Back in November I was reading several articles centered around the biennial conference of the Union for Reformed Judaism (held in Houston) and statements by the group’s President, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie. I’ve been wanting to write about this for some time, and now is the time.
I couldn’t quite get my mind around two statements that came from the convention. The two statements were titled as follows:
Reform Judaism’s Leader Criticizes Religious Right for Intolerance;
Rabbi Yoffie Calls for Synagogues to Invite & Support Conversion
The press release (excerpted) regarding the Rabbi’s statements makes the following remarks:
HOUSTON, Nov.19, 2005—”From the heart of the Bible belt, the leader of Reform Judaism today criticized the Religious Right for its exclusionary beliefs and statements that say —unless you attend my church, accept my God, and study my sacred text, you cannot be a moral person.—
Problem 1: Morality is well defined as following the natural law. All people have that ability. The Jewish people, as the people of the Law have an even greater advantage as God personally elucidated the Law to them. The Rabbi is confusing morality with salvation.
—We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism,— said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. —We are appalled when ‘people of faith’ is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?—
Problem 2: Labels and misdirection. People who believe in the God of at least the Old Testament, are not atheists. No Christian or Jew is an atheist. No one in fact who believes in a higher power is an atheist. They may be a pagan, but not an atheist. See atheist. Bigoted? It would appear that the Rabbi is defining anyone who seeks to teach their faith to another as a bigot. But how can that be? The oxymoron to this is coming up.
Yoffie called for a major new effort to bring the voices of religious people who often disagree with the Religious Right to the public square. He announced that the Union would be reaching out to a wide array of such voices in a new forum to be co-convened in Washington by Yoffie and Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Reform Movement’s Religious Action.
Thought: Now it gets better. Let’s use our resources to convince people that what we think/believe is correct. So if I do not agree with the Union’s position how shall I be labeled? I wonder?
Now for the punch line:
Yoffie’s comments came during an hour-long sermon at the Union’s Biennial Convention meeting here this week, during which he also urged the 4,200 Reform leaders to change the face of North American Judaism by increasing the ranks of affiliated Jews and asking non-Jews who are involved in synagogue life to convert to Judaism.
Problem 3: That’s right, convert those spouses (or significant others)! Have them reject their salvation. When you read the text of the full sermon it gets better, because there’s quite the emphasis on assuring children in a mixed marriage are raised Jewish. But isn’t this bigoted? Isn’t this the methodology of the so called religious right? Let’s increase our ranks and actively make converts?
The specific statements from your sermon (emphasis mine):
Let’s talk now about welcoming of a very specific sort—”welcoming non-Jewish spouses and converts to Judaism.
There is no better place to raise these issues than in Houston, for it was in this very city twenty-seven years ago that Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler initiated our Outreach program. He declared that we would not merely tolerate converts; we would enthusiastically embrace them. And he proclaimed that we would not sit shivah for our children who intermarry. This was not an endorsement of intermarriage, but rather a refusal to reject the intermarried. We would welcome them into our synagogues, our families, and our homes. We would do this in the hope that the non-Jewish partners would ultimately convert to Judaism; and if not, that they would commit themselves to raising their children as Jews.
…
Another challenge that we face is the decline in the number of non-Jewish spouses who convert to Judaism. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that interest in conversion has waned in our congregations.
In the early years of Outreach, Alex Schindler often returned to this topic. Alex told us: —We need to ask. We must not forget to ask.— And for a while, our Movement actively encouraged conversion. Many of our congregations began holding public conversion ceremonies during regular worship services, but such ceremonies are far rarer now.
The reason, perhaps, is that by making non-Jews feel comfortable and accepted in our congregations, we have sent the message that we do not care if they convert. But that is not our message.
Why? Because it is a mitzvah to help a potential Jew become a Jew-by-choice. Because the synagogue is not a neutral institution; it is committed to building a vibrant religious life for the Jewish people. Because we want families to function as Jewish families, and while intermarried families can surely do this, we recognize the advantages of an intermarried family becoming a fully Jewish family, with two adult Jewish partners. Judaism does not denigrate those who find religious truth elsewhere; still, our synagogues emphasize the grandeur of Judaism and we joyfully extend membership in our covenantal community to all who are prepared to accept it.
…
But none of this is a reason for inaction. The time has come to reverse direction by returning to public conversions and doing all the other things that encourage conversion in our synagogues.
Yes, and Christians emphasize the grandeur of Christianity and we joyfully and actively extend membership in the Church, and the gift of salvation to all who are prepared to accept it. Now, back to the press release excerpts:
Yoffie accused the Religious Right of refusing to acknowledge that there are religious perspectives different from its own, and of misreading religious texts sacred to both Christians and Jews.
Problem 4: Another canard. Anyone can acknowledge that there are other religious perspectives. Just look in the phone book under churches or temples and it is obvious. I can acknowledge that some people have a Hindu perspective while at the same time making an argument that it is not the perspective I think they should have. It would seem you agree, since the non Jew in a mixed marriage should be encouraged to convert and even if they do not, should agree to raise their children as Jewish. I cannot understand whether your perspective on this issue is the same or different from mine. Are you right? Am I in error? Are we saying the same thing, yet evangelizing from our own perspectives?
As to biblical exegesis, I am no expert. However, I think Christians and Jews can very easily throw the label of misinterpreting scripture at each other. Our points of view as to the Messiah and salvation are mutually exclusive.
Yoffie argued for a balanced approach to religion in public life and a religious discourse intended to educate and convince rather than exclude. —Religion should not be hidden from view,— he said. —But, no matter how profoundly religion influences you, when you make a public argument, you must ground your statements in reason and in a language of morality that is accessible to everyone—”to people of different religions or no religion at all.—
Agree (sort of): Depends what you mean by —you must ground your statements in reason…— God is not approachable by reason alone, but by faith. If you have scientifically proven God, I’d like to hear it. And, yes, not hiding religion, freedom to espouse and live your faith and convert others to it by information and argument, and the freedom to do so publicly is called preaching for conversion.
And the starting point for this discussion, he said, should be that —tolerance is an American value and a religious necessity; that religion is far too important to be entangled with government; that we need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else; and that we all need to put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world.—
Problem 5: You shouldn’t make your religion the religion of everyone else? But didn’t you just say that people should be converted? Isn’t that zealotry? Religion is far too important not to be entangled in politics or any other area of life. We are called to live the way God intends, not just in our house, car, synagogue, or church, but in every aspect of our life, public and private. In the last two paragraphs cited it would seem that you wish a clear demarcation of religion and public life. You undersell your faith. Morality, the Law, and its gift to mankind is of essence and in reality from God. Do not forget who formed you and knew you before all others.
To read the Rabbi’s entire sermon go here: http://urj.org/yoffie/biennialsermon05/
Now, I would like to frame all of this in terms of the Jewish community’s Dabru Emet statement of September 2000.
The Dabru Emet statement: Is a statement dealing with Jewish-Christian relations. The title was taken from Zechariah 8:16 and means “speak the truth.” It was signed by over 150 rabbis and Jewish scholars from the U.S., Canada, UK and Israel. It was published in the New York Times and Baltimore Sun during 2000-SEP.
Some of the points raised in the statement are:
Jews and Christians: Both worship the same God: i.e. Jehovah, as described in the Tanakh (a.k.a. the Jewish Scriptures or, called by many Christians, the Old Testament).
- Both seek authority from the Tanakh.
- Both accept the moral principles of Torah — e.g. the sanctity and dignity of each person.
- Both can respect each other’s faithfulness to the revelation that they received.
- Should not be “pressed into affirming the teaching of the other community.”
- Must work together to promote justice and peace in the world.
Seems to work for me…
Â