After the Social Action Committee recommended that Adat Shalom participate in the April 25th March for Women’s Lives, I asked the listserv for comments so the Board would have additional perspective on the Adat Shalomers’ views on this issue. Of those responding, one person objected because he opposes abortion; nine favored marching to express support for women’s right to reproductive choice; fifteen people wrote that while they were personally pro-choice, they opposed our marching under the congregation’s name, either arguing against possibly making any member with different views uncomfortable or arguing that, as a spiritual community, Adat Shalom should not engage in advocacy. At the Executive Committee, the range of opinion was similar to those from the listserv. Fortuitously, because the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation is a March co-sponsor, we forged a unanimous compromise: We are organizing and marching under the banner of JRF.
Marching under a JRF banner rather than our own allowed us to avoid confronting whether abortion rights is the type of “fundamental issue of justice and equality” envisioned by the Tikkun Olam Guidelines statement:
“However, the congregation currently does not intend to pursue its obligation to tikkun olam through collective political action, except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances involving clear violations of our fundamental principles of justice and equality. Such cases will, by definition, be rare, and action in the name of the congregation shall not be taken without Board and congregation-wide approval.”
This statement is seen as a barrier to undertaking advocacy at Adat Shalom. Yet, earlier in the document, the same guidelines state:
“Adat Shalom can and should provide a link between the ethical mandate of the Jewish tradition and the desire of members of the congregation to address themselves to some of the major issues facing our society.”
Despite our swift, amicable resolution of the issue of participating in the March, I am troubled by the content of our discussion on this issue. Instead of making a decision about advocacy as Jews knowledgeable about our own tradition, virtually everyone addressed the issue from an entirely secular perspective. Having this conversation at Adat Shalom did not change the content of the dialogue. This is an extremely divisive issue in our political culture, so it is not surprising that our leadership focused largely on whether we risked alienating members of the community by marching in our congregation’s name. Instead, we should have asked whether we, as a community of progressive Jews, are compelled by our values and our tradition speak out in a Jewish voice on this issue and attempt to do so in a way that respected the range of opinion among our members.
We were not prepared to have a Jewish conversation on this subject because most of the participants in the dialogue have minimal Jewish knowledge specific to this topic. In retrospect, I see that we needed an opportunity for community wide study before we talked about taking a position. We needed to do this even though virtually all of us know where we stand on this issue; our views have been formed by our secular influences and associations and are not necessarily integrated with our Jewish learning. Only with study could we have focused on our shared values on this issue to forge a congregational position.
To me, this is an important lesson about how we need to approach advocacy. If we merely talk about the issues in conventional political terms, taking positions as a congregation may strike many members as unfitting and divisive. After all, we each have a wide choice of other organizations and affiliations for expressing our viewpoints on the issues of the day. However, if we study Jewish teachings on a subject together, we are more likely to find common ground as a community.
Although controversial, abortion rights is an issue on which it would have been relatively easy to undertake this approach because Jewish scholars have deliberated on this issue for at least 2000 years and there is fairly wide agreement across the denominations. It is a shame that we missed an opportunity to frame the dialogue with a background of the rich history of Jewish values and teaching on this issue.
It is a long and slow process to study a complicated public policy issue together, to forge a consensus position from the study process, and approve this position in a congregational vote. The process can’t be rushed so that the decision is ready in time for an event being held two months hence. And, without the spur of an event on the horizon, it is easy to leave the major controversial issues of our day lying quietly.
While there is a mechanism in the guidelines for taking a congregational position on a public policy issues in rare circumstance, overall the Tikkun Olam guidelines are viewed as an major impediment to doing advocacy work in the name of the community. As a result, our social action program focuses on service activities; as a community, we ignore the underlying issues creating these social service needs. Some members think our avoiding advocacy work is wise and others think it unnecessarily limits us. Among those who think the congregation should engage in advocacy, some think that we should only be involved in issues where there is a clear Jewish position (such as on abortion) or a clear Reconstructionist position (such as on same-sex civil marriage). Others would like us to join in coalitions of local congregations (Action in Montgomery and Washington Interfaith Network) doing advocacy on issues like taxi services and D.C. congressional representation, These are big issues. We need time to think about them together in the context of Jewish teachings on social justice and activism. It is a perfect retreat topic. Come be part of the conversation in Front Royal, Virginia on June 11-13 as Rabbi Sid Schwarz leads this year's retreat on "Judaism and Social Justice".
B’Shalom u’vracha,
Judy Gelman, President