A Divisive Argument Is No Builder of Consensus

The rejection of cooperation with the non-Orthodox by the chief rabbinate of Israel this week over the question of conversion to Judaism officially acknowledges the split in the Jewish world between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox.

The notion of Jews as members of one family, whose disagreements are to be viewed merely as family squabbles, cannot be sustained. Yet even with the Orthodox rabbinate’s public and official refusal to cooperate with the non-Orthodox, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears unwilling to accept the reality of division. He speaks of this decision as one that “promotes a national consensus among the Jewish people and the state of Israel.”

Netanyahu seems to be hoping that language will overpower facts. Perhaps if he calls the obvious controversy a movement for unity, he will be able to maintain his governing coalition. But it is not possible for American Jews to see the rabbinate’s statement as anything other than divisive. A large proportion of American Jews are Conservative and Reform. Even more important, they already understand that asserting the notion of family is not enough to maintain one.

Yet, in 1998, the concept of a Jewish family is not enough to prevent internal conflict. Not only is the definition of family unclear, the debate over that definition is itself one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American life. And much of the lack of agreement in the Jewish community reflects the disagreement over the definition of family.

Jews may still see themselves as members of the same family, but they don’t agree on what kind of family it should be. The religious right, including Orthodox Judaism as well as secular political conservatives, maintains that the appropriate model for the family is the patriarchal one. The father is the head of the family, the financial supporter, while the mother is the primary caregiver. The more liberal community, both religious and secular, offers a more egalitarian family model.

American Jews, then, are now torn between disagreements that began in Israel (the legislation governing conversion) and disputes about the nature of the family that reflect the American society in which they live. The overlapping nature of these conflicts exacerbates the situation.

The conflict over conversion illustrates these different views. The Orthodox view the problem as being about religious authority and see the Orthodox rabbinate as the only valid source of this authority. Their model of the family assumes that there is a need for an authority figure, and they fear that without acceptance of a supreme voice, Judaism will falter, even disappear. They view those who do not accept paternal authority as rebellious children.

The non-Orthodox community disputes this claim of singular Orthodox authority, positing a pluralist model instead. Yet the issue for the non-Orthodox is not only over the question of authority. Given their model of the family, authority is not the most significant issue for maintaining a strong family structure. Rather, adequate respect and genuine affection between members of the family are crucial. They view an authoritarian family as an unstable one because it is not flexible enough to maintain cohesion among differing members. They worry that this kind of family will not survive. In this more egalitarian model of the family, those who are unwilling to accept other family members as equally legitimate partners are weakening the family bonds.

It’s hard to envision an easy solution to this situation. The proverbial toothpaste is already out of the tube. As the chief rabbinate of Israel has just confirmed, the Orthodox believe in authority and paternalism. But the non-Orthodox value egalitarianism and pluralism. Under these circumstances, it’s difficult to envision a family that is other than dysfunctional.