The Council of Christians and Jews
g7 2'
Extraordinary General Meeting, 16 February 1999
Speech by Rabbi John D. Rayner
My Lord Chairman, I beg to differ.
I do so with great regret because I have no
wish to cause dissension; because I am aware of the effort you, with others,
have made to bring this resolution about; and because I appreciate as much as
anybody, and perhaps more than most, the importance of the work this
Council does. But I feel I have no choice. Why? In brief, because the
resolution istva' compromise between justice and injustice, and therefore, by
But to explain that, I need to go a little into the
definition, unjust.
background, so please bear with me.
When
this
Now
that
Council was founded in 1942
it
had
three Christian Presidents
and
one Jewish President. Later two more Christian Presidents were appointed,
increasing the proportion of Christian to Jewish Presidents from 3-1 to 5-1.
may
outnumber Jews
be thought quite appropriate, since Christians hugely
in this country. But that is not really relevant, since interfaith organisations, by their very nature, should treat equally the religions
they represent, irrespective of numerical considerations. Every other interfaith organisation, so far as I know, accordingly observes a policy of
approximate parity in the distribution of its honorary offices.
may be argued
that although it was necessary to have several
Christian Presidents to represent the several streams of Christianity, there
was in 1942 no corresponding need to have more than one Jewish President
because the Jewish Community was not similarly divided. But that would be
Again,
it
untrue.
Already then there were 15 Progressive - that is, Reform and Liberal synagogues in this country, including some very large ones. After the war
Progressive Judaism grew rapidly. By 1967 the number of its congregations
had trebled to 45. Today, including the Masorti (that is, Conservative) and
two independent synagogues, it is over 80, accounting for about 50,000, or one
in four, of Britain's synagogue-affiliated Jews.
Therefore there are indeed several streams of Judaism, just as there are
several streams of Christianity, and exactly the same logic that led to the
appointment of more than one Christian President suggests that there should
be more than one Jewish President.
There are indeed those who find it difficult to accept the fact that there are
different kinds of Judaism, and the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the Commonwealth is one of them. He has said many
times that in his view pluralism is inadmissible in Judaism, and that every
kind of Judaism except Orthodox Judaism is illegitimate.
Please understand that I don‘t say that as a criticism. There is great
admiration for Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks in the Jewish community, as there is
among Christians, and it is a sentiment I fully share. Furthermore, I believe
strongly that he is entitled to hold the View he does, and I mention it only
because there are certain consequences which follow ineluctably from it.
One
who
Judaism cannot in the same
breath claim exclusive religious leadership of Britain‘s pluralistic Jewish
community. Another is that a rabbi who denies the legitimacy of Progressive
Judaism cannot represent Progressive Jews, and they cannot, with any selfrespect, allow themselves to be represented by him. Therefore Dr Sacks‘s nonacceptance of the pluralistic nature of Anglo—Jewry, far from weakening the
case for a second Jewish President, strengthens it, and makes it imperative.
is
that a rabbi
rejects pluralism in
for these reasons, my Lord Chairman, that I wrote to you in 1996 to ask
that consideration be given by this Council to the appointment of an
additional Jewish President to represent the non-Orthodox streams in
Judaism, and the resolution before us is, at least in part, a result of the process
I triggered by my letter.
It is
The proposal
new
post of Associate President is unacceptable
because, although it represents a substantial concession to the legitimate
claims of Progressive Judaism, it is nevertheless only a half-measure.
We
to create a
the most that can be
achieved because a full presidency is simply not possible at this stage. Why is
it not possible? To the best of my knowledge, for one reason only: because the
Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations is determined to maintain
his monopoly as the sole Jewish President, and hence the second-league
status of Progressive Judaism. And that is not a good reason; on the contrary,
it is a bad reason.
have been told that an associate presidency
The resolution
is
manifestly designed to perpetuate the second-league status
of Britain‘s 50,000 Reform, Liberal and Masorti Jews, among them many of
this country's mot distinguished Jewish citizens, including Members of
Parliament, Peers of the Realm, judges and lawyers, bankers and
industrialists, doctors and scientists, university professors, writers and
journalists, actors and television personalities, as well as about 70 rabbis. To
tell all these people that they are not worthy of being represented in this
Council, like everybody else, at presidential level is to insult them, and I
cannot believe that this meeting would wish to do that.
is
The implementation
of the resolution before us would indeed constitute a
step forward. But we are not looking for a step forward: we are looking for
justice, and the fact that Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks does not desire us to
receive the justice does not seem to me a sufficient reason - or a tolerable
reason - for withholding it from us.
even doubtful whether the resolution is capable of implementation, for it
must surely be uncertain whether any Progressive rabbi would, on mature
reflection, wish to be considered for an appointment so obviously devised to
keep Progressive Judaism in a subordinate position, and, if so, whether such a
rabbi would have the support of his or her colleagues. For it goes without
saying that they alone have a right to decide who shall represent them, and
that without their support the position would be untenable.
It is
When
a choice has to be made between two conflicting considerations of
similar validity, there is room, and need, for compromise. But there is no
validity in the argument against a second Jewish President to represent the
Progressives: not one single, solifary scrap of validity!
The resolution before us is a compromise, not between two rights but
between a right and a wrong, and therefore, by definition, wrong. It cannot be
otherwise than wrong to deny to Progressive Jews a right which, for instance,
the Free Churches have enjoyed, as a matter of course, since this Council was
founded.
not always possible to achieve what is right as quickly as one
would wish. Therefore there is sometimes need to ‘make haste slowly', and I
appreciate that. But, ladies and gentlemen, we have been making haste
slowly for 57 years, and that is long enough, and I remind you of the famous
saying of anvancient rabbi that 'justice delayed is justice denied‘ (Avot 5:8).
Admittedly,
it is
Furthermore, to vote for this resolution would be contrary! to the very spirit
of the Council of Christians and Jews, which can surely have no truck with
what has been called ‘majoritarianism' - that is, the assumption of a majority
that its numerical strength gives it a divine right to ride roughshod over the
rights of minorities. Surely the spirit of this Council is one of acceptance of,
and respect
for, diversity.
therefore ask those present to vote against the resolution, and so to mandate
the Executive either to conduct a postal ballot of its banish members or, at the
earliest possible future date, to come up with another resolution which
would neither deny nor delay justice, but do it.
I