Raising the Bar

To further our discussion on pluralism… Initially, years ago, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards validated an opinion presented by a Law Committee member with only one or two votes in favor. Such a small endorsement did not make it a “policy” of the Movement, but rather an opinion based on which Rabbis could make their decisions for their own congregations. Since 1970, the number of votes needed to recognize an opinion has been raised until it reached the current number of 6. Again, I believe that is as it should be. There is a consensus with 6 even if it is not a majority. Still, all along, the membership of the Rabbinical Assembly wanted opinions to represent some sort of consensus.

The question of consensus, however, has been taken, in my opinion, to an unreasonable level in requiring 80% of the RA Law Committee to approve a paper as a recognized opinion. This to my mind, (and that of most of my colleagues at Mexico City) negates the concept of true pluralism by requiring an unreasonably high level of agreement in a Movement that prides itself on fostering disagreement “L’Shem Shamayim”, “For the Sake of Heaven.” Furthermore, this high bar of consensus has never been required before. This seems patently unfair, as well as unconstitutional vis-a-vis the R.A. rules of governance. The Constitution of the R.A. says that 6 votes gives a T’shuvah the status of recognized opinion. (Period)

Some, however, argue that this particular issue is of such weight that it has assumed the status of “Takanah”, an edict, so to speak. The concept of “Takanah” is troublesome for a couple of reasons. First, the label seems to necessitate a super-majority whereas a simple “T’shuvah” would not. Some would argue that this is more than mere semantics. They would say that we are dealing with an issue of greater weight than those that came before. In this labeling controversy I, like others who have posted, see a delaying tactic that keeps us from addressing the true issue of equal participation regardless of orientation. (See comment on previous post). Second, few, if any of the colleagues know the true status of a “Takanah”. Does it mean that I, as a Conservative Rabbi would be forced to abide by it? That, to my mind, is not true pluralism.

And so, because we have introduced the language of “Takanah”, the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards has another layer of complexity to deal with. Are they comfortable legislating practice for a Movement that prides itself on pluralism? I hope not. Although I personally want the decisions to ultimately grant equal rights and participation to all, I do not want the Law Committee expelling those who do not agree with their (or my) position. Beth El, more than most Conservative shuls, truly values diversity and pluralism. It is a point of pride with us. Now the definition of diversity and pluralism is being widened. I hope that ultimately it will lead to a bigger tent, filled with more caring and committed Jews.