To commemorate the passing of Rodney King, Jewish Action has a piece this week, titled "Can we all get along" It brings together hacks, functionaries, leaders, and scholars from various Jewish sects and asks them to address the question of achdus, or unity.
Unity:
1. The state or quality of being one; singleness.
2. The state or quality of being in accord; harmony.
Before I get to what the participants said, let me point out that the whole article rest on a false premise: Who says achdus is important? Why pursue it? As it happens, I believe that achdus is neither a valuable goal nor a realistic goal. The world we live in is unavoidably pluralist. We all value different things. We all pursue different goals. He cares about justice; she values mercy. She wants truth; he wants harmony. Many, if not most, of our different goals and values are, in principle, irreconcilable, but many, if not most of those values and goals are also legitimate. This incompatible legitimacy is the True Nature of Things. So how is achdus possible?
It's not. So the answer, then, is not to try to squeeze everyone and everything into the same box, but to recognize and accept the fact that no one box can contain all of us. To do this is not to be a "liberal" but to recognize and accept reality. See, this pluralism I am recommending is not a concession to the failings and shortcomings of those who haven't yet found my truth, but a conclusion that follows naturally from the fact, (yes fact!) that there is no "single formula whereby all the diverse ends of men can be harmoniously realized" (Isaiah Berlin again) To imagine that achdus is possible in a world of incompatible legitimacy is an error. To chase it is to chase a ghost.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE who contributed to the Jewish Action article understand this. Chief Rabbi Saks (who I am mad at) deftly suggests that the unity some of the other contributors prize is not necessary. Instead he counsels love, tolerance and understanding, closing with the wise suggestion that if God can love and forgive so should we. Shlomo Riskin points out the Talmud has room for Rabbis who thought it was OK to eat chicken and milk, and suggests that, in keeping with the old tolerance, perhaps we should lighten up and accept that its authentically Jewish to recognize the authenticity of disagreements. Rabbi Yosie Levine, a third pluralist among the rabbis, calls for conversation (at places like this blog) between members of different groups. The point, he hints, isn't for the conversations to be gentle, lovey-dovey affirming affairs, but vigorous exchanges of ideas. Even when such conversations fail to produce conformity, when conducted in good faith they almost always result in understanding. (And who wants conformity? Conformity weakens communities, rather than strengthening them, whereas understanding has the opposite outcome.)
AND THEN WE GET TO THE AGUDAH CONTINGENT. Really, is there a leader in Jewish life more reprehensible than Chaim Dovid Zweibel? Asked by the OU to comment on Jewish unity, CDZ submits to the OU an article that congratulates the OU on becoming more like the Agudah. For him, achdus is not a misnomer for any of the tolerance, love, forgiveness or conversation advocated by the moderates. No, he wants the real thing: Unity. Conformity. Obeisance. But only to his own way of thinking (which, naturally, he presumes is also God's way of thinking. Happy coincidence!) Zwiebel concludes by saying that "unity" is impossible with anyone who disagrees with him about gays, feminism, or with any leftie scholars who prefer the actual words of Chazal and the Rishonim to myth-making interpretations that have developed more recently. In short, he's a demagogue. And though there is room for demagogues at the table of pluralism, he shouldn't be shy on calling them on their logical and historical errors, or in pointing out their bullying behavior when it occurs.
Search for more information about pluralism at4torah.com
Unity:
1. The state or quality of being one; singleness.
2. The state or quality of being in accord; harmony.
Before I get to what the participants said, let me point out that the whole article rest on a false premise: Who says achdus is important? Why pursue it? As it happens, I believe that achdus is neither a valuable goal nor a realistic goal. The world we live in is unavoidably pluralist. We all value different things. We all pursue different goals. He cares about justice; she values mercy. She wants truth; he wants harmony. Many, if not most, of our different goals and values are, in principle, irreconcilable, but many, if not most of those values and goals are also legitimate. This incompatible legitimacy is the True Nature of Things. So how is achdus possible?
It's not. So the answer, then, is not to try to squeeze everyone and everything into the same box, but to recognize and accept the fact that no one box can contain all of us. To do this is not to be a "liberal" but to recognize and accept reality. See, this pluralism I am recommending is not a concession to the failings and shortcomings of those who haven't yet found my truth, but a conclusion that follows naturally from the fact, (yes fact!) that there is no "single formula whereby all the diverse ends of men can be harmoniously realized" (Isaiah Berlin again) To imagine that achdus is possible in a world of incompatible legitimacy is an error. To chase it is to chase a ghost.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE who contributed to the Jewish Action article understand this. Chief Rabbi Saks (who I am mad at) deftly suggests that the unity some of the other contributors prize is not necessary. Instead he counsels love, tolerance and understanding, closing with the wise suggestion that if God can love and forgive so should we. Shlomo Riskin points out the Talmud has room for Rabbis who thought it was OK to eat chicken and milk, and suggests that, in keeping with the old tolerance, perhaps we should lighten up and accept that its authentically Jewish to recognize the authenticity of disagreements. Rabbi Yosie Levine, a third pluralist among the rabbis, calls for conversation (at places like this blog) between members of different groups. The point, he hints, isn't for the conversations to be gentle, lovey-dovey affirming affairs, but vigorous exchanges of ideas. Even when such conversations fail to produce conformity, when conducted in good faith they almost always result in understanding. (And who wants conformity? Conformity weakens communities, rather than strengthening them, whereas understanding has the opposite outcome.)
AND THEN WE GET TO THE AGUDAH CONTINGENT. Really, is there a leader in Jewish life more reprehensible than Chaim Dovid Zweibel? Asked by the OU to comment on Jewish unity, CDZ submits to the OU an article that congratulates the OU on becoming more like the Agudah. For him, achdus is not a misnomer for any of the tolerance, love, forgiveness or conversation advocated by the moderates. No, he wants the real thing: Unity. Conformity. Obeisance. But only to his own way of thinking (which, naturally, he presumes is also God's way of thinking. Happy coincidence!) Zwiebel concludes by saying that "unity" is impossible with anyone who disagrees with him about gays, feminism, or with any leftie scholars who prefer the actual words of Chazal and the Rishonim to myth-making interpretations that have developed more recently. In short, he's a demagogue. And though there is room for demagogues at the table of pluralism, he shouldn't be shy on calling them on their logical and historical errors, or in pointing out their bullying behavior when it occurs.
Search for more information about pluralism at4torah.com
