Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Rabbi Gurevitz' creative works: Podcast, blogs, videos and more

Category: Reform (Page 1 of 2)

How do you read a survey about the Jews? Re-framing Pew

October 16, 2013 /

This piece is based on a sermon given at Congregation B’nai Shalom last Shabbat.

Last week the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life released their study on Jewish American life.  In the days since its release, I have read dozens of articles and blog pieces commenting on their results. I’ve even written one myself that got a lot of attention at myjewishlearning.com which I shared on our facebook page over the weekend.
Jewish professionals are poring over the details and offering their own spins on the data. But the rest of us are just getting on with living our lives; lives that incorporate and reflect our Jewish identities and values, and many other facets of our identities all at the same time.  Many Jewish professionals are hand-wringing and angst-dwelling. Most Jews are just doing what they were doing last week and the week before – living their lives.
So, perhaps it is useful to share some of the statistics that, while probably not surprising, are worth presenting, just so you know what all the fuss is all about.  Here are just a few of the stats that have been quoted in many reviews of the report – selectively citing these kinds of figures, without deeper analysis or framing, is why we are hearing a lot of angst this week about the results.
For example, 88% of those surveyed identified themselves as Jewish both in terms of religious and cultural identity. But 22% identified themselves as culturally or ethnically Jewish, but not religiously identified that way.  And when you break down the numbers by age, 32% of those born after 1980 identify as Jewish but with no religion. Whereas 90% of those who identify their religion as Jewish are raising their children as Jews, 2/3rds of those who identify as Jews of no religion are notraising their children with any kind of Jewish identity, religious or cultural. The rate of intermarriage has risen, and this is more prevalent (considerably more so) among Jews of no religion.
In terms of Jewish denomination, we do see Reform being the largest group in the US, but the Reform numbers reported in the survey are enlarged by those who don’t belong to any kind of community but use the label ‘Reform’ to identify themselves.  Looking at those who have switched denomination during their lifetimes, the Reform movement has also been the largest recipient of those who grew up Conservative and even Orthodox.  However, we also see many figures that demonstrate that Reform Jews are less Jewishly engaged than those who identify as Conservative or Orthodox on a wide range of measures. At this point in time, only about 1/3rd of Jews who identify as Reform belong to Reform synagogues (stats from other studies in the recent past suggest that, over their lifetime, as many as 70 or 80% might below to a synagogue for a while). Reform Jews are more likely to have non-Jewish friends and spend less time in Jewish communal activities.
There are a ton more detailed stats available in this extensive report, and I highly recommend going to the Pew Forum website to review the information for yourself. Tonight I don’t want to overload you with figures. Instead I want to suggest a framing for the data that we can all read if we choose to.
In my earlier blog article I highlighted two key ideas that must be held in mind whenever we look at statistics. For those who don’t know, my PhD was in sociology with a specialist focus in research methods, so I know one or two things about this subject. The first is that correlation and causation are not the same thing. I had a phone call from a gentleman in Worcester the day that the survey came out. I thought it might be a journalist looking for a rabbi’s response, but it turned out to be a concerned citizen who wanted to express his concern for the damage that interfaith marriage was doing to the Jewish community.  Here’s the thing. It is one thing to note that individuals who hold certain kinds of views, and who believe certain kinds of things are more likely to marry a non-Jew. That’s a correlation and the stats bear that out. But it is quite another thing to state that interfaith marriage causes someone to be less engaged with the Jewish community. Ask about 35% of our congregation if that is true. Their own lives, choices, and families who we are blessed to count among our active, dedicated Jewish community will tell a different story. What is absolutely wonderful is how many interfaith couples are choosing to raise Jewish children – many more than earlier surveys and assumptions would have predicted.  We change the reality every day by the choices we make and the way we, as a community, respond.
Likewise, it is not choosing to identify as Reform that makes one less involved in Jewish learning, activity, and community. There are many of us – many of you here – who believe in and care about Jewish community and Jewish traditions, and they enrich your lives and you enrich your Jewish community. But there are also many Jews who claim the label ‘Reform’ as code for their relative lack of engagement in Jewish life and practice. How should we regard this information? We could moan about the challenge of creating an intensely connected community when a substantial group who choose to travel with us for some period of time seem to be comfortable remaining on the periphery. Or we could recognize the incredible blessing of the open tent, inclusive nature of a Reform congregation that makes it easier for more people to step through the door, feel welcomed, and the opportunity we have each time one more family does so to share what is beautiful and meaningful about Jewish spiritual life with them.  We might celebrate the fact that we have a ‘brand’ that is appealing and inclusive enough that so many people feel comfortable claiming it as part of their identity! Of course we don’t find those Jews in Orthodox communities – they’ve already been excluded, or assumed they would be excluded and, often, written off.
The other thing that I highlighted in my earlier blog piece was the information shared by the Pew researchers that noted that the patterns of religious and non-religious identity, affiliation and non-affiliation, very closely aligned with research conducted last year about American society in general. In other words, the younger generation in the USA are likely to answer ‘none’ to the question of what religion they identify with in about the same proportions as Jews of the same age are likely to identify as being of no religion. And what that phrase actually means is incredibly complex and multi-faceted – the statistics won’t enlighten us as to that meaning – that requires a different kind of inquiry and conversation.
  
So what are we to make of all of these statistics? Are we to be concerned that, based on these figures and projected trajectories, we are likely to be a less religiously identified and organizationally participating Jewish community in the coming years (thinking here only about current manifestations of Jewish organization; who knows what new entities will be created in coming years)? Well, there may be a reality to that which will see change in the number and nature of the Jewish institutions our community supports. But, whether that is true or not, what do these results really mean, and what should we, if anything, be doing, in response to them?
Here’s where the frame comes in.  First of all, the report concluded that there were a much larger number of Jewish in the USA than previous studies. Perhaps 1 million or more extra. One of the reasons for this is because the study allowed people answering the survey to self-define andself-identify their Jewishness. What this means is that a large number of those who called themselves Jews of no religion would most likely, in previous decades, not have been counted at all. Our own children, if you ask them, will tell you that they have school friends who identify as ‘half Jewish’ because they have one Jewish parent. Perhaps they go to family for a Passover meal. Maybe they light a menorah. Maybe they do absolutely nothing of a religious nature at all. Yet they are aware of their family background and choose to claim the part that is Jewish as their own. Think back to your childhoods – who would have, if they didn’t have to, choose to identify themselves with the Jewish people?  It wasn’t cool to be Jewish. Now it is. That’s as clear a sign as any that we’ve made it in American society. Yes, assimilation is also a fact of life when we’ve been so entirely absorbed and integrated into a host society (in a matter of 3 or 4 generations). But Jewish is now something that doesn’t only live in the private home or the synagogue – it lives everywhere. That is wonderful, and there is incredible opportunity in this if we take the time to understand what it means and respond to it.
So yes, that makes life for institutions like synagogues a bit more complicated. While there are still plenty of people who understand the way a congregation can provide a structure and vessel for their Jewish expression and experience, for those who don’t identify as of the Jewish religion, the synagogue, as usually conceived, doesn’t appear to have much to offer them as a vehicle for their Jewishness. So they go to film festivals, watch Jon Stewart, and take note of Jewish stories that come across their face book feed, but we don’t reach these Jews because we’re not hanging out in the same part of the cultural landscape that they are.  There’s a lot of debate as to whether synagogues need to reinvent themselves or stretch themselves to start showing up in different kinds of places and in different kinds of ways. Or whether we accept that a smaller % of Jews in America will continue to connect with synagogues, and we should let other projects and organizations specialize in working in those other spaces.
As you probably know, I’m more of a hybrid kind of gal. I believe in the mission and purpose of synagogue life, but I also believe in porous borders, in being a hub but providing enriching Jewish opportunities in the greater community, and shifting the overall balance and emphasis of what we do together as a congregational community so as to speak to the full diversity of Jewish families in our midst.  We’re only just beginning, but we’re already making changes in this direction at Congregation B’nai Shalom.  
There is so much more to be said about the rich data available from the Pew research. But a sermon slot doesn’t permit that kind of depth in one, short presentation. But I want to come back to the framing of the information we are absorbing. Just as we can understand the expansion of those who choose ‘Jewish’ as any part of their identification label as positive, even while it is challenging us, so we can choose how we label the shifting patterns of Jewish life that we see unfolding in the data. If we label some of the findings as ‘problems’ there is a suggestion that these are things to be solved. I don’t know about you, but I personally am inclined to tune out if someone labels me just living my life as ‘a problem.’ When ‘official’ voices of the Jewish community say this about others who proudly identity as Jews, whatever that means to them, they risk simply making the organizations that they represent irrelevant to the very people that they seek to change.
I also don’t believe that we Jews, and our structures, organizations, and synagogues, that engage about 1/3rd of the 2% of the US population that is Jewish, have the power to change the tide of cultural shifts that shape 100% of American society, of which we are such a tiny component.  I believe our job is to know what those changing tides are, to do our best to understand them, to ask ourselves whether we have the ability to respond to them by changing what we do or how we do it. Sometimes the answer will be ‘yes’. Sometimes the answer will be ‘no’ and new organizations and ideas will surface from new places that meet needs that older institutions are unable to meet. That’s just the way it is.

What we can do, if we believe in the purpose and meaning of a rich and full congregational life, is do all we can to sustain and enliven it with our own selves. Through our investment of time and resources, through our commitment to creating an environment where we passionately share our love of Jewish life with our children, where we teach them how to make space for Jewish living in a world with so many competing demands, where we recognize that weare the carriers of ancient culture ever evolving in which we seek and find meaning, spirituality, social justice, and love for one another… These and more are the ways that we, if we care about these facts and figures, and want to do our part to make Jewish life in America vibrant, will continue to make it so by our own choices and our own deeds. It’s not about the Rabbis. It’s not about the synagogues. It’s not about the Federations. It’s not about the Jewish film festivals. These are the vessels – the places and the networks. But it’s about you, and you, and you, and me. Each of us doing Jewish and being Jewish in all of its multifaceted forms. Doing and being together. And it is rich, it is varied, and it is exciting.  So lets stop angsting and just get doing.

Who Speaks for Judaism?

November 29, 2012 /


Cross-posted from the Rabbis Without Borders blog at myjewishlearning.com

As an ex-pat British Jew, living and working in the USA, I’ve been following the press coverage on the search for a new Chief Rabbi in the UK with interest. The Times of Israel just recently published an update on what is becoming quite a lengthy and arduous search, raising a number of poignant issues in its coverage. Its been nearly two years since Rabbi Jonathan Sacks announced that he would be stepping down from the position come September 2013. British commentators have noted that the Anglican Church managed to appoint a new Archbishop of Canterbury in a mere 8 months.

For those less familiar with the British religious landscape, that comparison was not just plucked out of the air. Rabbi Herman Adler became the first, self-designated ‘Chief Rabbi’ from 1891-1911, and promoted this role as the Jewish equivalent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. With a much more centrist Orthodox rabbinate, the fledgling progressive communities were content with this singular spokesperson for the UK Jewish community for quite some time.

However, the official title is actually ‘Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth,’ and the preciseness of this label has become more pertinent over time. The United Synagogue, as it is often referred to, is the umbrella organization for modern Orthodox communities only. As the rabbinic authorities in the UK – the Dayanim – (judges that sit on the Beth Din – the Jewish Court) have played an influential role in moving the mainstream Orthodox United Synagogue further and further to the right (in part, no doubt, responding to pressures felt from their counterparts in Israel), and as the Progressive movements have grown in number and strength over the decades, it has become virtually impossible to conceive of one person who can represent and speak on behalf of the British Jewish community. Here, the parallel with the Archbishop of Canterbury breaks down. The archbishop only speaks for the Anglican Church. The fact that this is still somewhat of an influential voice in British culture is not because he speaks for any of the other Christian denominations to be found in the UK, but because of the UK’s own political history, by which the Anglican Church is the official State religion of the country.

And, in fact, there has been an official spokesperson for the Sephardi Jewish community, the Reform and the Liberal Movements of the UK for quite some time. Over the past 20 years or so, the British government has become much more attuned to this plurality of voices and representatives, ensuring that they are all invited to the appropriate State events.

Even before the current dilemma on who to appoint as the next Chief Rabbi came into being, I’ve found my American counterparts to be quite amused by the whole system in the UK. Here, the land of rugged individualism and autonomy, the thought that one would even attempt to find one spokesperson for the Jewish community is seen as laughable. Aside from the enormous diversity of Jewish expression to be found here that is movement-based, there is also a great deal of independence within each and every community.

In today’s cultural milieu, more than ever, when a congregation finds that its’ members values and practices are at odds with the official positions of the movement to which they affiliate, we are seeing more of them choose to go independent. While something is lost from being part of a larger collective, most intently felt when the movement brings people together from across the country or speaks up in the public sphere in a way that makes us proud, there is a growing feeling that communities are willing to let go of those larger affiliations if they perceive the restrictions laid upon them to be too great. Likewise, while rabbis still have great capacity to teach and guide a community, if they are perceived as being too out-of-step with the community, they are likely to find themselves looking for new work.

In truth, these are not new phenomena. This was very much the way of things for many Jewish communities across the world, prior to the communication and travel technologies that enabled geographically spread and diverse congregations to find each other and gather under the banner of a common label. But let us not be fooled – the desire to do so was in the fulfillment of larger communal needs as Jews sought full emancipation and inclusion in the larger societies of which they were a part. They provided a means to gather with other like-minded communities as we found ourselves responding to modernity and figuring out how to keep our religious traditions and practices relevant and meaningful within this new world.

Those needs still exist. And I am certainly making no early pronouncement that our movements no longer fulfill those needs. But what is clear, in the age of social networking and crowd-sourcing, is that they no longer remain the only way for separate communities to explore those questions together. Organizations like Darim Online, and CLAL (National Center for Learning and Leadership) – the creators of the Rabbis Without Borders fellowship program – demonstrate that speaking across and beyond denominational and movement-based lines can enable all of us to move forward in the ways we create and run spiritually purposeful Jewish communities today.

And we, the Jewish people, continue to do what, in fact, we have always done – we speak for Judaism whenever we engage, act, celebrate, and live our lives through a Jewish lens.

Reform Women Rabbis Being Heard

June 29, 2012 /

In the midst of much activity in Israel in the ongoing push to ensure that women are not silenced or made invisible in newspaper media or public advertising, the celebration of a Reform woman rabbi winning a Supreme Court case to receive public funding, and the ongoing travails of the Women of the Wall seeking the right to pray in peace at the Kotel – the Western Wall in Jerusalem – there is much to write about these days about women and Judaism.  And there is plenty to say about female leadership in Jewish community, both lay and professional.

Rabbi Sally Priesand
Launched less than a month ago, Kol Isha: Reform Women Rabbis Speak Out, is a new blog that provides a new vehicle for Women Rabbis to reflect on their own experiences as female clergy, and reflect on these larger issues that affect women’s’ experience in the wider Jewish world.
Kol Isha is Hebrew for ‘Voice of a Woman’.  It is a contested concept intraditional Jewish law, whereby a man cannot hear the voice of a woman, but even in traditional circles there is much debate as to the specific times and contexts to which this precept applies. Is it at all times, just in prayer, only for certain categories of prayer, or just when singing, for example. Among progressive Jews, equality of genders has overridden this precept, as it has in many contemporary societies.
Why just Reform Women Rabbis? The blog was launched as a project of the Women’s Rabbinic Network – an auxiliary of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the official body representing Reform Rabbis in the USA.
The first blog was posted on June 3rd – the precise date of the ordination of the first woman Rabbi in the USA, Sally Priesand.  Sally guest posted the first blog.  There are about 30 women Rabbis now providing daily postings, many of whom are blogging for the first time.  Just as with this blog, we Rabbis who blog have found that this medium provides an effective way of getting beyond the borders of our own local communities, sharing our voices and reflections on Jewish wisdom, culture, spirituality, and life with an audience that is literally global.  I know from the stats on this blog, that I have readers from South Africa, Israel, Russia, Argentina, Great Britain, Spain, as well as from all over the USA.  I also know from comments and private email correspondence that I have both Jewish and non-Jewish readers.  I’ve met people who have attended programs that I’ve run in the community who have told me that they came to their first Jewish event with me after many years of no explicit Jewish connection, after having read my blog for several months.  And I’ve had individuals reach out to me with pastoral needs online, in response to something that I wrote that they found on my blog.
So, what are our women Rabbis writing about?  Well, go and take a look for yourself.  But among the topics covered in these past couple of weeks, there are reflections on body image, relating to our teenage girls, balancing work and family life, pregnancy and miscarriage, supporting a sick child, leaving congregational positions, being a chaplain to the prison population, and several reflections on 40 years of women in the Rabbinate.
While most women who are Rabbis will tell you that, in the work they do in their communities, they are ‘Rabbis’ and not ‘Women Rabbis’, there is no question that women have transformed the face of the rabbinate in more than just its appearance.  Just looking at the topics above, this is clear.  In being true to the essence of who we are, we cannot leave any one piece of our identities behind, and our gender informs how we live in this world, what we see and experience, and how we relate to others.
Forty years on, we celebrate the place of women in the Rabbinate, we reflect on the journey and where we still hope to go, and we share our experiences and insights.

Lessons from the Susan B Komen Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and recent events surrounding Contraceptive Coverage

February 14, 2012 /

I delivered the following sermon last Shabbat at Congregation B’nai Israel, Bridgeport, CT.  It contains two recent statements, one made by the Women’s Rabbinic Network of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) and one by an alliance of 28 mainstream religious organizations, regarding recent events that relate to women and access to birth control.  Some congregants requested the ability to read through the statements again, and so the entire sermon is posted here for the benefit of all who may to wish read more.

There are many different lessons that could be drawn from recent events of the past two weeks that pertain to women’s health issues. First, the decision by the Susan B Komen Foundation to de-fund breast cancer prevention services from Planned Parenthood, and then the reversal of that decision. And then, this week, the White House response to Catholic authorities protesting a health care coverage provision that required coverage to cover birth control. As you may have heard this morning, the White House did respond to these protests with a compromise that will now require the insurer — rather than the employer — to provide the contraceptive coverage free of charge for women employed by the entities in question. The Catholic church is still not happy, but Women’s advocacy groups are generally pleased because this will still give most women access to birth control coverage. Our own Religious Action Center also released a statement in support.

Many of us are shaking our heads, wondering why we are still fighting these battles. In the case of the Susan B Komen Foundation, a terrible manipulation appears to have taken place. We may never know how broadly intentional the attack on Planned Parenthood was by the board as a whole or whether the reputation of this organization – an organization that was presented with a prestigious award at our URJ Biennial – was truly jeopardized by one individual. There are many voices of indignation calling for mass resignations, such is the strength of the anger felt by women on what transpired. Personally, I have sympathy with the strength of these feelings but, pragmatically, I wonder whether the public ultimately wields more influence over the foundation by focusing on keeping their actions in check rather than demanding a radical turnover of the organization.

The Women’s Rabbinic Network of the CCAR released the following statement last week in response to the Foundation’s actions:
On behalf of over 600 Reform women rabbis, the Women’s Rabbinic Network expresses gratitude to Planned Parenthood for the vital services it provides women, from mammograms and cervical cancer screenings, to family planning and contraceptive services, to safe abortions. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only health care provider available to them. The Women’s Rabbinic Network has always been a strong supporter of women’s rights, reproductive justice, and women’s health. The WRN applauds the decision of the Susan G. Komen Foundation for reversing revocation of its funding of Planned Parenthood. We are proud to be a part of the Union for Reform Judaism which presented Ambassador Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, with the hightest honor bestowed by the Reform Movement, the Maurice N. Eisendrath Bearer of Light Award for Service to the World Community, in December 2011. We hope the Komen Foundation will continue to support women’s health and all organizations that provide women’s health services for many years to come.

As you can see, the tone is more affirming of the good behavior and affirming of our support of the good and important work that Planned Parenthood does, rather than emphasizing the bad behavior. Similarly, a statement signed by 28 major mainstream religious leaders representing a broad variety of religious organizations was released this week in support of the White House announcement on Contraceptive coverage in health care reform. This statement also emphasized and reinforced the good rather than negatively critiquing the behaviors of others.

Together, the leaders of these Christian, Jewish and Muslim national organizations affirmed:
“We stand with President Obama and Secretary Sebelius in their decision to reaffirm the importance of contraceptive services as essential preventive care for women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and to assure access under the law to American women, regardless of religious affiliation. We respect individuals’ moral agency to make decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health without governmental interference or legal restrictions.

We do not believe that specific religious doctrine belongs in health care reform – as we value our nation’s commitment to church-state separation. We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services. The Administration was correct in requiring institutions that do not have purely sectarian goals to offer comprehensive preventive health care. Our leaders have the responsibility to safeguard individual religious liberty and to help improve the health of women, their children, and families. Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals’ conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception.”

The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule “an attack on religious freedom” and argue that all employers who object to contraception — not just faith-based organizations — should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.

“That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether,” said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB, “not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers.” He added, “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate.” Of course, his Taco Bell example makes the case for why the contraceptive coverage in health care reform is so important – can you imagine a situation where individual women can or cannot get coverage for contraception based on the religious beliefs of their boss at work?

Supporters of the provision say the only conscience that matters ought to be the conscience of the woman in question, whose option to have affordable contraception should not be dictated by the religious beliefs of her employer. Some of them feel that the religious exemption is already too broad, because women who work for churches in any capacity are excluded from the option of coverage.

I should point out that the statement that I just read from Religious organizations in favor of the contraceptive coverage include Catholics for Choice. Even within the Catholic church, the bishops are at odds with the majority of their followers. Recent surveys suggest that over 50% of practicing Catholics support access to contraceptive coverage. The Jewish signatories of the statement included the CCAR, Hadassah, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, National Council for Jewish Women, the Rabbinical Assembly, Society for Humanistic Judaism, and Women of Reform Judaism.

The essence of these issues is, I think, quite rightly expressed by the cross-communal statement. Individuals should and do have the moral agency to make decisions about their reproductive health. Someone whose religious beliefs lead them to decline some of these services has the right to do so. What they don’t have the right to do is to remove access to these services from someone who may believe very differently to them. Religious doctrine does not belong in health care reform. However, I also understand (even if I disagree with their beliefs) that some people of faith feel so strongly about these issues that they are truly concerned about being coerced by government into enabling access to contraceptive care. It would appear that the White House has truly responded thoughtfully, carefully, and compassionately in trying to respond to those concerns without compromising the health and rights of individual women. It is an example to us of what is possible when we are willing to talk in tones of grey, rather than black and white; when we are able to see multiple sides of an issue and not just demonize those who don’t think like us. While there are still too many voices that like to shout in polarizing tones, I applaud those religious organizations that have come together to make a strong and clear statement on behalf of all of us who speak more softly, and I applaud the White House for the balance they have sought and found.

Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Glenn Beck’s Apology and the perils of too much air-time

February 24, 2011 /

Yes, Glenn Beck apologized for his comparison of Reform Judaism and Radical Islam.  He admits that it was a ludicrous analogy.  He apologizes for the offence caused.  He doesn’t revisit the deeper issues that I raised in my blog response, of how religious values and religious life must, in my opinion, respond to the same societal issues that the legislature also deals with to be a full expression of living a life of faith.  That doesn’t mean that religious values can answer the question of whether a particular piece of legislation is well-written, but they can guide us to consider whether we should address a particular need in society, and then advocate for the legislators to find a way to do that.  They should not dictate what happens in civil society, but they have a place at the table.
Listen to Beck’s apology and make up your own mind.  I think I was most struck by his recognition that being on air for 4 hours every day without a script was ‘a recipe for disaster’.  Glenn – I think that’s the most sensible thing I’ve heard you say!

Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

‘Reform Judaism like Radicalized Islam’ – Why Beck got it so very wrong

February 22, 2011 /

Those who have read this blog before know that its not my usual mode to add my commentary to the wonderful world of political punditry.  While my congregants can probably guess what TV channels I mostly tune in to for my daily dose of news (ok, I’ll confess – its usually BBC World because how else am I going to get a daily dose to try and preserve my ever-diminishing British accent!), I don’t use (or rather, abuse) my pulpit in ways that make it a soapbox for my personal, political views.  That’s not what a place of worship is for.

But…. when I listened to the excerpt from Glenn Beck’s radio show posted on salon.com  that is rapidly being re-tweeted all over Twittersville as I type, I decided that this one was blog-worthy.  Why? Because the accusation that Rabbis can speak of nothing that politicians vote on without being accused of being ‘political’ and not truly ‘religious’ is such utter ridiculousness that it cannot be left to stand.

Now, the tweet making its away up the charts is eye-catching (that’s why I used it in my blog heading today) but somewhat misleading.  If you listen to the full context of the quote from the radio show, Beck explicitly says that he is not making the likeness between Reform Judaism and Radicalized Islam on the basis of fundamentalist or violent behaviors.  Rather, he is saying that neither of them are expressions of Religious faith as much as they are politically motivated movements.

What Judaism and Islam both have in common as faith traditions is that their codes of law and practices were never confined to ritual practice and belief.  Both were conceived of, in their origins, as entire social systems.  Jewish law from the earliest centuries speak of the obligations of a community providing a particular minimum of teacher/student ratio in the classroom.  It speaks of the obligation of a communal pot to ensure that doctors are paid for their medical services even when an individual cannot themselves afford the medical care they need to keep them alive.  It speaks of ethical business practices, ethical ways of collecting charitable funds, and how to figure out ways of distributing those funds when the community’s need is greater than the contents of the fund.

While, as American Jews, we live in a country where there is a constitutional separation of church and State, Judaism as a faith tradition was not originally conceived with such a separation as part of the cultural context in which it operated.  This means that when Jews talk about practicing Judaism, they might be talking about their Sabbath observance or their Passover Seder, but they might just as equally be talking about their social activism on behalf of the needy.

They might be talking about why they, as individuals, feel called to lobby their political representatives to preserve a woman’s civil legal right to an abortion because those who wish to take away that right would actually be preventing Jews from dealing with these women’s health issues in ways that are congruent with Jewish law.  Jewish law is absolutely explicit – if an unborn child threatens the health of a woman, the woman’s well-being always takes precedence.  Reform Rabbis who advocate on this issue don’t wish to prevent someone else acting on the basis of their faith in a different way; but they do object to a different religious understanding of this issue impinging on our rights as American citizens.

They might be talking about environmental policies because Jewish ethical teachings about environmental conservation go back to Genesis, and the rabbinic extension of Bal Taschit – do not waste – has modern day, practical applications that lead us to encourage our government to take steps to help our society better take care of our precious earth.

And so, yes, Reform Rabbis like myself are among those who will speak out on issues such as these because our Religious tradition has wisdom to share that guides our values and lives today.

For someone as deeply uninformed about most things as Beck to claim to know what Reform Judaism is and what it stands for, and on what basis Reform Jews engage with matters of social policy, is simply ridiculous.  But more than that; when he brings up the notion that people of faith have nothing to offer on any issue that is ever dealt with by the legislature and that doing so nullifies their claim to be ‘religious’, he is perpetuating a fallacy about the role of religiously-informed values that guide the lives of individuals.

Jewish Religious living and Jewish values that do not address what it means to live together as a community and as a nation, what it means to take care of each other, what it means to preserve civil freedoms, what it means to challenge those who whip up fear and hatred among neighbors, is no Judaism that I care to associate with.  If Judaism is reduced to the performance of ritual and the recitation of rites alone and is not also about how we live our lives as human beings, with each other, as best as we possibly can, then it is a Judaism without heart or soul.  That’s not Reform or Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist or Renewal… that’s just Judaism.
Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Haiti: A message from the International Medical Corps

April 15, 2010 /

A friend posted this youtube from the International Medical Corps on facebook.  I hope you will be moved by it – seeing the incredible work that they have been doing in Haiti.  The Union for Reform Judaism provided a very substantial grant to help them in their work, out of the over $1.2 million that was raised by them for Haiti Disaster Relief.  This video was their way of saying ‘thank you.’  And to International Medical Corp, we say ‘thank you’ for being our hands, turning our financial aid into real, life-saving medical aid to the people of Haiti.


Who is a Jew? Urgent call to action on the Rotem Bill

March 12, 2010 /
An important request for action from ARZA President,
Rabbi Bob Orkand
 

 
We have learned that the Knesset may vote as soon as Tuesday on legislation that would make important changes to the Law of Return, which sets forth who can claim Israeli citizenship.  This particular legislation would target converts to Judaism.
 
The various arms of our Movement are asking that urgent messages of protest be sent to Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, and to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
 
We cannot permit the ultra-Orthodox parties in Israel to push through legislation without regard to the millions of Diaspora Jews who are active, dedicated and devoted members of the Jewish people who identify themselves with non-Orthodox streams of Judaism.
 
The bill sponsored by MK David Rotem of Yisrael Beitenu, deals with both the authority of the Chief Rabbinate and matters of Conversion. The Rotem Bill does three things:
 
1.     It grants legal authority to the Chief Rabbinate for conversions. While until now there has been de facto recognition, this legislation gives legal recognition to the role of the Chief Rabbinate in this area. The result would be that it would become much more difficult for conversions to be performed by Reform, Conservative and more open-minded Orthodox rabbis.
 
2.     It provides for the ability of local rabbis in Israel to establish conversion courts. This is a part of the bill of which we can support because it will potentially permit the establishment of more forward looking conversion courts. However, if the first part of the bill passes, the Chief Rabbinate may declare these courts null and void, which would obviate any reason for our support.
 
3.     Section 3 of this bill is the most highly problematic. This section states that anyone that who entered Israel as a non-Jew and then converted to Judaism–either in Israel or the Diaspora–would not be eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return. This is precisely the case that is now before the Supreme Court, which asks that conversions in Israel by non-Orthodox rabbis be recognized and that citizenship rights be granted to our converts. This is an attempt to go around the Supreme Court. Further, the wording is so vague that it could mean that if such a person had visited Israel at any time, no matter when, that person’s conversion would not be recognized for citizenship in the future. Thirdly this would be the first time that Israel is officially making a distinction between one who is born a Jew and a righteous convert, something that we find insulting.
 
4.       In the last 48 hours, there have been negotiations between MK David Rotem, the sponsor of this legislation, and the ultra-Orthodox parties. The Israeli media reports that these negotiations might lead to adding provisions which would block Reform and Conservative conversions in Israel. In response, Reform Movement leaders around the world are in contact with Israeli government officials in an effort to block this legislation.
 
THEREFORE, ARZA URGES THAT THE FOLLOWING LETTER OR ITS EQUIVALENT BE SENT TO AMBASSADOR OREN AND PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU
 
The Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
Office of the Prime Minister
Jerusalem, Israel
 
Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,
 
We write to request your immediate intervention to prevent passage of the legislation being brought forward by MK David Rotem.
 
Passage of this bill in its present form, especially section 3, will have the effect of altering the Law of Return or, at the least, cause undue hardship to anyone in Israel who has come from Diaspora communities and seeks conversion in Israel.
 
While the Reform movement is supportive of efforts to create greater accessibility to conversion courts in Israel and have done all we can to aid in this effort, the overall impact of the Rotem Bill will set back these efforts. Should this bill be enacted, it will exacerbate a widening gap between Diaspora and Israel communities, which we are all working very hard to avoid. 
 
Therefore, we believe it is imperative that you, Israel’s leader, who cares so deeply about the well-being of our people, intervene and urge withdrawal of this bill. 
 
The email for Prime Minister Netanyahu is:
 
For Ambassador Oren’s office:
 
The Following was Sent as a Press Release from the Reform Movement
Reform Jewish Movement Calls on Knesset to Reject Conversion Legislation
For 2,000 years, Judaism has treated Jews-by-choice the same as Jews-by-birth.  We are taught “as soon as a convert emerges from the mikvah (ritual bath) she or he is Jewish for all purposes.”  (Talmud, Yevamot 47b)
For 62 years, since its founding, the State of Israel, through the “law of return,” has welcomed Jews from around the world as citizens in the world’s only Jewish state.
Today, legislation before the Knesset – a bill sponsored by MK David Rotem of Yisrael Beitenu that addresses both the authority of the Chief Rabbinate and matters of Conversion – threatens both of those sacred principles.
This legislation will certainly reopen one of the most divisive battles in the Jewish community. The proposed legislation will lead to a situation in which Jews–by-Choice would be treated differently and denied recognition as Jews under the Law of Return, in direct contradiction of Israeli Supreme Court rulings.  Additionally, it will lead to the delegitimization of non-orthodox conversions performed outside of the State of Israel. 
Our concern is neither partisan nor denominational, but emanates from true love of Medinat Yisrael and Klal Yisrael (the State and people of Israel).  With the unity of the Jewish People foremost in our thoughts and prayers, we urge the Government and the Knesset to affirm core principles of that unity when enacting any legislation.  We call upon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to withstand the pressures of a small segment of the political spectrum and to do what is best for all the Jewish people everywhere.
The Reform Movement calls upon the State of Israel to treat all religious streams of Judaism fairly and equally, a cause that is far from realization.  We call upon the Knesset to reject this partisan attack on the majority of American Jews. Finally, we call upon the Israeli people to join with us in an effort to help Israel live up to its promise as a Jewish and democratic State.

The power of inclusion & exclusion: in solidarity with Women of the Wall

December 25, 2009 /

Part of a solidarity blog series for Women of the Wall.  Each piece is written by a member of the Rosh Hodesh group of Congregation B’nai Israel.  Tonight’s blog is by Heidi Gassel.

My first memories of Templeare sitting high in a balcony with other children and women during Purim. I remember being sad that I couldn’t be with my daddy who was sitting below with all of the other men. I looked at my bright polka dotted grogger but it just wasn’t fun. Even though I was just three years old, I still remember crying “Dada” and my mother comforting me. My father died unexpectedly of pneumonia just five months later.
My mother continued to bring all four of us to the orthodox synagogue. She made sure that her three daughters and son were involved in the Orthodox Synagogue and part of the community. She encouraged my then teenaged sisters to be active in the youth group and they ran for office. My sisters ran for Treasurer and Secretary and won. Even though they were active in their jobs, they still had to sit up away from the men. I continued to ask why we were not allowed to sit on the main floor. I remember feeling left out and not as important as the men.
One night, after a youth group meeting my mother noticed that some teenaged boys from New Havenwere about to head home during a giant snowstorm. We lived near Mystic, CT and this is not a short ride especially for an inexperienced driver. My mother insisted that the boys stay with us where they could be safe – she probably saved their lives. The boys had guitars, sat by the fire and had a sing a-long with all of us. I was only four but I remember feeling very spiritual about the jewish melodies they sang.
The boys slept downstairs, the girls slept upstairs; it was very innocent. The snow was cleared by the morning and the boys got home safe and sound. Shortly after, my mother got a call from the Synagogue. She was called a brazen hussy, she was told she was no longer welcomed in the orthodox synagogue and that her daughters were no longer elected officials for the youth group. My sisters were devastated.
I didn’t know about this until some years later when my sister Michele, alav hashalom (may she rest in peace), was on her death bed. She told me the entire story, from her perspective. We had just had an argument about organized religion. I then realized that the day the orthodox community denounced her and our family, was the very day that she no longer wanted to practice Judaism. That was the day the jewish community lost my sister. Two very strong, smart and spiritual jewish people were lost due to such sexist standards and that’s really a shame.
My siblings are much older than I am. My mother joined a Conservative temple. I was happy sitting with everyone else. A year later, a reformed temple opened up in Groton. It was at the Reform temple that I felt connected for the very first time. The Rabbi was young and funny. I remember waiting for each of his sermons…I remember sitting on the edge of my seat and then falling off in laughter as he performed puppet shows. His sermons challenged me, provoking thought…I was only six or seven years old! The cantor played guitar, it was wonderful.
We stayed with this Templetill I was 12. We were very poor in a rather wealthy community. I found acceptance from the Rabbi. One day he announced that he was moving away. I remember crying. One day, shortly after he had gone I was attending hebrew school. My teacher was female and a mother of one of the other children. She made a callous comment about my clothing and snickered at the fact that I wore the same clothing last week. We didn’t have money for a big wardrobe and it was bad enough that I got these comments at public school but to receive it from a grown woman from our congregation…was humiliating.
I told my mother I wasn’t going back. And I didn’t. I was not to be Bat Mitzvah-ed. I would not be wearing the tallit. I remember seeing my brother’s Tallit and Tefillin when he was Bar Mitzvah-ed in the conservative temple. The Tallit was passed down to him. It was my understanding that I would not get to wear a Tallit in the conservative temple; my brother told me how special the tefillin was and told me not to touch it.
When I was 18, I moved to Chicago on my own. I did not know a soul there. I was lonely and yet one Friday night I walked into a synagogue. I didn’t know anything about the synagogue but I just walked in. And, I was home. The music was universal…it didn’t matter what sex I was…it didn’t matter what denomination it was. I was home when I was there. I would go from synagogue to synagogue. And I always felt like I was home when I heard the music.
I met my soulmate a few months after moving to Chicago. One day I was talking to his niece. She told me of her Rabbi and how he inspired her. She told me he was funny and thought provoking all at once. As I was about to tell her that he sounded like my childhood Rabbi the words “Rabbi Knobel” flowed out of both of our mouths simultaneously! Over a thousand miles away, and there he was…my childhood rabbi!
I went back to hebrew school and started to learn again. Unfortunately I had just joined a touring post alternative band and wasn’t able to continue. I do plan on going back someday. I do want to read Torah and I do want to wear the Tallit. I feel fortunate to be in a day and age when I will have the opportunity to wear a Tallit and that our daughter will be able to as well. I have seen many beautiful tallitot and admire the art.

Rabbi Peter Knobel and Cantor Jeff Klepper,1983 

In 1997, Rabbi Knobel married us and Cantor Klepper played melodic guitar at our wedding. It was the same music I remembered from childhood. My very favorite memory of our wedding is when the Rabbi wrapped the tallit around me and my bashert. We were soul-mates, foreheads touching, wrapped in beautiful judaic culture, wrapped in history, wrapped in a tallit I felt safe and at one with my bashert. It is a beautiful memory.
It wasn’t until we had our daughter that I realized some things about being a Jewish girl in 1960’s America. We had a really nice naming for Madison Michele who is named after my late sister. But I found out that in the 50’s and 60’s when my sisters and I were born, just my father went to the synagogue to name us. It’s kind of sad to think of the birth of a daughter as being less significant than the birth of a son. I’m happy to be a part of a community where I can sit where I want, wear what I want, and to be a mother who can tell her children that we all have these opportunities. Our daughter and son can sit with us and wear what they want and enjoy the sermons and music of a male Rabbi, a female Rabbi and a female Cantor.

To be Holy in the sight of God: In solidarity with Women of the Wall

December 22, 2009 /

Part of a solidarity blog series for Women of the Wall.  Each piece is written by a member of the Rosh Hodesh group of Congregation B’nai Israel.  Tonight’s blog is written by Marjorie Freeman, who grew up in a Reform congregation.


As a school girl, I attended – participated in – services every Saturday morning.  All the adult women wore hats, the men were bare-headed, in order to show respect.  I studied Jewish history, the holidays, ethical teachings, and the bible – with more intensity each year.


In my senior year of High School, our class read key portions of the Torah each week, coming together ready to present our own view of the meanings.  After heated discussions, our teacher present the ‘official’ Reform interpretation, which we sometimes respectfully disagreed with.  But isn’t that the Jewish way?


At the end of the year, four of us, two girls and two boys, were chosen to give ‘sermonettes’ the Friday evening of our graduation ceremony.  It was such an honor to be chosen, but also so scary!  What topic to choose, how to write something worthy of the congregation and the rabbi’s attention? How to stand up in front of so many people and speak the words?


Never once did it occur to me to question why two boys and two girls.  We were the top students in the class; it was obvious why we were chosen.  Yet this was 1962 – none of us had ever heard of a bat mitzvah, let alone a woman rabbi.


My sermonette was on the first commandment – everything follows from ‘I am the Lord your God.’  All the other commandments, all the ways of righteousness, of helping others, of doing good.  “I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’


Now it is for us to do the same for each other, and to worship God together and to be Holy in the sight of our God.



« Older posts

© 2024 Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑