|
from Theological Issues
Conservative Jewish Movement Leadership
Splits Apart Over Homosexuality
By Joseph Berger, M.D.
Judaism in North America during the 20th century was made up primarily of three different branches, the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements.
The orthodox were the most traditional, following faithfully the basic fundamental texts of the Bible and the major rabbinical commentaries and compilations of Jewish Law found in the Talmud and the later Law Codes and updated in each generation by the replies of the leading rabbinical scholarly experts or "specialists" of the time to modern questions put to them by the generalists, the local smaller community rabbis.
The reform movement, originating in Germany in the mid-19th century and transplanted from there to the US, took the most liberal and at times extreme positions in rejecting most of traditional Jewish faith and practices while trying to cling to some notions of ancestry and ethical principles.
The conservative movement was the newest of the three, and gained particular strength after the Second World War, when with the growth of the suburbs and the expansion of the economy, many Jews became more prosperous, moved into new homes far from a synagogue, yet still wanted to keep much of their parents' traditions. The conservative movement philosophy could, therefore, be summarized as being the attempt to maintain the tradition while adapting to the changes imposed by modernity.
In recent years, the general secular society liberalization of attitudes towards homosexuality such as "coming out of the closet," the wide acceptance of same-sex relationships and couples, homosexual priests, same-sex couple adoption, and now same-sex marriage, has provoked both lay and rabbinical leadership in the Jewish community to consider its own attitudes to these changes.
Again, in very simple terms, at the two ends of the spectrum the positions are quite clear. Orthodox Judaism has not changed its fundamental condemnation of same-sex sexual activity as totally unacceptable, even though very recently there have been some powerful voices raised demanding a greater tolerance for the person, the individual, while continuing to reject the behavior. Indeed, purely on the behavioral level, given the orthodox emphasis on modesty in all matters sexual, any male or female homosexual can enter and pray in the most ultra-orthodox synagogue, because his/her sexual behavior is a purely private matter that is not for disclosure to anyone else. What would be unacceptable would be some public display, or an attempt to preach to others the virtues of homosexuality, or making claims that the traditional biblical and rabbinic rejections of same-sex behaviour are incorrect and should be revised.
At the other end of the Jewish spectrum, the reform movement has for a while been accepting of self-identified homosexuals and same-sex sex, has accepted the notion of graduates from their rabbinical training institutions identifying themselves as homosexual, has endorsed the notion of same-sex civil unions, and for the most part seems to accept same-sex marriage.
The conservative movement has traditionally centered itself in the middle, between these two approaches, and, naturally, its own position on homosexuals and homosexuality has also come under challenge in recent years.
Fifteen years ago, the conservative movement's major committee on matters of Jewish Law produced a report written by the leading Talmudic scholar of the movement, Rabbi Joel Roth, on the question of homosexuality and same-sex sex.
Rabbi Roth's paper, which was approved by an overwhelming majority, is a superb, beautifully written piece of work, that examined in great detail all the traditional accepted literature and source material on this highly contentious topic. Any learned orthodox scholar would have no difficulty reading and recognizing the source material, and agreeing with the author's understandings, interpretations, and conclusions.
In essence, Rabbi Roth rejected same-sex sex as being totally unacceptable for Jews. Furthermore, he discouraged the public identification or flaunting of a self-identified homosexual "orientation." At the same time, the paper did encourage rabbis to take an attitude of great personal understanding, tolerance, and compassion for the individual who finds him/herself so compellingly attracted to people of the same sex and uncomfortable with or rejecting the notion of intimacy with someone of the opposite sex. Certainly, psychotherapy was supported.
Last year, the same committee was asked to revisit the matter, and this time a quite different result emerged. The committee was seriously split, and two very different papers emerged. (Actually, there were three papers, but only two are really important and appropriate to this discussion.)
One paper was written by a group whose lead author has publicly expressed himself for some years as being in favor of the acceptance by Judaism of homosexuality and same-sex relations, and who has a child who identifies as homosexual. That paper came out favoring the acceptance of self-identified homosexuals as candidates for ordination as rabbis by the training programme of the organization, and the full acceptance of self-identified homosexuals as members of conservative congregations, while stopping short of accepting same-sex sexual behavior by men.
The main justification that these authors relied upon was a notion called in Hebrew "Kavod Ha'Briot," which essentially means respect for the dignity of all/other human beings. What the authors were suggesting was that this concept "trumps all," that anything less than such full acceptance was degrading and offensive to homosexuals, and made them feel less worthy as human beings and as Jews.
Their paper was approved by the committee, with just the smallest majority possible.
The other paper was produced by Rabbi Roth, who had authored the major work that had been accepted as the movement's position nearly fifteen years earlier. Rabbi Roth titled his work "Homosexuality Revisited," and started off his paper saying that there was nothing really new to report in terms of the traditional authoritative Jewish sources on this matter. The position hadn't changed.
What Rabbi Roth then continued to do was to challenge the position and the notion offered to support it that was advocated by the other group, and also to analyze some other recent material that had been published challenging the traditional orthodox position on same-sex sex.
Rabbi Roth's paper was approved by a much larger majority than the other paper, but as the reader can see, this means that, in effect, the committee approved two papers that come to quite opposite conclusions.
From a practical perspective, such an outcome is, of course, unviable. A large movement cannot survive with two such strongly dissenting opinions regarding the direction it should take.
Which path the movement as a whole chooses to follow is likely to radically affect the future of the movement that currently bears the name "conservative."
If it follows the more left-liberal approach, then there will be little to distinguish it from the reform movement, and the rapidly growing broader orthodox community will have very little contact with that element, and there will be little social mixing. There will be almost no marriages between individuals from such different families, and these very different segments of the Jewish community will only occasionally work together on a few very broad common interests -- such as the welfare of the State of Israel, the funding of Jewish Day Schools, and other community responsibilities such as facilities for Senior Citizens and troubled children and families.
The other major fall-out from following the left-liberal approach will almost certainly be the departure from the conservative movement of the more traditional rabbis and members, who will most probably drift towards modern orthodox congregations, a pattern that has happened in the past when there has been dissatisfaction with positions thought to be too non-traditional that the movement may have taken.
There are some interesting psychological perspectives to this. First, what we are talking about here is the likelihood of a major organization that has been around for nearly 100 years splitting.
Who causes splitting? In psychological understanding we usually attribute to Borderline Personalities that special expertise.
The second point is that the left-liberal paper came with an attached addendum, a short paper written by a psychologist trying to justify on pseudo-scientific grounds the reason for the left-liberal position.
This paper -- which is one of the worst if not the worst that I have ever seen -- in essence was little more than a series of quotations from position statements of the American Psychological Association, and contained a number of claims that readers of NARTH publications would recognize immediately as being scientifically incorrect, false, or unjustified.
Very wisely, Rabbi Roth in his paper made clear that he saw no justification for basing a traditional Jewish position on very debatable scientific claims.
Joseph Berger, M.D., is a Consulting Psychiatrist practicing in Toronto. He is a Past President of the Ontario District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association and a Representative to the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Berger is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of NARTH and has published articles and made many presentations on same sex issues.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
