King GeorgeIII in 1760,
although its more active period began somewhat later, in 1856, when
its constitution was drawn up.
Gbat constitution, because at that time
only Orthodox synagogues existed, has a clause whipb says that in
religious matters the Board must seek the guidance of the so—called
Ecclesiastical Authorities, and these are defined as being, for the
Asbkenazim, the Chief Rabbi of the Uhited Hébrew Congregations, andm
fo; the Sefardim, the Haham.
Not long after 1836 the first Reform synagogue was founded in this
country, to be followed later by many more Irogressive synagogues, both
Reform and Liberal.
In due course they too sent Deputies to the Board,
but they were there, in a sense, as second—class citizens, since~their
religious leaders were not recognised by the constitution of the Board
for the purpose of consultation or, indeed, for any purpose. This was
of course always an unsatisfactory situation, but it was tolerated
LEO BAECE‘; COLLEGE
_ 2 _
in the anticipation that, in due course, w an F A t
beenzc :t: “b ;;Vugb aum;;;¢;;
it would be rectified.
,
Two or three years ago the Progressives felt that that time had
come. They then numbered nearly 50 congregations with a total membershi
of perhaps 40,0QO persons; and though they were still relatively small
lcompared with the United Synagogue, they had long ceased to be insigni—
ficantly small, and they were already many times as numerous as the
Sefardim. Moreover, they had long played an active part in the Board,
EX sehding to it about 70 Dsputies, that is about 15% of the total,
and they served on all the Board's committees. ‘Furthermore, they were
more united than ever before, for they worked together in many areas
and they had established a Council of Reform and Liberal Rabbis whose
chairman could, if necessary, act as
a
single spokesmen for both Pro—
gressive movements.
So the Progressives entered into negotiations with the officers of
the Board of Deputies in an endeavour to secure an amendment of the
Constitution.
Justice demanded one of two things: either that the
reference to Eccle iastical Authoribies should be deleted from the
ConstitutLon altogether, or that that term should be re—defined so as
to include, in
addition to the Chief Rabbi and the Haham, also the
Chairman of the Council of Reform and Liberal Rabbis.
But it soon
became apparent that the Chief Rabbi was not willing to relinquish the
privileged status accorded to him
in the Constitution.
The Progressives then made various other proposals which1
while giving them less than full equality, would have secured for them
recognition as d religious organisations whose spokesmen must be consulted by the Board at least in matters specifically concerning them.
_ 5 _
The officers of the Board agreed that these proposals were eminently fair
and—23$e:fia%ie and promised to support them, but before doing so they
felt obliged to consult the so-called "right wing" of the Community to
ensure that there would be no opposition from that qyarter. Uhfortbnabely
there gag opposition every time. Finally it bebame abundantly clear, firs
that the right wing would never agree to any amendment even remotely fair
to the Progressives, and secondly, that the Officers of the Board had no
Intentlon to do anythlng as long as there wasSmopposition.f§em-%t:€—§eactar.
Last Sunday, therefore, the Progressives met to cofisider their Position,
-
.
L
.
and tge; decided by an overwhelming majority that they had no honourable
option but to inform the Board that, unless tfie matter was rectified wituin
three months, they would advise their constituent congregations to with—
draw their Deputies from tds Board.
This of course is only a recommendation.
Every congregation has the
~rigbt to decide whether to act on it, and the Council of our Synagogue
has yet to consider its policy.
I
Moreover, there is a chance, although
am afraid a slender one, that the Board will now take the necessary
$9 avnw'IL
action se~$hat_a split‘wi%%—ée~g¥9;dedw
'
But r:?.
.
is now,,£4Lj@1_fig2_l2aan, a strong possibility that before the end of this
year the Progressives will have seceded from the Board.
If that happens, who will be responsible? who will have caused
disunity? The answer is, I hope, abundantly clear. XXKXBKXHKEKXXX
Having been involved in fihe negotiations from the start, I can assure
you that the Progress;ves leant over backwards to be helpful and
conciliatory. They were prepared to settle for much less than justice
as long as an appreciable step forward was achieved.
Tbewresponsibility
lies fairly and squarely upon those who have refused to budge from their
_ 4 _
intolerant position that only Orthodoxy is to be recognised by the
Board as a legitimate religious expression of Judaism, and upon the
officers of the Board who have succumbed to such pressures.
What we have witnessed in Anglo-Jewry, not for the first time,
is
a conflict between KKZXXXKKEXXKKKXKKX the demands of unity and justice.
Unity_is indeed important, and we Erogressives have shown ¥€E§ clearly
that we argighare of it.
Unlike the tribes of Reuben and Gad according
to our Torah portion, we have not claimed for oursélves any privileges
which we would deny to any other section of the Community.
On the
contrary, we have been prepared to accept less than our entitlement.
shid
Nor have we dsns—;e¢s—§éan our duty.
No-one has had to say to us,
"Shall your brothers go to war while you stay here?"
We have worged
loyally with our brothers of all denominations in the Board's
activities on behalf of Anglo—Jewry as a whole.+?But unity is not
everything.
It must be
based at least on a modicum of justice, of
fairness, of eqqality, KKXKKKXKXXKKEEEEEX of-give-and-take.
igfified,
unity is notAunity if it is all give on one side and all take on the
other.
There can be no true unity unless each section unéeae—cach
seeééan is respected by all other sedtions and is so treated by them
that it can respect itself. For the Progressives to remain in the
tkwd
Board, without having gained anything from their progracted and
patient negotiations, would, in my View, be a dereliction of the
respect we owe to ourselves aafi~+ +b uq—wbm pianoarnfl cue kirfl if
Judaism, and it would be to perpetuate a state of affairs in which
intolerance and intimidation are always able to win over fairness
and resonflbleness.
That is why the Progressives havgzgaid to the
Board: Lo nashuv el bateynu ad hitnacbel b'ney yisrael isb nacbalato,
"We will not return until every section of the community of Israel
has received its inheritance."
_ 5 _
serious decision to take, but in my View there is no other
which we could take with honour and dignity. Our hope now must be that
It is a
it will bring the Community to its senses.
Qzfiigxxxggxggzggxggggggg.
KXXXKXXEHKEXXKXXXXXXXKK
For EXEEK sometimes negative actions are
necessary to achieve positive results, just as the prophet Jeremiah was
hidden, firsy "to sgkgiezg-and to pull down", then "to bukld and to
Our hope must be that car action will cause the Community to
that
at
last/only on a basis of mutual respect can true unity be
recognise
plant”.
#4»
built, that only c: ‘:;f k1:45 can the Psalmist's ideal be realised,
"Behold, how good KKK it is, and how pleasant, when brothers live
together in unibx."