Compare with today's postings.
GS
Once, the chief rabbi represented all British Jewry. No longer
The falling-out over gay marriage demonstrates that Jonathan Sacks' successor will be only the head of a centrist rump
Email
'The presumption that the chief rabbi of the United Synagogue [currently Jonathan Sacks, above] is also the public religious representative of British Jewry – has become less and less credible'. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian
Next year the present chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, will retire. The search for his successor is well under way. I am reliably informed that one candidate has already been ruled out as being "too orthodox". Other possible contenders have ruled themselves out, believing that the office is a poisoned chalice. In truth the office of chief rabbi – much misunderstood by the world at large and not properly understood (in my experience) even by many Jews – is no longer what it once was.
This has recently been underlined by a very public row triggered by Sacks' response to the Home Office consultation on gay marriage. Towards the end of last month, as the consultation period neared its end, it became clear that the beth din (ecclesiastical court) of the United Synagogue, together with its rabbinical council, had officially urged the government to reject the proposal to legalise gay marriage.
"Our understanding [they declared ] of marriage from time immemorial has been that of a union between a man and a woman. Any attempt to redefine this sacred institution would be to undermine the concept of marriage." The submission also made the point that "any attempt to exclude the possibility of a religious ceremony for such [gay] couples would be subject to challenge to the European court of human rights, on the grounds of discrimination" – a fear that is shared by other faiths.
Sacks is not merely a member of the beth din – he is its av – "father"– the chief justice. So the submission must be taken to reflect his own position on this issue (an assumption neither he nor his office has denied). And – that being the case – denunciations have followed not merely from Liberal and Reform spokespersons but from some of the good and the great in British Jewry, 26 of whom appended their signatures to a letter in last week's Jewish Chronicle condemning not merely what Sacks and his fellow United Synagogue rabbis had said but the fact that they and he had said it: "Jewish law may prohibit same-sex relations … But Jewish law can play no part in a modern secular society in restricting the lives of non-Jews – and Jews who do not accept its restraints. The proper response to the consultation should have been: it is not our proper business to comment. Speaking when silence is required is no virtue."
The chief rabbinate evolved in the 19th century, when British Jews were campaigning for civil equality with non-Jews. Hermann Adler (who was chief rabbi from 1891 to 1911) deliberately projected himself as the Jewish equivalent of the archbishop of Canterbury – and wore gaiters to prove it! As well as being, by virtue of his contract, the supreme religious authority of the United Synagogue in London he could also claim – with some justice – to be the public religious representative of the totality of Jews in the UK. Edward VII called him "my chief rabbi", and even the then minuscule progressive Anglo-Jewish congregations deferred to him. And this was true of his immediate successor Joseph Hertz , who held the office from 1913 to 1946. But over the last half-century or so this presumption – that the chief rabbi of the United Synagogue is also the public religious representative of British Jewry – has become less and less credible. And the current falling-out over gay marriage has dramatically illustrated the point.
The extremes within British Jewry – extremes of left and right – have grown at the expense of the centre. Whoever succeeds Sacks will have to live with this fact of life. And, consequently, it seems to me that the role of public religious representative is at an end.
What we are left with is the other – and much more parochial – role as merely religious head of something called the United Hebrew Congregations – principally the London-based United Synagogue and an assortment of other congregations too poor or too apathetic to appoint their own rabbinical decisors . These centrist communities probably account for less than half the totality of self-identifying Jews currently living in the UK.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
-
Ari Werdiger david werdiger
-
Insert your birthdate & get answers about Past, Present & Future. Free.
-
Amazing prophecies fulfilled Get the Real Story now - Free!
Comments
You don't need to assert that, Professor; you are a living proof of it.
Very helpful article from you Geoffrey, I was expecting the worst . I didnt know the above. . Interesting that on CIF it is normally other religions that get hammered for homophobia. Good luck to those fighting for equality whatever religious persuasion.
'And since their beliefs are based on ancient and outdated texts and attitudes', isn't this a subjective opinion? Because what you may regard as 'outdated', may well be highly relevant to the present situation in the mind of a believer.
I'm not Jewish myself but I reckon his thoughts for the day are OK - humane, stimulating. Easily more interesting than half the Christians who get that slot...
I'm glad to see some religious people 'get it'.
4) Sharia family law has been described as "wholly incompatible" with human rights and democratic principles by the House of Lords.
Last year, Baroness Caroline Cox introduced a Private Members Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill to the House of Lords which is due a second reading this October 27th.
That's fine if you're a St Francis of Assisi figure who imposes his harsh Utopianism on himself but not others.
Slavery was introduced into Europe by pagan Europeans not Christian leaders.
Yes, Christian leaders COMPROMISED with slavery as a necessary evil of the day. Just as the things of this world such as violence in war, money, property and so on are necessary evils of this world that we have to compromise with as part of our fallen nature.
But Christian leaders (on the whole) didn't promote slavery. But compromised with it as a particular aspect of secular economic life of the day, and challenging slave owners they had a moral duty to treat slaves well.
As history progresses we see an unfurling of justice, and so often it was Christians taking a leadership role ie William Wilberforce and the abolishment of slavery in these islands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4694896.stm
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/31/rabbi-jonathan-romain-chastises-religious-opponents-of-equal-marriage/
tall jews
fat jews
thin jews
commy jews
zionist jews
religious jews
atheist jews
monarchist jews
republican jews
gay jews
straight jews
rich jews
poor jews
black jews
white jews
ginger jews
bald jews
jews for jesus
jews for palestine
jews for judea
I understand that in some conservative synagogues, men and women sit separately, like Muslims, but the number of such synagogues is in decline
1. One of the best-known atheists of the 18th century, Meslier, was a Roman Catholic priest! (only after he died was it known of his hostility towards, religion, Christianity and the Church.
2. Chaucer's Pardoner is an expert in religion and religious psychological manipulation to get money out of the vulnerable. We're not meant to take him seriously though as a believer.
3. Dostoevsky makes his Grand Inquisitor an atheist.